Archive for Rajasthan Politics

Civil Society in South Asia

With the “third-wave” of global democratization, many communist and authoritarian regimes were forced by civil society groups to make the transition to democratic forms of governance. Following this, civil society institutions came to be considered not only as indispensable instruments for the survival and sustenance of democracy, but also as the “hitherto missing key” to be acquired by developing countries in order to attain a Western form of political development. Aid agencies and governments of the industrialized West promoted nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society organizations as the “magic bullet” that could positively address the various problems of the developing world. This view of civil society as a democratic force was further strengthened by the publication of Making Democracy Work (Putnam, et al. 1992, cited under Social Capital in South Asia). The authors argue that norms of reciprocity and the interrelated networks of trust, cooperation, and civic engagement or, in other words, the robustness of associational life (popularly referred to as social capital) influence the performance of development and democracy. Added to this, two other factors—the centralizing tendencies of the state and the failure of the state to fulfill the basic necessities of people—intensified civil society activism in South Asia. Civil society emerged as a powerful third sector outside the formal sphere of politics (state) and economy (market) and played an active role in promoting development and democracy. According to some estimates, India today has more than 2.5 million NGOs and is considered the unofficial “NGO capital of the world.” Given such dominance of NGOs, some scholars have argued that civil society in South Asia has been “NGOized”; while other scholars have argued that the NGOs have acted as agents of neoliberalism and have depoliticized the development discourse in South Asia. This is visible clearly in cases of microcredit and self-help groups. While such groups justify their activities through the language of empowerment, some scholars have shown that they use various manipulative strategies to recover loan installments from women. Several case studies also show the dark side of social capital and defy the arguments put forward by Putnam and his colleagues. In South Asia, it must be stressed that civil society is inherently pluralistic in nature; it includes both civil and uncivil elements within its domain, which may contribute either positively or negatively toward economic development, democracy, and political change.

CONTENTS:

Civil Society History, Theory, and Conceptualization

Civil Society Activism and Political Change

NGOs, Civil Society, and Development

Critique of the NGO Discourse

Marxist/Neo-Marxist Discourse

Civil Society and the Public Sphere

Social Capital in South Asia

Dark Side of Social Capital and Civil Society

Civil Society and Political Society

Gender and Civil Society

Civil Society and Development Aid

Microcredit and Self-Help Groups

Faith-Based Civil Society

Neoliberal Civil Society

___________________________________

Sarbeswar Sahoo (2017) “Civil Society in South Asia,” Oxford Bibliographies Online, April 27; http://oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0212.xml?rskey=qa3UUa&result=1&q=sahoo#firstMatch

NGOs: A New History of Transnational Civil Society

NGOs: A New History of Transnational Civil Society by Thomas Davies. London: C. Hurst, 2014. 268pp., £20.00, ISBN 978 1 8490 4310 6.

____________________

Beginning in the late 1970s, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have helped to create what has been described as an ‘associational revolution’. They have played a significant role within civil society, facilitating not just the transition of many communist and authoritarian regimes to democracy, but also the process of participatory development and good governance. Most of the literature on NGOs has documented their role since the 1970s in particular, but very little has been written on the history of the NGO sector itself. Thomas Davies’ work in this context becomes an important contribution for it takes a longue durée approach and provides a history of the NGO sector over the past two-and-a-half centuries.

51srckqkhcl-_sx317_bo1204203200_

The central question that drives Davies is how to construct a new history of the transnational civil society that has come to play a dominant role in international politics and development in the last few decades. Davies’ argument is that the history of the transnational civil society is not limited to the last two or three decades, but ‘[has] a far longer history than traditionally assumed’ (p. 1). By combining both quantitative and qualitative methods, and by following a comprehensive historical analysis, Davies looks at the evolution of transnational civil society beyond the Euro-American narratives and constructs a more heterogeneous and pluralistic history by giving greater consideration to the ‘Eastern’ origins.

