IIndian civil society has come a long way in the last decade. Remember 2012 and think how it filled with anger and outrage after the Nirbhaya gang rape case. Fast forward to 2022 and notice how it barely whispers after the Union Home Ministry news broke Approved Premature release of 11 convicts who gang-raped Bilkis Bano within two weeks, setting aside the CBI and a special court. Contrast couldn’t be sharper.
The conclusion is inevitable. A civil society that was once considered a shield of Indian democracy has slowly, but surely, collapsed. It stands divided by itself.
This is yet another story I told in a earlier article As a politics that has come under the influence of a movement party. Such a party is against democratic renewal and would devote its substantial organizational resources to arresting popular mobilization. Given that the top intellectuals of the Sangh Parivar leave no opportunity to remind us how the present government has started a historic project “leaving the colony” Our brains, they’re definitely talking. Divide and rule have been curbed. Democracy and governance is the new mantra.
Classification of Civil Society in India
in one Essay Published by the Journal of Democracy in 2007, political theorist Neerja Jayal suggested a four-fold classification for thinking about civil society in India: civil society as a civil society (CS1), civil society as a counter-weight to the state. in (CS2), highly professional development non-governmental organizations (CS3), and rude societies (CS4). Jayal observed that the last category included organizations that were openly prejudiced towards certain social groups—she uses Sangh Parivar member organizations, for example—even though some of their objectives overlap with those of CS1 organizations. can be.
Notably, Jayal argued that with the exception of CS2 organizations and a handful of CS1 organizations, most civil society organizations in India had an ambiguous and in some cases, corrosive relationship with democracy. Nevertheless, the essay ended with an optimistic outlook on the future.
15 years after writing his essay, it is tempting to revisit Jayal’s classification and ask where civil society in India stands today in the face of democracy. This question is particularly relevant because the second period of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rise to power in the interim period has been seen in a far more popular avatar than in the 1990s and 2000s, meaning whose sphere of influence is “uncivilized society”. has increased dramatically in Jayal as described. Shri Ram Sena, Gau Raksha Dal, Samadhan Sena, Gau Raksha Vahini, Hindu Rashtra Dal – the list of self-righteous Hindu majority “social service” organizations full of anger is growing rapidly.
The pertinent question, therefore, is whether the elements of Indian civil society – which have traditionally been pro-democracy – are keeping pace with the development of the uncivilized society.
Let’s start with the development in the CS2 area. It will not be an exaggeration to say that the Modi 1.0 and 2.0 governments have been one-sided in their determination to make the sector illegal. Whether it is the excessive use of the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to criminalize their activities or the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) to question their nationalism or the strategic use of the term “Urban Naxal” in everyday discourse. Deployment, the ruling party has ensured that CS2 organizations are preoccupied with basic existential issues to be able to speak the truth to power.
In fact, by turning Jayal’s categorization head on, the government encourages its allies in the uncivilized society to grab the space that CS2 organizations have been forced to vacate. For example, consider the recent times of Dattatreya Hosabale, general secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Statement Stating that the current poverty level in India is a “demon” that needs to be “killed”. Many of the liberal commentators saw it as a silent entry The economics-driven pandemic recovery policy by the establishment that its pro-big business has driven is in need of reform. Some noted that Hosabale made the statement in the context of an event organized by the Swadeshi Jagran Manch to mark the first anniversary of the launch of the Self-Reliant India campaign, to promote economics with a more nudge. There is a program for it, no less. The BJP’s official response to Hosabale’s statement was still noticed by very few people. Admitting that Hosabale had “criticised” the government’s economic policy, BJP leader Karuna Gopal, reminded His ndtv Negotiator that this was no different than the company’s customer relationship management team giving “constructive feedback” to top management.
With CS2 organizations on the defensive, if not outright marginalised, it is not surprising that CS1 organizations have more or less retreated from any sort of controversial politics. While this may have been a strategic response of these organizations in a post-pandemic environment, where streams of non-state funding have dried up, it is also undeniable that the presence of a vibrant CS2 space is an opportunity for these organizations to question the state. is an important precondition. Power.
A comparative look at other Asian democracies would serve to reinforce this point. For example, in Japan, civil society activists from the 1960s onwards turned to the “proposal style” model of civil society activism, which they called the “disappointingly slow gains” undertaken by previous generations of activists. ” as those who adopted one. More fighting style. In the process, as Simon Avenel arguedJapanese civil society became devoted to the interests of the country’s top corporations, getting in the way of much of the corporate reforms that were needed to kickstart the Japanese economy after the infamous “lost decade of growth”.
The distance from Nirbhaya to Bilkis Bano by the Indian civil society can thus be captured by a simple formula “No CS2, no CS1” and perhaps this explains why the present government has been so relentless in its attacks on CS2.
Read also: Bangalore today is like a shy kid who is forced to be an extrovert
narrowly defined civil society
Optimists about Indian civil society can point to successful farmers. Protest either Shaheen Bagh Movements These movements are notable for the way they stand firmly on the side of democracy and legitimacy despite overwhelming provocation, no serious analyst can ignore the limited geographical and ethnic basis of the two opposites. An uncivilized society cannot be countered by a narrowly defined civil society.
But, what about mobilizations such as opposition to the Agneepath scheme or the railway recruitment process? Do they not testify to the ability of our civil society to unite constituencies across communities and geographic locations? On the contrary, these mobilizations further testify to the diminishing influence of CS1 and CS2 organizations. Based on the conceptual terminology of comparative politics, they can be characterized as forms of anemic interest group activity. These may be useful for highlighting abuses of power – think of the persistent peasant turmoil in China – but they do not have the power to force the state to correct in a way that more deeply entrenched resources and Organized collaborative interest groups can.
Lastly, isn’t it that the Modi government is supporting “democracy from the bottom up” by promoting local body elections in Kashmir? To these detractors, it suffices to say that party-less local democracy has long been a favorite of authoritarian leaders in South Asia, from Ayub Khan in Pakistan, Ziaur Rahman in Bangladesh to Raja Mahendra in Nepal. The truth is that even in China, village level elections are held.
Subhashish Ray, Professor and Associate Dean (Research), Jindal School of Government and Public Policy, OP Jindal Global University. He tweeted @subhasish_ray75. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)