This negotiations case describes the approach, over time, of Santa Clara, a small Pueblo Indian tribe in New Mexico, to recover a piece of land tribal leaders viewed as integral to their ancestral homeland. Unlike many negotiations cases, which concern the strategizing of two or more powerful players, this case describes the evolving strategy of a small, marginal player, striving mightily for a seat at a negotiating table dominated by several powerful interests. Initially taking a rights-based line of attack, the Santa Clara Pueblo eventually adopted a more strategic approach, seeking to understand the perspective of the U.S. Forest Service, the New Mexico Congressional delegation, and other important stakeholders, and to frame its arguments in a way the agency representatives and politicians would find most compelling. The case ends partway through the final, detailed negotiation between Santa Clara and the U.S. Forest Service, when a tense standoff arose. At this juncture, Santa Clara faced a difficult choice-whether to accept a partial win, to walk away, or to fight for more and perhaps risk losing all. A brief sequel describes what Santa Clara did, what the U.S. Forest Service did, and the resolution ultimately embraced by both sides.Case number 2021.1

This negotiations case describes the approach, over time, of Santa Clara, a small Pueblo Indian tribe in New Mexico, to recover a piece of land tribal leaders viewed as integral to their ancestral homeland. Unlike many negotiations cases, which concern the strategizing of two or more powerful players, this case describes the evolving strategy of a small, marginal player, striving mightily for a seat at a negotiating table dominated by several powerful interests. Initially taking a rights-based line of attack, the Santa Clara Pueblo eventually adopted a more strategic approach, seeking to understand the perspective of the U.S. Forest Service, the New Mexico Congressional delegation, and other important stakeholders, and to frame its arguments in a way the agency representatives and politicians would find most compelling. The case ends partway through the final, detailed negotiation between Santa Clara and the U.S. Forest Service, when a tense standoff arose. At this juncture, Santa Clara faced a difficult choice-whether to accept a partial win, to walk away, or to fight for more and perhaps risk losing all. A brief sequel describes what Santa Clara did, what the U.S. Forest Service did, and the resolution ultimately embraced by both sides. Case number 2021.0

In October 2010, the beating of a 30-year-old bonded laborer-his punishment for staying home sick from work-in India's northwestern state of Rajasthan triggered a movement to end the practice of bonded labor in the area. A holdover from feudal times, bonded labor was outlawed in India in 1976, but was still prevalent in some pockets of rural India. Entrenched power systems protected the practice, with the lower castes most affected. In this case, the bonded workers were members of an indigenous tribe called the Sahariyas. The case explores the negotiating strategy used by Sahariya village activist Gyarsi Bai and her allies to fight a powerful landowning community and a local government administration unresponsive to appeals from the poor. It describes how Bai built coalitions with larger activist groups and worked with them to gain media visibility and secure support at the state and national levels. These alliances pressured village authorities to make changes. Two years later, bonded labor continued to exist in the area, but a growing number of laborers had sought and received official freedom. In addition, a set of modest options-a local grain bank, village-run system of microcredit, and an expanded government work guarantee-gave bonded laborers viable alternatives to the debt trap of the past. The case also shows how larger activist groups were effective at finding strategies that enabled the Sahariyas to be agents for their own change.