7/28/2019 Baviskar & Sundar-Democracy versus Economic Transformation?

1/4

Democracy versus Economic Transformation?Author(s): Amita Baviskar and Nandini SundarReviewed work(s):Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 46 (Nov. 15 - 21, 2008), pp. 87-89Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40278187 .

Accessed: 07/06/2012 01:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40278187?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40278187?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw

7/28/2019 Baviskar & Sundar-Democracy versus Economic Transformation?

2/4

: DISCUSSIONDemocracyversus EconomieTransformation?AMITABAVISKAR,NANDINI SUNDAR

Chatterjeeetsupa numberof tructuralppositionsutmorensightfulndproductiveunderstandingfongoinghangewouldnot nly issolve omeofthese istinctionsut lso invertsome f he ttributesfboth"civil"nd"political"ociety.

reading Partha Chatterjee'smarvellouslyynoptic nd yetequally provocative rticle on"Democracy nd EconomicTransforma-tion n India", 19April2008) we werereminded f an old joke involving hearch-villainfHindi inema,Ajit, nd hisside-kickobert.Robert,aving apturedthehero, sks his boss for nstructions.Ajitgives diabolical aughand replies,Robert,urnse iquid xygen ein aal do.Liquid sejeenenahin ega, uroxygensemarne ahin ega Puthim n iquidoxy-gen.The iquidwon't ethim ive, ndtheoxygen on't ethimdie). The amegrue-somefate fbeing lowly illedwhilebe-ing kept rtificiallylive seems to havebefallenndia's easantry. ubstituteor-porate apital orRobert,he ndian tateforAjit, ndthe ndian especially ural)poorfor hehero, nd wehavethegist fChatterjee'srticle.Even s primitivec-cumulation or theprocess fdispossess-ing hepeasantry gathersaceunder heimpetus fhegemonic orporate apital,the egitimacyf hegovernmentependson the extent o which tcan address heneedsof hose ffected. heconsequenceisa setof meliorative easures egotiat-ed "politically"ratherhanthroughheproperules ndproceduresharacteristicof ivil ociety) etween ndia's ulers ndthe morphous asses. Unlikenthe las-sic model of industrialisation,owever,where hepeasantry iveswayto an ur-banisedproletariat,hatterjee orecaststhat hepeasantry illremain ut undercompletelyltered onditions".Whilewe agreewithmany f Chatter-jee's observationsbout ontempoiaryn-dian political conomy,n particular isrecognitionfthe eadingrole of ndiancorporateapital s itbegins oundertakeglobal cquisitionsthus o ongerapableofbeing simply ermed omprador),hedisdain f hemiddle lassesforwhat heysee as theunruly oor, nd thedesire fvillagers nd the urbanpoorto engage

withcapitalistmodernity,e have con-cerns bouthis overall nalytical rame-work.Chatterjee ets up a number fstructural ppositions: orporate ersusnon-corporateapital; ivil ociety ersuspolitical ociety;both civiland politicalsociety togetherversus marginalisedgroupsoutside ny ociety); overnment(as an arenaofnegotiation)ersus apitaland marketimpersonal,ackingdeology,interestednly n accumulation);nd fi-nally, ispossessions a characteristicfthemodernconomyalanced ywelfaremeasures. hedomains f orporateapi-tal and non-corporateapital, ccordingtoChatterjee, apneatlynto ivil ocietyandpoliticalociety espectively.A more insightful nd productiveunderstandingfongoing ocialchange,we argue,would notonlydissolve omeof hedistinctionshatChatterjeeetsup,butalso invert ome of theattributesfboth ivil ndpolitical ociety.Webelievethat hismoment s particularlyxcitingfor the futureof Indian democracyprecisely ecause it s notonly orporatecapitalwhich as a narrative f ransitionand a visionofthe futurep 61),butbe-cause the battlehasbeen oined by lter-nativenarrativesutforthya multipli-city fgroups nsociety, ith ften on-tending isions ofdemocracyfrom heBajrangDal tothe Naxalites othepeas-ants ofSingur). adly, arfrom enignlyintervening ith meliorativemeasures,the ndian tate eems o becoming irm-lydownonone sideof he cale,militaris-ing argeswathes f thecountryside,n-cludingKashmir,henorth-eastnd theNaxalitebelt. Wherewelfaremeasureshave been introduced,heyhave oftenbeenat the nsistence fwhatChatterjeewould all"politicalociety"revennon-society/marginalroups.Take the Na-tionalRuralEmploymentuarantee ct,theForest ights ct, nd theRighto n-formation ct three iecesof andmarklegislation,which owe as muchto thecapacity f ubalternroups owagesus-tainedcampaigns hatrangefrom uralIndia to thefootpathsf JantarMantar,as to theprescience f theruling lass.Andeven as Indianelectoral emocracyis celebrated, eservedlyn ouropinion,there s increasinglyn attempt o useprocedural emocracynd the existence

