Civil Society and Democratization in India: Institutions, Ideologies and Interests 9780415659291, 0415659299

Citation preview

Civil Society and Democratization in India

Developing a distinctive theoretical framework on civil society, this book examines how Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) contribute towards democratization in India and what conditions facilitate or inhibit their contribution. It assesses three different kinds of politics within civil society – liberal pluralist, neo-Marxist and communitarian – which have had different implications in relation to democratization. By making use of in-depth empirical analysis and comparative case studies of three developmental NGOs that work among the tribal communities in the sociohistorical context of south Rajasthan, the book shows that civil society is not necessarily a democratizing force, but that it can have contradictory consequences in relation to democratization. It discusses how the democratic effect of civil society is not a result of the “stock of social capital” in the community but is contingent upon the kinds of ideologies and interests that are present or ascendant not just within the institutions of civil society but also within the state. The book delivers new insights on NGOs, democratization, civil society, the state, political society, tribal politics, politics of Hindu Nationalism, international development aid and grassroots social movements in India. It enables readers to understand better the multifaceted nature of civil society, its relationship with the state, and its implications for development and democratization. Sarbeswar Sahoo is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India, and is Alexander von Humboldt Post-doctoral Fellow at the Max-Weber-Kolleg, University of Erfurt, Germany. His research interests include Globalization, Civil Society and Democratization, and Sociology of Religion and Violence.

Routledge contemporary South Asia series

1 Pakistan Social and cultural transformations in a Muslim nation Mohammad A. Qadeer

8 Regionalism in South Asia Negotiating cooperation, institutional structures Kishore C. Dash

2 Labor, Democratization and Development in India and Pakistan Christopher Candland

9 Federalism, Nationalism and Development India and the Punjab economy Pritam Singh

3 China–India Relations Contemporary dynamics Amardeep Athwal 4 Madrasas in South Asia Teaching terror? Jamal Malik 5 Labor, Globalization and the State Workers, women and migrants confront neoliberalism Edited by Debdas Banerjee and Michael Goldfield

10 Human Development and Social Power Perspectives from South Asia Ananya Mukherjee Reed 11 The South Asian Diaspora Transnational networks and changing identities Edited by Rajesh Rai and Peter Reeves 12 Pakistan–Japan Relations Continuity and change in economic relations and security interests Ahmad Rashid Malik

6 Indian Literature and Popular Cinema Recasting classics Edited by Heidi R.M. Pauwels

13 Himalayan Frontiers of India Historical, geo-political and strategic perspectives K. Warikoo

7 Islamist Militancy in Bangladesh A complex web Ali Riaz

14 India’s Open-Economy Policy Globalism, rivalry, continuity Jalal Alamgir

15 The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka Terrorism, ethnicity, political economy Asoka Bandarage

23 Economic and Human Development in Contemporary India Cronyism and fragility Debdas Banerjee

16 India’s Energy Security Edited by Ligia Noronha and Anant Sudarshan

24 Culture and the Environment in the Himalaya Arjun Guneratne

17 Globalization and the Middle Classes in India The social and cultural impact of neoliberal reforms Ruchira Ganguly-Scrase and Timothy J. Scrase

25 The Rise of Ethnic Politics in Nepal Democracy in the margins Susan I. Hangen

18 Water Policy Processes in India Discourses of power and resistance Vandana Asthana 19 Minority Governments in India The puzzle of elusive majorities Csaba Nikolenyi 20 The Maoist Insurgency in Nepal Revolution in the twenty-first century Edited by Mahendra Lawoti and Anup K. Pahari 21 Global Capital and Peripheral Labour The history and political economy of plantation workers in India K. Ravi Raman 22 Maoism in India Reincarnation of ultra-left wing extremism in the 21st century Bidyut Chakrabarty and Rajat Kujur

26 The Multiplex in India A cultural economy of urban leisure Adrian Athique and Douglas Hill 27 Tsunami Recovery in Sri Lanka Ethnic and regional dimensions Dennis B. McGilvray and Michele R. Gamburd 28 Development, Democracy and the State Critiquing the Kerala model of development K Ravi Raman 29 Mohajir Militancy in Pakistan Violence and transformation in the Karachi conflict Nichola Khan 30 Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia Bina D’Costa 31 The State in India after Liberalization Interdisciplinary perspectives Edited by Akhil Gupta and K. Sivaramakrishnan

32 National Identities in Pakistan The 1971 war in contemporary Pakistani fiction Cara Cilano

41 Explaining Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Escaping India Aparna Pande

33 Political Islam and Governance in Bangladesh Edited by Ali Riaz and C. Christine Fair

42 Development-induced Displacement, Rehabilitation and Resettlement in India Current issues and challenges Edited by Sakarama Somayaji and Smrithi Talwar