The book has three major chapters, describing the three major waves of transnational civil society. Davies begins by introducing transnational civil society as the ‘non-governmental non-profit collective action that transcends national boundaries but which does not necessarily have a global reach’ (p. 2). In this sense, the ‘institutions of transnational civil society are numerous, and include advocacy networks and social movements as well as more formally organized INGOs’ (p. 2). Following this introduction, the first chapter discusses the various factors that made the development of transnational civil society possible in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and explains how ‘the development of transnational civil society occurred in parallel with the development of the nation-state’ (p. 16). Chapter 2 looks at ‘the most neglected periods of the history of transnational civil society’ – that between the two world wars – and discusses the emergence of new INGOs (international non-governmental organisations) in fields such as business, humanitarianism, health and education (p. 16). The final chapter examines the contradictory role of the Cold War in splitting, as well as integrating, transnational civil society.

The book thus makes a significant contribution to the literature by providing a uniquely comprehensive history of transnational civil society. Its coherent structure and style make it a pleasure to read, and it must be recommended to students of sociology and political science.

Sarbeswar Sahoo (Indian Institute of Technology Delhi)

_________________________

@ Political Studies Review, Vol.13, No.4, November, p.595

International Aid, Civil Society and Politics of Development

Development Aid Confronts Politics: The Almost Revolution by Thomas Carothers and Diane de Gramont. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2013; How to Manage an Aid Exit Strategy: The Future of Development Aid by Derek Fee. London: Zed Books, 2012.

_______________

Debates on international development aid are not new; some have supported aid, some have opposed it. In his bestselling 2005 book, The End of Poverty, Jeffrey Sachs urged rich nations to increase foreign aid to poor countries not just to end their ‘poverty trap’, but also to kick-start development. In contrast, William Easterly and Dambisa Moyo have strongly argued against aid and noted that it does more bad than good – ‘it prevents people from searching for their own solutions, while corrupting and undermining local institutions and creating a self-perpetuating lobby of aid agencies’ (Quoted in A. Banerjee and E. Duflo, Poor Economics, Public Affairs, 2011, pp. 3–4). The question here, however, is not about whether we should have aid or not; it is rather about what kind of aid we should have, how we should implement it and how aid can be made more effective in achieving its objectives. In Development Aid Confronts Politics, Thomas Carothers and Diane de Gramont heavily criticise the governance-oriented, technocratic and depoliticised approach to aid practised to date and insist instead on bringing politics to the centre of aid distribution and management.

images

Exploring the history of politics in development aid, Carothers and de Gramont note that although aid was intimately related to Cold War politics, aid agencies in the formative years shied away from adopting explicitly political goals for they believed that socio-economic assistance would create domestic conditions conducive for political development and the spread of democracy. It was, however, observed that economic development, instead of bringing democratisation, ‘heightened political conflict, violence, and repression’, leading to authoritarianism (p. 29). The aid community did not have much choice: ‘[D]evelopmentalists on the ground stayed clear of “playing politics” in order to gain credibility with host governments and aid receiving societies’ (p. 50). Such apolitical and technocratic approaches to developmental planning, which often resulted in over-centralised power structures, were heavily criticised. As a result, aid organisations began to rethink their beliefs about the role of politics in the development process. Carothers and de Gramont seem happy that, today, most of the aid organisations have adopted and are actively pursuing political goals either directly with governments or indirectly with political parties and civil society organisations. Emphasising the indispensability of politics in understanding and crafting social change, the authors conclude that ‘aid programs should grow out of the local context and focus on feasible rather than best-practice solutions, that technical assistance should feed into indigenous processes of change, that projects should think about their place within the broader political systems, and that aid providers must focus closely on understanding how political and institutional change occurs’ (pp. 192–3).