Amita aviskaramita.baviskar@gmail.coin)isat the nstitutefEconomic rowth,NewDelhi, ndNandini undar(jiandinisundar@yahoo.com)t theDepartmentf ociology,elhiSchool fEconomics,elhiUniversity.EconomicPoliticaleekly 13321 novembpr15,2008 7

7/28/2019 Baviskar & Sundar-Democracy versus Economic Transformation?

3/4

DISCUSSIONof ndependenttatutorynstitutionsosubvertmore ubstantiveemocracy.1Letusbeginwith he erminologicalp-positionshatChatterjeeetsup. Whilerecognisinghe need to signalthe exist-ence ofan overarchingapitalistystem(as against hesemi-feudal,emi-capital-ist ystemeloved f nearlier enerationof nalysts), e fail ounderstandhyheuses he ermorporatendnon-corporateas against imply apital nd mercantileexchange. heclassicdefinitionfcapitalper e (andnot ust tscorporateariety)isthat t s driveny he ogic f ccumula-tion, s against ubsistencerexchange.Butmoremportantly,his istinctionailstocapturehe nterlinkedature fmuchcorporatendnon-orporate apital n aworldwhere lexibleroductiononnectsmultinationalirms o domestic roduc-tion,ndruralivelihoodsrefalling partunder heonslaughtfcorporateapital,andwhere hemoneylenderlso doublesupas the ertilisernd seedagent. nfact,a closer ook tsomeof he welfare ro-grammes" hatChatterjee escribes asoffsettingispossession,ctually erve sforms f"welfareolonialism" here c-cess omicro-creditspremisednbuyingdiesel umps, ertiliser,tc,which ctuallytie peasants closer into a dependentmarketconomy.2

Second,he deathat heressomethingnew about measures ike employmentguarantees,ubsidisedood, ndprimaryeducation,nresponse o a newphaseofprimitiveccumulation,s debatable thepoor-houseoesback othedays f he n-dustrial evolution.venwhen xercisingeminent omain,the colonial state,atleast nprinciple,ecognisedhat xistingrightseeded obecompensated. hedif-ference,fany, n people's bility o de-mand ehabilitationoday omesnotfromincreased overnmentecognitionf thelegitimacyf heir emands, ut heirwndegree f rganisationnd their ncreasedabilityo speak n terms fthevery awthat susedtodispossess hembutmoreofthat nthe next ection). Indeed, hestop-go olicy f hegovernmentetweenthepreservationf hepeasantrynd theneeds ofcapital hatChatterjee utlinesare familiar rom 1980article yDavidWashbrook,escribinghe colonial tate.What s newnow is thata paternalistic

discourse fwelfare, hethertateledorintheform f orporateocialresponsibil-ity, astocontend ith he ounter-claimsof ubalternightsndentitlements.urmainconcern, owever,s with Chatter-jee'sdistinctionetween ivil ndpoliticalsocietynd t s tothis hatwe now urn.CivilSociety nd the Rule of Law'Chatterjee's rgument estscrucially nthedistinctionetween ivil ndpoliticalsociety n India. The formeroincideswith orporate apital nd s governedytheruleof aw. Politicalocietyoincideswithnon-corporateapital nd s markedby ts nabilityo summon he egitimacyof aw. nChatterjee'snalysis,hepresentmoment n Indianpolitical conomy smarked y he ascendancyn therelativepower fthecorporate apitalistlass ascomparedo the anded lites" p 56). Atthe sametime, the urbanmiddle lass,whichonceplayed ucha crucial ole nproducingnd runninghe autonomousdevelopmentaltate...,appearsnow tohave largelycome under the moral-political wayofthebourgeoisie"p 57).Thesemiddle lassesmakeupthedomainof ivil ocietyn ndia; heyretreatedythe state s rights-bearingitizensn thesense magined y heConstitution.ow-ever,arge ections f he ural opulationand the urbanpoor are excludedfromcivil ociety. heynhabit hedomain hatChatterjee erms political ociety" nd"make heir laims ngovernment,nd nturn regoverned,otwithinhe frame-workof stable constitutionallyefinedrightsnd laws,but ratherhroughem-porary,ontextualndunstable rrange-ments rrived t through irect oliticalnegotiations..."ibid).The claims fpoliti-cal society orgovernmentalenefitsl-waysremain llegitimate:thesecannotoften e metbythestandardpplicationofrules ndfrequentlyequire he decla-ration f nexception"p61).Membersfcivil ocietyesenthe unrulinessnd cor-ruption f systems f popularpoliticalrepresentation"p62). The ask fmanag-ing hese ensions etween ivil ndpoliti-cal societys the "difficultnd innovativeprocess fpolitics"ibid) n ndia oday.However, henwe examine hework-ingsofcorporateapitaland theurbanmiddle lasses n ndia,what sstrikings