34 Bengali Cinema ‘An Other Nation’ Sharmistha Gooptu 35 NGOs in India The challenges of women’s empowerment and accountability Patrick Kilby 36 The Labour Movement in the Global South Trade unions in Sri Lanka S. Janaka Biyanwila 37 Building Bangalore Architecture and urban transformation in India’s Silicon Valley John C. Stallmeyer 38 Conflict and Peacebuilding in Sri Lanka Caught in the peace trap? Edited by Jonathan Goodhand, Jonathan Spencer and Benedict Korf 39 Microcredit and Women’s Empowerment A case study of Bangladesh Amunui Faraizi, Jim McAllister and Taskinur Rahman 40 South Asia in the New World Order The role of regional cooperation Shahid Javed Burki

43 The Politics of Belonging in India Becoming adivasi Edited by Daniel J. Rycroft and Sangeeta Dasgupta 44 Re-Orientalism and South Asian Identity Politics The oriental other within Edited by Lisa Lau and Ana Cristina Mendes 45 Islamic Revival in Nepal Religion and a new nation Megan Adamson Sijapati 46 Education and Inequality in India A classroom view Manabi Majumdar and Jos Mooij 47 The Culturalization of Caste in India Identity and inequality in a multicultural age Balmurli Natrajan 48 Corporate Social Responsibility in India Bidyut Chakrabarty 49 Pakistan’s Stability Paradox Domestic, regional and international dimensions Edited by Ashutosh Misra and Michael E. Clarke

50 Transforming Urban Water Supplies in India The role of reform and partnerships in globalization Govind Gopakumar 51 South Asian Security 21st century discourses Sagarika Dutt and Alok Bansal 52 Non-discrimination and Equality in India Contesting boundaries of social justice Vidhu Verma 53 Being Middle-class in India A way of life Henrike Donner

59 Islam and Higher Education Concepts, challenges and opportunities Marodsilton Muborakshoeva 60 Religious Freedom in India Sovereignty and (anti) conversion Goldie Osuri 61 Everyday Ethnicity in Sri Lanka Up-country Tamil identity politics Daniel Bass 62 Ritual and Recovery in Post-Conflict Sri Lanka Eloquent bodies Jane Derges

54 Kashmir’s Right to Secede A critical examination of contemporary theories of secession Matthew J. Webb

63 Bollywood and Globalisation The global power of popular Hindi cinema Edited by David J. Schaefer and Kavita Karan

55 Bollywood Travels Culture, diaspora and border crossings in popular Hindi cinema Rajinder Dudrah

64 Regional Economic Integration in South Asia Trapped in conflict? Amita Batra

56 Nation, Territory, and Globalization in Pakistan Traversing the margins Chad Haines 57 The Politics of Ethnicity in Pakistan The Baloch, Sindhi and Mohajir Ethnic Movements Farhan Hanif Siddiqi 58 Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict Identities and mobilization after 1990 Edited by Mahendra Lawoti and Susan Hangen

65 Architecture and Nationalism in Sri Lanka The trouser under the cloth Anoma Pieris 66 Civil Society and Democratization in India Institutions, ideologies and interests Sarbeswar Sahoo 67 Contemporary Pakistani Fiction in English Idea, nation, state Cara N. Cilano

Civil Society and Democratization in India Institutions, ideologies and interests

Sarbeswar Sahoo

First published 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2013 Sarbeswar Sahoo The right of Sarbeswar Sahoo to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Sahoo, Sarbeswar. Civil society and democratization in India : institutions, ideologies and interests / Sarbeswar Sahoo. pages cm. – (Routledge contemporary South Asia series) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Non-governmental organizations–India. 2. Civil society–India. 3. Democratization–India. I. Title. HV392.S25 2013 300.954–dc23 2012039536 ISBN: 978-0-415-65929-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-55248-3 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Contents

List of illustrations Foreword Acknowledgements List of abbreviations

x xi xiv xvi

1

Introduction: the primacy of politics

2

Civil society and democratization: conceptual and theoretical perspectives

19

3

The state and civil society in India: a historical narrative

39

4

Seva Mandir and constructive developmentalism

66

5

Astha Sansthan and welfare rights activism

92

6

Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad and the cultural politics of development

120

Summary and conclusions: the multiple faces of civil society

154

Appendix

162

Notes Bibliography Index

165 180 196

7

1

Illustrations

Figure 4.1

Seva Mandir organogram 2010

74

Maps 1.1 1.2

Map of India Rajasthan district map

6 7

Tables 1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 7.1 A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5