images-1

Although Derek Fee would agree with Carothers and de Gramont on how to make aid more effective, in How to Manage an Aid Exit Strategy he asks a different question: ‘why development aid is alive and kicking despite calls from both Africa (the continent demanding the highest level of aid) and donor country leaders to bring the business to a logical conclusion’ (p. xi). He further asks ‘why an activity that was supposed to be time-bound has expanded way beyond its initial remit’ (p. xi). Integrating academic knowledge and a practitioner’s experience, Fee addresses these questions quite innovatively. He argues that it is not just aid dependency that has had many negative effects, but that the aid business itself is now in crisis and cannot continue indefinitely. It is thus necessary for both donors and recipients to rethink the development aid model and devise clear exit strategies. Fee suggests several initiatives (e.g. domestic resource mobilisation, trade liberalisation, regional integration, microfinance, remittances and non-governmental organisations, and philanthropic institutions), which he believes could act as policy options for replacing development aid and making countries sustainable. He concludes that although an aid exit strategy is important, it ‘should not punish people’ who have suffered poverty and deprivation. It ‘must be applied with compassion or it will be ineffective. It must [also] be time-bound but the time given to each country should be related to their base line of aid dependency’ (p. 232).

While Carothers and de Gramont have successfully brought politics to the heart of the aid business, Fee has convincingly argued for a time-bound and compassionate aid exit strategy. Both books are filled with rich historical analysis and empirical examples and the authors exhibit immense awareness of and sensitivity to the political context. Though some may criticise these books for lacking theoretical rigour, they nonetheless represent excellent contributions to understanding the modern aid industry and the way it has evolved over time. Both books are lucidly written and well-argued and should be recommended not just to students of sociology and international relations, but also to aid practitioners, civil society activists and public policy officials.

_______________

@ Reviewed by Sarbeswar Sahoo, Political Studies Review, Vol.12, No.3, Sept., 2014, pp.418-419.

 

Talking Politics

Bhikhu Parekh in conversation with Ramin Jahanbegloo (2011) Talking Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 129pp, £18.99, ISBN 9780198071549

Talking Politics is the outcome of a series of Ramin Jahanbegloo’s interviews with Bhikhu Parekh, a prominent British-Indian political philosopher and theorist who has made significant contributions to the understanding of modern Indian culture and political thought. In his conversation, Jahanbegloo explores Parekh’s personal as well as academic life, and discusses a range of issues, including his early experience in India, his perspectives on liberalism and cultural diversity and his contribution to political philosophy.

41Y65Xv6HFL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_

The book is divided into five sections. Part I deals with Parekh’s personal life and his journey from a small town in Gujarat to his current academic prominence and entry into the House of Lords. Parekh interestingly discusses about his adventurous marriage and experiences with the caste system as well as his impressions of England and association with Isaiah Berlin. In Part II, Parekh talks about his views on political philosophy and his critique of liberalism. To him, liberalism, which is grounded on reason and individualism, is a narrow concept; it does not consider individual’s “social embeddeness” (p. 59) and is incapable to “engage in intercultural dialogue” (p.58). The limits of liberalism are further explored in Part III where Parekh discusses about cultural pluralism, multiculturalism and the immigrant communities in Europe. According to him, although “all societies display some [cultural] diversity” (p.65) all of them are not multicultural. Multiculturalism represents a unique way to manage this diversity and pluralism in society. He also distinguishes between cultural and moral diversity and argues that liberalism is hospitable only to the former. The latter “is viewed with suspicion, even pathologized, and the cultural minorities are pressured to adopt dominant liberal values” (p.66). Apart from this liberal imposition/homogenization, Parekh argues that the lack of recognition of “the other” contributes as well to identity and integration-related problems. As a way forward, Parekh, drawing inspirations from Gandhi, advocates for intercultural and intercivilizational dialogue (Part IV). Specifically, in the Indian context, Parekh believes that a sense of “shared citizenship” (p. 117) and “inclusiveness” can not only address the existing intolerance between communities but could also strengthen the Indian identity as well as its democracy (Part V).

This book is unique in structure and style. The conversational mode presents a lively content that is quite interesting to read.This slender volume has gone beyond expectation to present coherently Parekh’s life and thought for which Jahanbegloo must be congratulated.

