Partha Chatterjee’s concepts of civil society and ‘uncivil’ political society: Is the distinction valid?

ABSTRACT

Partha Chatterjee's distinction between civil society and 'political society' in post-colonial countries has provoked much debate and discussion. This has remained controversial in the current literature on post-colonialism in respect of democracy, development and politics. In this article I contest his distinction by pointing out, first that his conception of civil society is limited and abstract (and universalist) that leaves out the vast rural life in India. Second, I question the conceptual and empirical validity of his concept of political society, and argue that his original concept of political society was an urban space of illegality and criminality, but his subsequent shift to cover rural India does not explain how original conception works out in rural India. The empirical evidence available suggests that his so-called political society in rural India is actually part of civil society such as rural clubs, NGOs and other associations that operates in the interface of state, politics and society. In conclusion I seek to restore the political society as the space of the nation-state based on, following Locke, the right to life, liberty and property; trust (contract), definite and codified laws, impartial judiciary, separation of powers, limited government by popular consent and the people's right to revolt.

KEYWORDS:

• India
• post-colonialism
• civil and political society
• NGOs
• rural clubs
• collective action

Acknowledgements

The author records his thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments and suggestions. I also record my sincere thanks to David Taylor for his indomitable patience in editing the article and very healthy suggestions. Subrata Kumar Mitra read the article twice and offered comments which were useful. I wish to thank him too. Sobhanlal Datta Gupta read an initial draft and offered some comments and suggestions for which he deserves thanks.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 It was reported that the ‘CEO Niti Aayog has written to over 92000 NGOs/CSOs registered on the Darpan portal of Niti Aayog, appealing them to assist the government in identifying hotspots and deputing volunteers and care givers to deliver services to the elderly, persons with disabilities, children, transgender persons, and other vulnerable groups; to create awareness about prevention, social distancing, isolation, and combating stigma; to provide shelter to homeless, daily wage workers, and urban poor families; set up community kitchens for migrants’ (Indian Express, 20 April 2020).

2 One estimate (Baviskar, 2005, p. 137) mentions that by 2005 there were some 30,000 NGOs in India; numberincreased to some 3.1 million in 2015/NGOs in India (one in every 400 people). (Indian Express 1/8/2015. In Kerala, there were 3.7 lakh NGOs due among others to more flexible rules governing them).

3 See Manabadhikar (Human rights) (in Bengali) Rabindra Nath Tagore. Edited and compiled by Ganatantrik Adhiar Rakhsa Committee. Kolkata: 2002.

4 Self Help Groups (SHGs) are informal groups of some 10–20 persons, mostly poor women in the villages who pool their resources to produce things for market and save money for their uplift; such groups also get government bank loans without the collateral.

5 In my empirical studies of slums of Burdwan town (Bhattacharyya, 1999) I carried out field work and found that the DYFI, the youth association of the CPI-M, at that time looked after certain slums; without their support, if not physical presence, no field work was possible; during the field work it was found that one particular slum was built on the bank of the river Banka which belongs to the Irrigation Department (Small Scale) of the Government of West Bengal; the slum dwellers were extended electricity connection; local road; sanitation, and water supply etc. The municipality of Burdwan was then under CPI-M control. It was plainly part of the CPI-M’s political mobilization even at the cost of violation of formal rules and regulations. [This was part of an international research project on Local Government and Human Rights: Doing Good Service, ICHRP, Geneva 2004–2005. My study was entitled ‘Decentralization Effectiveness and Human Rights: the Case of India’ included in the final report of the council.] (http://www.ichrp.org/en/projects/124).

6 He has not, however, offered any examples of such mediations and the strategies deployed.

7 ICDS refers to the Integrated Child Development Scheme, a welfare programme of the Government of India since 1976 for child development and mother care. This is intended to provide food, preschool education, primary healthcare, immunization, health check-up and referral services to children under 6 years of age and their mothers. Chatterjee, however, has blown out of proportion the establishment of one or two such centres. His study does not contain sufficient data to qualify for generalization.

8 The existing critics of Chatterjee’s concept of political society include: Mannathukkaren (2010); Gudavarthy and Vijay (2007); Mukherjee (2010); Puri (2004); Harrison (2012; 2017); and Chandhoke (2011). The other critics with whom Chatterjee has engaged himself in dialogue in Gudavarthy and Vijay (2007) are Sarkar; Sammadar; Kutty; Menon; Corbridge; Roy Choudhury; Harrison; and Devika & Rajashree.