Comparison of 1998 and 2003 Assembly Election results in Udaipur District Categories of informants in interviews Global associational membership Trends of foreign funding to Indian NGOs The Sangh family The evolution of civil society in India NRD work of Seva Mandir – 2007 Voting for Left Parties in Rajasthan 1952–2003 Performance of NREGA across states 2006–2007 Regularization of pre-1980 encroachment of forest land Activities of the RVKP by December 2006 Vote share in ST reserved seats since 1993, Rajasthan A comparison of Seva Mandir, Astha and the RVKP RVKP’s development programmes in Kotra and Jhadol Shradha Jagaran (Religious) Kendra in Kotra and Jhadol Shiksha Prakalp (Education) in Kotra and Jhadol Khel-Kud (Sports) in Kotra and Jhadol Shakti Kendra (Power Centres) in Kotra and Jhadol

8 15 29 57 61 62 73 94 107 115 136 147 157 162 163 163 163 164

Foreword Jeffrey Haynes

It is widely acknowledged that vibrant civil society organizations, along with autonomous opposition political parties, help keep power holders in check, facilitating the development of a political climate where military intervention becomes unlikely. India offers evidence for the long term importance to democratization of a vibrant civil society. While not all observers agree that, by the time of independence from British colonial rule in 1947, India possessed such a civil society, it is often noted that colonial India developed an impressive range of interest groups and organizations which, in hindsight, amounted to what we would identify today as an embryonic civil society. Prior to the emergence of India’s post-colonial “liberal democratic” political culture, nineteenth-century India witnessed a flowering of a rich associational life. Such entities included “Westernized” political discussion groups as well as politically “reformist” organizations whose raison d’être was to lobby government to apply resources to seek to engineer social change. In addition, there were organizations of blatant self-interest, including both landed and commercial interests. There were also what might be called “cultural revivalist” organizations and movements whose purpose was to roll back what they saw as inexorable – and unwelcome – westernization. Finally, following the 1857 Mutiny, a large number of overtly political associations emerged, collectively organized to seek fundamental political reforms from the colonial regime. India’s emergent civil society can be seen as the product of two strands of development during the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, facilitated by what some perceive as a relatively benign form of British colonialism: first, traditional cultural attributes, leaning towards representative groups and organizations, and second, the growth and expansion of an indigenous business community or class. Following the end of colonial rule in 1947, India embarked on a long – so far, unfinished – journey of democratization. India’s democratic longevity had its foundations in the unusual character of the Indian National Congress, later the Congress Party (“Congress”). Initially, Congress – de facto party of national liberation – developed roots in rural society throughout much of the country which was an important factor in helping the national institutionalization of democratic politics after independence in 1947. In addition, Congress managed to construct

xii

Foreword

a countrywide network of activists which for decades – from the late 1940s until the mid-1970s – helped to deliver the party regular, if not always emphatic, electoral victories. Generally speaking, in India as elsewhere, political parties claim to be both grounded in, and representative of, civil society. It is of course a truism that political parties exist to win power, and it is necessary for them to occupy the state apparatus to achieve this goal. Over and above this, parties are informal institutions performing a variety of functions vital to the prospects of stable democracy. An effective party system helps engender confidence in the democratic process in various ways. First, it helps moderate and channel societal demands into an institutionalized environment of conflict resolution. Second, it serves to lengthen the time horizons of actors as it periodically provides electoral losers with the means to mobilize resources for later rounds of political competition. Third, an effective party system helps prevent disenchanted groups’ grievances from spilling over into mass mobilization of the kind that takes to the streets to protest and, as a result, is likely to antagonize the elites and may invite a return to authoritarian rule. In sum, effective political parties are important in helping democratically elected officials to govern, while offering a societally important form of representation. Civil society organizations are not directly involved in the business of government or in overt political management. But this does not necessarily prevent some from exercising sometimes profound influence on various political issues, from single issues to the characteristics of national constitutions. For example, the fall of Communism in Europe in the late 1980s is said to be inextricably linked to the role of civil society in helping to undermine apparently strong Communist regimes that nevertheless uniformly toppled like dominoes during 1989–91. Not all civil societies are as “strong” as those which helped to topple Communism in Europe. Three broad categories of civil society are identified in the literature. First, there are weak civil societies, characteristic of societies fragmented by ethnic and/or religious divisions, and found in many African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries. In such examples, civil society is ineffective as a counterweight to state power. This is frequently linked to wider problems of governance, such as inadequate popular participation and lack of governmental transparency and accountability. In such circumstances, governments are typically adept at buying off or crushing expressions of discontent. Overall, these circumstances reflect failure or inability of social groups’ capacity to organize so as to both defend and promote their interests, while seriously reducing societal capacity to counter the state’s hegemonic drives. Relatively strong civil societies are found in various East and South East Asian countries, including South Korea and Taiwan, and some Latin American and post-Communist European nations, including Argentina, Chile and the Czech Republic. Strong civil societies are said to be found in most established democracies, for example in India, Germany, Sweden and France. In both categories, civil societies are identified as being both vibrant and robust; with numerous civil rights organizations, social movements and local protest groups.