 

SARBESWAR SAHOO

Max-Weber-Kolleg (Erfurt) and Indian Institute of Technology (Delhi)

______________

@Reviewed by Sarbeswar Sahoo, Political Studies Review, Vol.11, Issue.1, January.

 

REVIEW: Civil Society and Democratization in India

Civil society and democratization in India: institutions, ideologies and interests, by Sarbeswar Sahoo, Abingdon, Routledge, 2013, xvii + 199 pp., £85 (hardback), ISBN 978041565291

India is rightly celebrated for the depth and diversity of its civil society. While debate persists over the precise nature of civil society’s links to democratisation, few dispute that civil society in India, as elsewhere, exercises a useful, if imperfect, check on the abuse of state power. Sarbeswar Sahoo focuses not on civil society’s watchdog or policy-advocacy functions, but, instead, on the capacity of associational life to deepen democracy by creating avenues for meaningful participation and collective action by poor and marginalised people. This is an area of even greater controversy, with its own scholarly subgenre, to which Sahoo’s book makes an important contribution.

41bHfsPPraL._SX372_BO1,204,203,200_

Sahoo’s underlying concern is whether, how, and under what conditions civil society can pursue a politically transformative agenda. Sahoo’s empirical material consists of organisational case studies of three ‘well-established NGOs’ from Rajasthan, all working in the state’s ‘tribal belt’. They are Seva Mandir, which focuses on implementing rural development projects and programmes; Astha Sanstha, ‘which represents a unique mix of Left and Gandhian ideology and is involved in a variety of indigenous people’s movement[s]’ (p. 10); and the Rajasthan Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad (RVKP), which is affiliated with (and propagates the Hindu nationalist ideology of) the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, while engaging in direct service provision in adivasi communities.

These are well-chosen case studies, conforming as they do to three recognisable ‘types’ of civil society. There is a sense, however, that perhaps these categories were too firmly entrenched in the author’s mind before he began his field research, thus allowing a certain degree of ‘confirmation bias’ to creep into his analysis. This is evident in the support that Sahoo expresses for the two key elements of the Left critique of India’s ‘NGO sector’. First, he accepts with few qualms the widely held position that NGOs are ‘agents of the broader project of neoliberalism’ (p. 9). Evidence for this generalisation is sorely lacking. Certainly, NGOs perform some functions formerly monopolised by government, and thus contribute indirectly to a kind of shrinking of the state. But this is hardly an indication of neoliberal intent, let alone adherence to the market fundamentalism that afflicts some extreme neoliberals. Besides, there are plenty of NGOs working to build resistance to the adverse consequences of a less-regulated economy, including rapid environmental degradation. Indeed, a (leaked) 2014 report prepared for the Prime Minister’s Office by the Government of India’s (domestic) Intelligence Bureau identified many professionally managed NGOs – that is, not just ‘movement’ groups – as enemies of India’s development, because they dared protest against questionable industrial and infrastructure projects in many parts of the country.

Sahoo seems equally taken with the second part of the Left critique – that service-delivery NGOs pre-empt the radicalisation of subaltern groups. According to one of the sources Sahoo quotes, NGOs working in Rajasthan’s tribal areas had ‘pacified the fire with people and depoliticized development at the local level’ (p. 9). Such an accusation grants NGOs far too much credit for being able to accomplish something as complex as ‘depoliticising’ anything. The stereotype of the overly professionalised, out-of-touch NGO is badly out of date. These days, even staid project-implementing NGOs can end up doing genuinely political work. Mainstream NGOs, including Seva Mandir, that worked as implementing partners on the United Progressive Alliance’s flagship social protection initiative – the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) 2005 – were, whether they liked it or not, participating in something fairly revolutionary: assisting labourers to demand their wages, and encouraging villagers to demand answers from local officials about development expenditures. This did not require NGOs to pursue a radical agenda of their own devising; their course of action was spelled out in the procedural requirements found in NREGA. Some did this with more vigour than others. The effects were also highly variable. But apolitical the process was not.