theirmanifestisdain or heConstitutionand for he egalprocess.Marx idnot e-scribe rimitiveccumulations an order-ly, awful rocess utnoted hat: In ctu-al history,t s a notoriousact hat on-quest,enslavement,obbery, urder,nshort, orce, lay hegreatestart"Marx1990: 874). The descriptionoldsfor n-diatoday: heviolent rushingfpeasantoppositiono land acquisitionhows hecollusion etweencorporateapital ndthe state, compact hatcannotbe de-scribed s "civil" y ny tretchf he m-agination.3Equallynotable re theex-traordinaryoncessionsrantedocorpo-ratefirmsn theformf and formining,ports, pecialeconomic ones,which etaside labour,environmentalnd proce-duralrules.Even he udiciary avebeencomplicitn allowing exceptions" henthe defendantshave been powerfulenough.For nstance,heSupreme ourtcondoned the well-connected wami-narayansect's constructionf the Ak-shardham eligious hemepark nDelhion theYamuna loodplain,ncroachingnan areadesignatednthe itymaster lanas an ecological one. On theother and,the eviction fpoorsquatterss wellaslegal farmersiving n thevicinity asendorsedby the courton the groundsthat the law must be upheld. Morerecently,heSupreme ourt lossed verthe illegalities f theVedantaGroup ythe imple xpedient fgivingtsflagshipcompanyterlitebauxiteminingease nNiyamgirinOrissa, verridingtrongb-jections y heresidentopulation.Reversingthe FactsChatterjee nvertswhat is actually hecase: generally,t is members f theso-called civilsocietywhobreak awswithimpunitynd whodemand hat herulesbewaivedfor hem,whereasmembersfpolitical ocietytriveobecomeegal, ogain recognitionnd entitlementsromthe state. The state'sdifferentialreat-ment f hese woclasses sexemplifiednthe case ofencroachmentsnd irregularland use in Delhi. While the law wasenforced o demolish he settlementsfworkinglass quatters,enalisingeoplewho werevictims fthe state's ailureobuild ow- osthousing,twasamendedo"regularise"he illegalconstructionnd

88 November15,2008 GEE9 EconomicPoliticaleekly

7/28/2019 Baviskar & Sundar-Democracy versus Economic Transformation?

4/4

e^^^ e DISCUSSIONviolation f zoningcodes bywell-to-dotraders ndhomeowners.twas thepoor'jhuggi'-dwellers ho desperatelydis-played heirdocumented laimsto citi-zenship- voter ds, rationcards andtokens ssuedby the slumdepartment.The richencroachersimply emandedthat heirllegalitye condoned ndtheysucceededngettingheirway.Civil ocietys thusnot domain fhe-gemony s Chatterjee escribes, ut ofdomination. ts attemptso make eco-nomic iberalisationhecommonense ofour imes reaccompaniedybrutal taterepressionndthe nomalous xercise flaw. At he ame ime, he ategoryfpo-litical ocietys nadequate or escribingthevarietyf ocialformationshat tandranged gainstor in collusionwiththecorporatendurbanmiddle lasses. Forexample,he ilence r acit upport iventoBajrang al activists oburnChristianhomesnOrissa ndKarnataka,rtoself-styledustodiansf ulture o ttack xhi-bitions,urn ooks, tc, uggests grow-ing ntolerancereciselyn that phere fcivil ociety hich hatterjeelaims ivesby he ules, swell s a growingtate n-willingnessocurb his.If neperceives easants spolitical e-ings, ndthe tate sperforceound o do