Foreword

xiii

The book you are about to read is a superb examination of what might be called civil society at the grassroots. It shows that while abstract accounts of civil society strength and weakness are often heuristically useful they tend not to tell us much about what happens on the ground, at the grassroots. This book does. It makes crucial point that not all civil society organizations are founts of democracy and that some are downright anti-democratic. Read this book to learn about what happens on the ground in one Indian state, Rajasthan. It tells us a lot about civil society, providing insights not just about Rajasthan and more generally India but also more widely about this thing called “civil society” and how and why it works more generally. Jeffrey Haynes Director, Centre for the Study of Religion, Conflict and Cooperation, London Metropolitan University, London and co-editor of the Journal, Democratization

Acknowledgements

In the process of writing this book, I have benefited from the help of several people and institutions. First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and thanks to my PhD supervisor Prof. Vedi R. Hadiz for his unremitting support, wise counsel and concern for my welfare. He is an outstanding supervisor and without his assistance this would not have been possible. My heartfelt thanks also go to Prof. Peter Reeves and the late A/P Ananda Rajah, for their interests in my research. Research for this manuscript began in 2005 with a research fellowship from the National University of Singapore (NUS). The Asia Research Institute at NUS provided the fieldwork support for this research. A three-month visiting fellowship at the Institute of Development Studies, Roskilde University, Denmark provided me with an opportunity to share my post-fieldwork disorganized thoughts with a distinguished group of scholars. Finally, a post-doctoral fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and research facilities from the MaxWeber-Kolleg (Erfurt), together with an extraordinary Ex-India leave from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi provided me the much needed opportunity to revise and rewrite the chapters for publication. I wish to thank the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and Prof. Surendra Prasad, the then Director of IIT Delhi, for granting me the leave. This research owes a lot to Seva Mandir, Astha Sansthan and Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad, who allowed me to observe their activities, visit their worksites, and speak to their beneficiaries, providing me with invaluable insights on the politics of development in the tribal regions of Rajasthan. I would like to thank Ajay Mehta and Anita Bhatia at Seva Mandir; Ashwani Paliwal and R.D. Vyas at Astha; and Ambalal Sanadhya and Bharat Ji at the RVKP for all their help. I also wish to extend a special thanks to the countless villagers, and the many interviewees, informants and organizations who generously shared their experiences, time and thoughts with me. I would like to thank and express my appreciation to Prof. Chua Beng-Huat, A/P Ho Kong Chong, A/P Vineeta Sinha, A/P Hing Ai-Yun, A/P Tong Chee Kiong, A/P Anne Raffin, A/P Lien Kwen Fee, Prof. Bryan Turner, A/P Rahul Mukherji and Dr. Rajesh Rai at NUS for their kind help and support; to Prof. James Scott and Prof. Christian Lund at Roskilde for their helpful comments; to

Acknowledgements xv Prof. Martin Fuchs at the Max-Weber-Kolleg (Erfurt) for his critical insights; to Prof. D. Parthasarathy at IIT Bombay for his suggestions; to Prof. Anand Kumar and Prof. Maitrayee Chaudhuri at JNU for their guidance; and to Prof. Naresh Bhargava, Prof. Sanjay Lodha, Prof. Arun Chaturvedi, Prof. Hemendra Chandalia and Dr. Velaram Meena for acquainting me with the political history of Mewar. Thanks to Prof. John Harriss, Prof. Radhika Desai and A/P Rahul Mukherji, who were the examiners of my PhD thesis, for their useful comments and suggestions. I am also thankful to Prof. Jeffrey Haynes for agreeing to write a foreword to this book. My special thanks to Raja, Jamila and Choon-Lan at NUS for all the administrative help and to Sharma Ji at the Tribal Research Institute Library in Udaipur for his help with the books. An early version of Chapter 6 appeared as “Ethno-Religious Identity and Sectarian Civil Society: A Case from India”, in Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism. I am thankful to Wiley Journals for permission to reprint a modified version of the paper in this book. Friends have sustained me through the writing of this manuscript. At NUS, when the going got tough and lonesome, I was fortunate to receive words of encouragement from a number of friends, most notably Taberez Neyazi, Seuty Sabur, Saiful Islam, Lou Antolihao, Sim Hee Juat, Kamaludeen Nasir, Sujay Datta, Thomas Barker, Kelvin Low, Noorman Abdullah, Satyen Gautam, Aaruni Bensal, Pankaj Sharma, Arun Pandit, Sona Paneerselvam, Anu Shankar, Rahul Nagadia, and others. In Rajasthan, I immensely benefited from the numerous discussions with friends over dinner and tea at the Love Nest and Mehtab Sadan. Critical questions from Marjolaine Geze, Marjanneke Vijge and Connie Smith forced me to rethink many of my assumptions and arguments. Thanks to them all. Finally, I wish to thank Sojin Shin, for being not just my fiercest critic but also a source of intellectual support and encouragement. My special thanks to my family, especially to my parents who have done their best to educate me and made me what I am today. I therefore dedicate this book to my parents for all their love, which keeps me going.