By the same token, even excellent NGOs such as Astha, which sees itself at the movement end of the organisational continuum, are sometimes less radical than they might seem, which may well represent a pragmatic adjustment to prevailing political conditions. Astha too must produce reports for its funders and for government regulators; it too works with public-sector entities, and in any case benefits from the pool of experienced development professionals working in and around its home district of Udaipur, where over the past four decades, a cluster of small and large NGOs has grown up around Seva Mandir, one of the first organisations founded in the area.

While the line separating mainstream and movement-oriented civil society formations may be more blurred than Sahoo is willing to concede, he is justified in drawing a sharp distinction between the patently communal RVKP and the other two associations. This is true with respect to all three analytical categories Sahoo invokes in the book’s subtitle: institutions, interests, and ideologies. Through its links to the Bharatiya Janata Party, the RVKP is institutionally different from the resolutely non-partisan Astha and Seva Mandir. It also represents, and is controlled by, a very different set of interests, including those for whom social change is something to be resisted rather than fostered. Even if one were to grant that the RVKP shares a culture of managerial competence with Seva Mandir, and a strong sense of mission with the activist-inclined Astha, these parallels are dwarfed by the stark gap in terms of political ideas that separates ideological chasm separating this Hindu chauvinist organisation from the other two groups.

Readers will benefit greatly from the author’s sensitive interpretation of the case material, even if some of the book’s conceptual and theoretical foundations receive more reverence than perhaps they deserve. Sahoo’s book will be a stimulating read for anyone attempting to understand the political significance of civil society groups, in India and beyond.

 

Rob Jenkins

Hunter College & The Graduate Center, The City University of New York

rjenk@hunter.cuny.edu

# 2015, Rob Jenkins

_________________

Rob Jenkins (2015) “Civil society and democratization in India: institutions, ideologies and interests,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 53:2, 226-228

Patronage as Politics in South Asia

Patronage as Politics in South Asia by Anastasia Piliavsky (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 469pp., £75.00 (h/b), ISBN 9781107056084

Anastasia Piliavsky’s Patronage as Politics in South Asia, which grew out of a colloquium held in 2011 at Kings College, Cambridge, investigates the nature and importance of patronage in the socio-historical context of South Asia. Piliavsky asks: is patronage necessarily a bad thing? What are the ways in which patronage is understood and exercised in South Asia? Most importantly, what is the relationship between patronage and democracy? Does patronage undermine or complement the functioning of democratic political order? Drawing on theoretical literature from political science and anthropology and extensive ethnographic fieldwork in South Asia, the essays in this volume argue that patronage is not necessarily always a bad thing as it is often characterised in the Western political imagination; in the South Asian context, it is an inherently plural concept, which has a contingent relationship with democracy.

index

Piliavsky’s comprehensive introduction provides an extensive review of the literature on patronage politics around the world and sets the tone for the book. The sixteen essays by eminent scholars are organised under three sections: the idea of patronage, democracy as patronage, and prospects and perils of patronage. The first section looks at the nature of the patron-client relationship in South Asia. The essays in this section demonstrate how wealthy patrons use their wealth to establish religious and educational institutions to influence the lives of their clients and structure their sense of history and belonging. In the second section, the authors examine how patronage influences electoral decisions and vote bank politics. They show that patronage is not merely an instrument of exchange; it is rather a system of relationship in which patrons are expected to show their munificence through gifts, feasts, developmental provisions and bureaucratic help, and the clients reciprocate with their loyalty.

The final section discusses the perils of patronage and shows how clients (i.e. voters, migrants and subaltern masses) are trapped in a cycle of chronic bondage due to criminalised political ecologies and ineffective legislation. The essays conclude that in South Asia „“patronage” does not apply to a narrowly defined set of political relations; it encompasses the fundamental principle of social life far beyond the political‟ (p.29). „Political patronage is an expression of the broad moral sense that shapes the ways in which people relate across social levels and contexts. The essence of this moral formulation is the idea that in South Asia differences of rank do not prevent relations, but promote intimacy between parties in distinct and complementary roles‟ (pp.29-30).