so, a functionalistormula f preserva-tion-dissolutionallsapart. Instead, t-tentionmust efocused nhow he greattransformation"f our times (Polanyi1944) - the attempt ythe economy odominateociety- ummons orthower-ful counter-movementshat resistthecommodificationf land and labour, swell as groups hat re setuppreciselyodividesociety.The careerof corporatecapital nrural ndia smore omplicatedthanChatterjeellows;besidesprimitiveaccumulationt includes oraysntotheformal ubsumptionf abourto capital(e g,contractarming)s wellas therealsubsumptionf abour ocapital e g,di-rect takeover f land foragroforestry).Mostrecentlyorporate apitalhas notbeen contentwith rulingbehind thescenes, ut tsmembersaveactually n-tered Parliament r state legislaturesthemselves. he counter-movementshatresistcorporatemovesare also diverseand deploy rangeofpolitical esourcesthat farexceedChatterjee's escription.Categoriesuch s civil ocietyndpoliti-cal society ail ocapturehecharacter fdominationn Indiatoday,herebymiss-ing hebrutalitynddesperationnd,de-spitethese, he inherentynamismndhope hat till ersists.

NOTESi Forexample,theBharatiya anataParty usedModi's electoralvictoryn 2002 to ustify hegenocidenGujarat; he xistence f nstitutionslike the National Human RightsCommissionis used to deflect ttention romndia'shumanrights ecord; ndeven s the ashfor otes ealsinthe 2008 trust otebecamean "open ecret",theyweresubsumedwithin frameworkfpar-liamentaryrocedure.2 This is brought utclearly n ongoing esearchbyMalwa Muniswamy, PhD student t theJawaharlalNehru University,n the Veluguprogramme, WorldBankfundedmicrocreditscheme nAndhra radesh.3 See fornstance, olicefiringstMaikanch illageinRayagada istrict,rissa,nwhichhree eoplewerekilled rotestinggainstand cquisitionorbauxiteminingn2001;atTapkaranRanchi is-trict,harkhandnwhich inewerekilled rotest-ing gainst heKoelKaro am n2001;attheKhu-ga dam site n Churachandpuristrict, anipurinwhich hreewerekilled n2005; atKalingana-gar nOrissa, nwhich 2werekilled rotestingagainst Tatasteelplant n2006; atNandigraminWest engalwhere ome15werekilled n2007protestinggainst and acquisitionor specialeconomic one. This s byno means n exhaus-tive istofrecent oliceviolence elated o land

acquisition.ncreasinglyoo, s inthePosco teelprojectneastern rissa, heAlcan auxite rojectin Kashipur nd theSEZ in Nandigram,rmedgangs upported ythecompanyndassisted ythe ocal dministrationndpolicehavebeenusedtocoerce illagersnto arting ith heirand.REFERENCESMarx,Karl (1990) (1867): Capital,Vol 1 (London:Penguin lassics).Polanyi, Karl (1944): The Great Transformation:ThePolitical nd Economic rigins fOur Time(Boston:BeaconPress).Washbrook,avid 1981): Law, tate ndAgrarianoci-etynColonialndia", odern sian tudies,5 3).

Classes,CapitalandIndianDemocracyPARTHACHATTERJEEPartha hatterjeeespondso thethree ommentsyShah,JohnandDeshpande,ndBaviskarndSundar,nhisessay Democracyand Economic ransformationin ndia".

is immenselyratifyingo be com-menteduponand evencriticised yyoungercholarswhosework ne hasgreatlydmired nd whose views are apointerothedirectionhat ndian ocialsciencewill ake n heyears ocome. amthankful oMaryJohn nd SatishDesh-pande,Mihir hah,and AmitaBaviskarand Nandini Sundar for the care andseriousnesswithwhichtheyhave readmy article "Democracy nd EconomicTransformationn ndia" 19April 008,hereafter et). Myresponse elow s inthe piritf ontinuinghediscussion.

John and Deshpande are right nsuggestinghat ndet, I havetried o in-quirewhetherheapparently egemonicpositionrecentlycquiredby corporatecapitalnurbanocietyn ndia lso xtendsto the ountryside.have lso triedofleshout thedynamicsf what call "politicalsociety",arlier orkedutfor rban opu-lations,n the ontemporaryural ontext.Theroutehave hosen ndetisto onnectwith n olderMarxist iscussion f ransi-tion to capitalism, assiverevolutionfcapitaland the politics f thesubalternclasses, nd to ask if an adequateunder-standing f our contemporaryituationrequires reconceptualisationf hose ld-ercategories. his, fcourse,s only nepossible rajectoryo an understandingfthepresentnd,needless osay, therve-nues ouldbeprofitablyxplored.Hence, fMihir hah sconvinced hatclass analysisof the Marxist arietys

Partha hatterjeepartha@cssscal.org)swith heCentreor tudiesnSocial SciencesCalcuttandalsowith heColumbiaUniversity,ewYorkEcononicr oetical eekly GEE3 November15,2008 09