Abbreviations

ANM AVARD BDO BJP BJS CAPART CCA CEO CIA CIVA CPD CPI (M) CPI (M-L) CPI CSWB DWCRA EC EED FCRA FLPM GVC GVK HZL ICAR ICCO ICS IDRF IIT IMF INC JFM JNU

Auxiliary Nurse Midwife Association of Voluntary Agencies for Rural Development Block Development Officer Bharatiya Janata Party/Indian Peoples’ Party Bharatiya Jan Sangh Council for Advancement People’s Action and Rural Technology Capital Cost Allowance Chief Executive Officer Central Intelligence Agency Canada India Village Aid Comprehensive Development Plan Communist Party of India (Marxist) Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Communist Party of India Central Social Welfare Board Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas European Commission Evangelischer Entwiklungsdienst Foreign Contributions Regulation Act Forest Land Peoples’ Movement Gram Vikash Committee/Village Development Committee Gram Vikash Kosh/Village Development Fund Hindustan Zinc Limited Indian Council of Agricultural Research Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation Indian Civil Service India Development and Relief Fund Indian Institute of Technology International Monetary Fund Indian National Congress Joint Forest Management Jawaharlal Nehru University

Abbreviations JP JSN MIT MKSS MLA NDA NFE NGO NJC NRD NREGA NRI NUS PESA PIL PIO PMS PO PRA PRI PTI RHDR RSS RTI RVKP SC and SACW SC SDO SHG SIDA ST TB TSR UN UNDP UNICEF UPA USAID VHP VKP YRC

xvii

Jayaprakash Narayan Jan Shikshan Niliyam/Village Library Massachusetts Institutes of Technology Mazdoor Kishan Shakti Sangathan Member of Legislative Assembly National Democratic Alliance Non-Formal Education Non-Governmental Organization New Jerusalem Church Natural Resource Development National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Non-Resident Indian National University of Singapore Panchayati Raj Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act Public Interest Litigation People of Indian Origin People’s Management School People’s Organizations Participatory Rural Appraisal Panchayati Raj Institutions Press Trust of India Rajasthan Human Development Report Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/National Volunteer Corps Right to Information Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad Sabrang Communications and South Asia Citizen’s Web Scheduled Caste Sub-Divisional Officer Self Help Group Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Scheduled Tribe Tuberculosis Tribal Self Rule United Nations United Nations’ Development Programme United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund United Progressive Alliance United States Agency for International Development Vishwa Hindu Parishad/World Hindu Council Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad/Tribal Welfare Association Youth Resource Centre

1

Introduction The primacy of politics

I Introduction Much of the literature presents civil society almost un-problematically as having played a very significant role in the “transition to” and “consolidation of ” democracy in the formerly communist and authoritarian states of Latin America, Asia, the former Soviet bloc and sub-Saharan Africa. The so-called “third-wave” (Huntington 1992) of democratization has been associated with the robustness of the associational life or what Putnam has referred to as “social capital” (Putnam 1993). Participation in associational activity and generation of trust and cooperation have been considered indispensable for the establishment and deepening of democratic government. According to Putnam (1993), the amount of social trust, cooperation and networks of civic engagement or in other words social capital influences the performance of development and democracy. He also argues that, societies that do not possess a high level of social capital will suffer from low rates of economic development. What he emphasizes is not “what you know, but who you know” (Harriss 2002: 2). The existence of patron–client relationships (which may be viewed as a building block for social capital) is, however, the major reason for underdevelopment, mal-implementation of government projects and large-scale corruption in India. Also social capital and cooperation seem to be very high in the rural village communities of Indian society which, unfortunately, suffers from wide-spread poverty and lack of development. This is why the Putnamian view of civil society and social capital has been criticized by Foley and Edwards (1996), Berman (1997), Fine (2001), Harriss (2002) and several others.1 For the critics of Putnam, social capital is a “politically neutral multiplier – neither inherently good nor inherently bad” (Berman 1997: 427; see also Krishna 2002). Putnam failed to recognize the political aspects and power dimensions of social capital. As Mosse (2006: 714) has shown, “collective action around tank irrigation [in south India] is not dependent upon trust generated through interactions and associations but is founded upon relations of caste power, graded authority, personal patronage, and the redistribution of resources (as bribes and payoffs)”. The pool of social capital or associationalism itself does not effect in the achievement of a particular end. It needs to be mobilized, politicized and