Broadly, the book provides an excellent comparative ethnographic account of patronage politics in South Asia. The essays are empirically sound and theoretically sophisticated; they are also written in a lucid and coherent manner. Taken together, the essays will be immensely useful to students and scholars of anthropology, political science and South Asian Studies.

 

SARBESWAR SAHOO

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

__________________________

© Forthcoming in Political Studies Review, Vol.14, No.3, August 2016.

Religion and Society in India

The Centre for the Study of Social Systems at JNU (New Delhi) organized a panel on “Religion and Society in India” on November 3, 2015. The panellists included Prof. T.N. Madan, Prof. T.K. Oommen, and Prof. Shail Mayaram.

Prof. Madan began his talk by discussing the idea of Kantian “Enlightenment” and argued that the idea of an “individual” is a Christian idea. According to him, there is a tension between ideology and practice, and religion and politics in India today. Prof. Madan discussed how this tension is explained in the works of classical sociologists such as Marx, Weber and Durkheim.

337

For Marx, religion is the ideological superstructure. As you change the material foundations of society, the nature of superstructure will change. While Weber spoke about the dis-enchantment of the world, Durkheim saw religion as moral foundation of society. Despite this, Marx, Weber and Durkheim subscribed to the inevitable decline of religion in society.

Prof. Madan also argued that secularization is internal to all religions of the world. There is tolerance and compassion in all of them. Citing His Holiness Dalai Lama, Prof. Madan noted, “If Buddha were born in today’s context, he would not teach Buddhism, he would teach secularism”.

In his talk, Prof. Oommen asked, what is the real issue that confronts us in India today? According to him, the real issue is the mismatch between the “Hindu Society” and the “Secular State”. Prof. Oommen argued that while the Indian Constitution mentioned the term “secular” only once, Ambedkar argued that terms like “secular” and “socialism” are very value-loaded. It was only in 1976 during the 42nd Amendment that Indira Gandhi introduced the term “secular” into Indian Constitution.

index

Prof. Oommen argued that secularism in India may to refer to: (1) equal respect for all religions; and (2) the state keeps equal distance from all religions. Equal distance from all religions refers to separation between religion and state (non-intervention) or equal intervention in all religions. However, instead of accepting all religions as equals or “religious pluralism”, we started appeasing all religions.

According to Prof. Oommen, “unity in diversity” is the Indian collective conscience. The term was coined by British historian Vincent Smith in the 1920s and Nehru adopted it. However, in practice, it has been not unity in diversity but the dominance of majoritarianism. Finally, Prof. Oommen spoke about the notion of “composite culture” – the centrality of which is mutual respect, not one culture dissolving into another.

The last speaker of the Panel, Prof. Mayaram, began her talk with a discussion of the binaries such as religious and secular, sacred and profane, transcendent and immanent, and ratio (reason) and religio. She also talked how the beginning of the Axial age occurred with the Abrahamic religions.

10Mf-7oU

Prof. Mayaram then spoke about some theses on religion and society: (1) the idea of Axiality does not apply to the Hindu-Buddhist religions; (2) India as we know should be understood as inter-connected network of diverse communities; (3) before the coming of modernity, we had multiple ways of belonging; (4) modernity is thought as an assemblage of capitalism and industrialism – however, we must think of multiple modernities and multiple temporalities; (5) two genealogies of nationalism in India – inclusive nationalism of Gandhi and Ambedkar and exclusive nationalism of Savarkar; (6) from inter-connected “religious pluralism” we have moved to “bounded nationalism” in India; and (7) we must revisit dis-enchantment and distinguish between religion as sect/belief and religion as ideology.

_______

All three pictures were taken from google images.