2

Introduction

directed towards an end – democratic or anti-democratic. It may be true that village communities do possess a heavy stock of social capital but they are not necessarily utilized for the realization of the collective interests nor are they necessarily used for democratic purposes. As Gibbon (1998) has argued, “apolitical civil societies [also] tend to produce bureaucratic authoritarian forms of state (i.e. states without politically active citizens) where these states are more concerned with reproducing the rule of law than to secure popular participation”. This shows that the “missing link” between social capital and social change is what politics is about (see Putzel 1997; Tornquist 1998; Chandhoke 2004; Harriss 2002). According to Harriss (2002: 12), “action becomes political whenever the help of other people is necessary for an individual to be able to achieve her aim”. Politicization of social capital through collective action is what helps people realize the common community interests. However, as Tornquist (1998) through his comparative study on Indonesia, India and the Philippines has shown, there might be different kinds of politicization where some may not even be supportive of democratization at all. Krishna (2007: 192) has argued that the politicization of community interests is largely contingent upon “how communities are linked to their external environment and how their leaders interpret for them the impacts of external forces. Both incentives and leaders shape the use of social capital”.2 As Walzer (1998: 24) suggests, “civil society requires political agency”. This catalytic agent could be an outsider or an insider to the community. This also could be expressed either through individual leadership or through organizational involvement. And the result of this involvement depends upon the nature of leadership (Ndegwa 1996) and the ideology of organization. As mentioned earlier, the effects of social capital – democratic or anti-democratic – depend on how it is directed and what kind of interest it serves. According to Krishna (2002: 439) “whether high social capital leads to high, low or no participation in democracy may also be affected by the nature and capacity of mediating agency”. Alliband (1983) sees voluntary associations or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)3 as the “catalysts of development” and democratization in India. Korten (1990) has similarly observed that NGOs are the instruments for people’s voluntary action capable of enhancing democracy, social justice, self-reliance, sustainability and the elimination of exploitation in development programmes. This optimism is derived “from a general sense of NGOs as ‘doing good’ unencumbered and untainted by the politics of government or the greed of the market”. They are “idealized as organizations through which people help others for reason other than profit or politics” (Fisher 1997: 442). In a society that is characterized by widespread poverty (i.e. capability deprivation),4 illiteracy, corruption, clientilism and paternalistic bureaucracy, and where a vast majority of people suffer from a sense of powerlessness, NGOs can play important role in addressing not just the socio-economic problems of the people but also the structural and institutional deficiencies of that society. Recent data shows that there are more than 1.2 million NGOs in India today that are actively engaged in various aspects of development such as education, health, community development and social service delivery (Srivastava and

Introduction

3

Tandon 2005). Acknowledging this that NGOs in India form a major part of its civil society and play very important mediating roles in community development and democratization, this book aims to understand the politics of civil society and democratization in the tribal dominated Udaipur district in south Rajasthan. The central question that is asked here is: Is civil society a democratic force? Addressing this, it examines how non-governmental organizations, as part of civil society, contribute to democratization in Rajasthan and what conditions facilitate or inhibit their contributions. The book also closely examines how the politics of grassroots participation actually takes place and how issues of civil society become politicized and form a broader part of the public discourse. It asks how does the “civil public” get transformed into a “political public”? In other words, the book seeks to understand the nature of the relationship between civil society and state and their implications for democratization in the specific socio-historical context of south Rajasthan.

II Central argument: the primacy of politics The theorists of third-wave transitology have emphasized civil society “institutions” as the indispensable instruments for the survival and sustenance of democracy. These institutions were thought of as the “hitherto missing key” to be acquired by the developing countries to reach the Western stage of political development (see Comaroff and Comaroff 1999: 2). As Dettke (1998: x) has declared, “the most important concept the West could offer the emerging democracies was the concept of civil society”. Aid agencies and governments of the industrialized West viewed NGOs as the “magic bullet” that can positively address the different problems of the third world (see Vivian 1994; Edwards and Hulme 1995). Development assistance was channeled to the developing countries for “building-institutions” of civil society such as NGOs, which can help promote democratic development and good governance (see Diamond 1992; Crook and Manor 1995; Carothers 1999; Li 2007). This book, by contrast, argues that all kinds of civil society institutions do not necessarily promote democratic political change. For example, as Hadiz (2003: 597) has observed in the context of Indonesia, the institutions of democratic politics and civil society are captured by predatory interests, whose economic and political agenda are often profoundly anti-liberal and anti-democratic (see also Rodan 1996). With this in mind, the book contends that although institutions play a role, they are neither the explanation par excellence for outcomes nor the prescription for developmental problems (Sangmpam 2007). What shapes institutions is the “practice of politics” (Li 2007; see also Ferguson 1994; Leftwich 2005). Institutional variations and outcomes in individual countries are an effect of society-rooted politics, which, in turn, is a result of the complex dynamics of relationship between classes (Sangmpam 2007: 206). Grounded on the “primacy of politics” framework, the book examines the politics of civil society in south Rajasthan. It demonstrates that the politics of civil society could be multifaceted and could have different implications for democratization. The comparative case

4

Introduction

studies of the three organizations reflect three different kinds of politics within civil society – liberal pluralist, neo-Marxist and communitarian. The liberal pluralist organization, which envisions the state as a “minimalist” organization, shares a cooperative relationship with the state. Its emphasis on community participation and technocratic service delivery approach has had “unintended consequences”, i.e. the development of a culture of “organized dependency” at the grassroots level (Ferguson 1994; Walder 1983). The neoMarxist organization has adopted a radical “claim-making” approach that emphasizes issue-based activism and welfare rights, which has often positively contributed to the marginalized people’s struggle for rights and entitlements. And finally, the communitarians believe that increasing modernization has resulted in the progressive decline of values in society and, thus, there is the exigency to rebuild the community to regain its civility as well as to strengthen its moral values, virtues and bonds. But the communitarian’s preoccupation with virtue and morality has threatened the civic and secular conception of nationhood that formed the foundation of postcolonial Indian state. The democratic effect of civil society is not a result of the “stock of social capital” in the community but is contingent upon the kinds of ideologies and interests that are present or ascendant not just within civil society but also within the state.

III The social context and the rationale Rajasthan is geographically the largest state of India and has a significant tribal population, which is nearly double the national average. The southern part of the state is heavily concentrated by the Bhil tribes who comprise 39 per cent of the state’s tribal population. In Udaipur district almost half of the population is tribal and some Blocks5 like Kotra have tribal concentrations as high as 90 per cent (see Map). Kotra is commonly known as the Kalapani6 – extremely remote and inaccessible – where the government officials are sent as a “punishment posting”. The Bhils, derived from “villu” meaning bow in Dravidian language, mainly reside in the hilly region of Rajasthan. The primary sources of their livelihood are shifting cultivation, hunting and collection of forest produce. During the feudal rule in Rajasthan, the tribals were heavily exploited as bonded labourers. With the arrival of the British, the Bhils were classified as a violent “criminal tribe” and their right to use the forest became heavily restricted. This policy has continued even after independence. A major part of the forest has become classified as “reserved forest” where the tribals are not allowed to enter. However, the postcolonial developmental state in India has taken several steps to improve the socio-economic status of the tribals. The Constitution of India has made special provisions for the tribals in employment and education sector; their rights are also protected under the Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. In 1999, the government of India passed the Panchayati Raj Extension Act for Scheduled Areas (PESA) that protects the land rights of the tribals of India. Despite the presence of all such legal procedures, the tribals are often asked to pay bhatta or bribe, the failure of which leads to their harassment by the forest officials.

Introduction

5

Recently, the neoliberal policies of globalization for industrialization and Special Economic Zones have also forcibly displaced many tribals from their land. Besides this, due to the hierarchical structure of public administration, alarming bureaucratic corruption and huge network of patron–client relationship, the fruits of developmental planning have not reached to the tribal society. The tribal populations of Rajasthan as well as India suffer from widespread poverty and marginalization and are deprived of citizenship and welfare entitlements. In 1981, 54.16 per cent and 1991, 44.73 per cent of Rajasthan’s population lived below the poverty line, the majority of them tribals. The state also suffers from regular droughts accompanied by inevitable scarcities of jobs and food, resulting in acute hunger, malnutrition and disease. This abject poverty and scarce opportunities for livelihood has forced the tribal of south Rajasthan to leave their home and migrate to nearby cities in Gujarat in search of wage labour and employment (Karunakaran 2008). The tribals also perform miserably low in many of the socio-economic and human development indicators. Illiteracy is very high; life expectancy is very low; and infant and maternal mortality rates among the tribals are very high. All these factors have combined to cause not only economic deprivation but also political powerlessness. The tribal society has remained “backward”. This “backwardness” is a generic term used by the non-tribals and the postcolonial state to refer to not just the economic marginalization and powerlessness of the tribals but also their social and cultural backwardness expressed in their dress and deportment, lifestyle and aspirations (Baviskar 2005: 5105). Following the failure of the postcolonial state, many non-state actors have taken up the responsibility to improve the lives of the marginalized. The first groups that have had a long association with the tribals are the Christian missionaries who came during the colonial period as a part of their “civilizing mission” (Mosse 2005a; Unnithan-Kumar 1997).7 According to David Hardiman, the first missionary to work in Rajasthan was James Shepherd of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland who began his work among the Bhil tribes of Udaipur district in 1877 (Hardiman 2006: 144). Since then the number of missionaries and their activities have increased. According to a pastor, there are more than 15 churches that are working today in the Jhadol Block of Udaipur district alone.8 They provide education, medical and social welfare facilities to the tribals. In the process of providing social services and welfare activities to the tribals, these missionaries have also propagated their faith, which eventually has resulted in the conversion of many tribals into Christianity. As a response to missionary activities, the Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad (RVKP) and other organizations of the Sangh Parivar have also worked tirelessly to strengthen their support base among the tribals. Given the long historical process of Hinduization of the tribals and the hegemony of the Rajputs, the organizations of the Sangh Parivar have celebrated the Rajput identity to revive Hindu (cultural) nationalism in Rajasthan (see Jenkins 1998). Added to this, Udaipur’s geographical proximity to Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, which are considered as prominent laboratories of Hindu nationalist activities, has also influenced the tribals and brought them closer towards Hindu nationalism. Thus,

6

Introduction

the tribal support for Hindu nationalism has significantly increased over the years. As a result, Udaipur district, which was previously a stronghold of the Indian National Congress (INC), has come under the sway of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP won 8 out of total 10 assembly segments in the district in the 2003 State Assembly Election (see Table 1.1). It has been argued by several political commentators that the BJP managed to win in the tribal dominated regions because of the development activities that are carried out by the “saffron outfits”9 such as the RVKP, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal, and others (see Lodha 2004; Mudgal 2004; Mrug 2004). With the coming of the BJP to power in Rajasthan, the Sangh Parivar accelerated its activities in the tribal dominated southern districts. It should be, however, noted that in 2008

-DPPXDQG .DVKPLU

+LPDFKDO 3UDGHVK 3XQMDE $UXQDFKDO 3UDGHVK

+DU\DQD '(/+, 6LNNLP $VVDP

8WWDU 3UDGHVK

5DMDVWKDQ

1DJDODQG

0HJKDOD\D 0DQLSXU %LKDU 7ULSXUD :HVW %HQJDO

*XMDUDW 0DGK\D3UDGHVK

0L]RUDP

2ULVVD

0DKDUDVKWUD

$QGKUD 3UDGHVK *RD

%D\RI %HQJDO

.DUQDWDND $QGDPDQDQG 1LFREDU,VODQGV

/DNVKDGZHHS

.HUDOD

7DPLO 1DGX

Map 1.1 Map of India (source: www.koausa.org).

Introduction

7

Assembly Election, the BJP could not manage to form the government in Rajasthan. It lost power to the Congress party due to intra-party conflict and lack of leadership. Despite this, the BJP still has a strong support base among the tribals. Besides the work of Christian missionaries and Hindu nationalists, south Rajasthan had also witnessed a strong communist movement against the exploitative structure of feudalism10 in the 1970s. Rajasthan had a long feudal history where the peasants were forced to pay excessively high taxes to the jagirdars (landlords). At the time of Rajasthan’s creation, this jagirdari system covered some 60 to 80 per cent of the total area of the state (RHDR 2006: 240). The jagirdars not only enjoyed power and privilege and resorted to endless exploitation; they also did not perform any useful service for their people. As a result, the relationship between tenants and the jagirdars was quite strained (Sharma 1993). Following independence, the Central Government appointed a Jagir Enquiry Committee in 1949, which recommended the inevitable abolition of jagirdari system in Rajasthan. The Congress government in India, under the leadership of Nehru, also passed land reform policies and took important steps to abolish the

5$-$67+$1 'LVWULFWPDS

381-

%$1

6WDWHFDSLWDO 6WDWHERXQGDU\

*DQJDQDJDU +DQXPDQJDUK

+$5