9 Understanding Civil Society

Shashank Chaturvedi

Introduction

For nearly a century after mid of 19th century ‘civil society’ almost disappeared from the intellectual and political life. During this period it was received with lots of cynicism. However, in last two decades or so it has once again gained currency in last in the light of changing role of the state and transforming socio economic context. In recent past, it has emerged as a master category, seems to be accommodating all spaces other than that occupied by the state. It has become a key phrase used by politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen, journalist and common people in the same vein.

Most of the major political thinkers of the modern times have reflected on the notion of civil society, and then too there is no clarity on what constitutes the civil society. This proves the contestations on the conceptual framework of the idea and its place in political theory. These contestations have broadly taken place around the relationship between state and civil society with reference to democracy. One set of argument is that ‘civil society represents autonomous associations that exist independently of the state’. This sort of understanding looks at civil society as a space which curtails the state as an autonomous agency, and has existence of its own. If we go by this understanding, khap panchayats, Lions club, temples to cricket clubs all seems to be claimants of civil society. On the other hand there is another set of institutions such as Bar Associations and schools that despite existing outside the state institution realm have some sort of formal legal structure and thus claiming to be part of civil society. What separates this idea of civil society from the earlier one in rule of law, which is the binding principle of it (Gurpreet Mahajan, 1999).

The above set of understanding of civil society leads us to range of questions viz a viz why one should place civil society outside the realm of state or whether civil society is all about voluntary

organizations or something more than that? Further one can raise questions in terms of autonomy and voluntary nature of civil society and whether civil society is an arena of struggle and contestation or arena of mitigation and maneuvering. Then there are some fundamental questions too. For instance, is civil society an integral part of the modern democratic set up or it can have its own existence in any environ?

What is Civil Society?

The concept of civil society is broadly part of western intellectual tradition inextricably linked to democracy, capitalism, urbanization, constitutionalism, rule of law, end of monarchy and other such modern developments of last four centuries or so. The paradox with civil society is that it covers a vast range of activities yet it is not defined clearly. One needs to look back at the origin of the term in ancient Greek and Roman society and its transformation during the enlightenment period of Europe and then how it is applied today in modern uses across the globe. Our present understanding of civil society is amalgation of varied ideas which have been intellectually churned together for last so many decades.

Civil Society in Ancient Time

The ancient conception of civil society has something to do with location of civility within the ‘polis’ deriving its strength from Aristotle’s idea of ‘zoon politikon’ i.e. man is by nature a political animal. Thus the idea of civil society was opposed to the Aristotelian political society. The primary reason behind such understanding during the Greek period was absence of notion of individual rights, which is so crucial for any viability of the idea of civil society. It was the phase when politics was considered as the primary means of self realization and state was considered as the community of citizens. In the ancient Greek ‘polis’ as the political unit, was the small self governing unit and citizens were living in city or small community, but the government functions were concentrated entirely in the city and functions were discharged by the ‘citizens’ who were designated to do so by the constitution.

Ehrenberg (1999) argues that the first conception of civil society emerged in Greek city state when people’s life was separated in two different realms- civil and political. He further argues that Greek thought it is the political power which created a civil sphere and those who are out of this sphere are barbarians. So here we find the first trace of civility, though in a different context.

Ehrenberg further illustrate that, Plato’s civil society was a politically controlled realm that was comprised of individuals who live in different spheres of associations, but constantly in need of a strong state which can give it a civilizational coating.

There are other social scientists who are of view that first version of civil society emerged in Aristotles’ Politike Koinonia (political society/community) that has been translated in Latin as sociatas civilis. In Aristotle’s conception, Politike Koinonia is ethical political community that is shaped by the citizens under legally defined rule (Cohen and Areto, 1992). For Aristotle, Polis was the most inclusive and sovereign of all institutions because all of them are constituted for mere sake of life but polis is established for the guarantee of ‘good life’. There is a significant difference between Plato’s and Aristotle’s conception of civil society as Aristotle rejects Plato’s idea of unity of civil and political society. In comparison to the modern notion of distinction between state and civil society Aristotle’s idea lacked that kind of clear distinction. Although the Greek notion of civil society lacked the modern concept of it but Aristotle’s civil society is important to the liberal discourse as he was the first who introduced the distinction between the private and the public, between the life of active citizen in the household and his active participation in the polis (Leo, 2005).

Civil Society in the Medieval Age

Appearance of Roman empire and the sovereignty of the Church led to replacement of the polis by the commonwealth. Cicero (106-43), a Roman philosopher and lawyer considered civil society as equivalent of Res Republica therefore societas civilis represented by different groups and individuals, all bounded by common laws. The new notion of individual rights to property and its legal guarantee to individuals led to clear separation of private life from public life in political sphere.

The fall of Roman Empire led to emergence of feudal society loosely based on small political authorities. Feudal system, as political, economic and cultural set up was primarily organized around agricultural mode of production. Medieval social thinkers were not very sure of civil society as an independent force and of human ability to “draw moral values” required for ethical association in the worldly affairs. Christian authorities emphasized on total submission to the transcendent power and virtue of god. Within this context, Pope Gelasius I offer the notion of two powers which ruled the world- the church in transcendental matters and Emperor or civil government in the realm of “temporal matters of peace, order and justice”. This separation was crucial as it paved the way for development of the state and the civil society (Leo, 2005).

Civil Society in Modern Times

The modern understanding of the idea of civil society as it emerged between 16th and 18th century Europe, altered the relation between the state and the individual and redefined it in a new context. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau while propounding the idea of state of nature and emergence of the modern state, considered civil society as a stage in social evolution. For Hobbes, the state of nature, in the absence of all powerful Leviathan, is a state of perennial war status; where each is against all and the atmosphere is of constant fear and danger. In such circumstances, in Hobessian state of nature life is ‘solitary, brutish, poor, nasty and short. According to Hobbes, human being in order to have self preservation decides to voluntarily limit its sovereignty by creating a civil society that is governed by Leviathan as an absolute sovereign. In Hobbes’s scheme of thought this sovereignty is not limited by contract or natural rights. Here they are only possessed by the right of self defense. Thus the social contract in Hobbes’s theory creates civil and political society jointly (Chandhoke, 2004). Through this for the first time series of rights mainly- right to legislation, right to jucicature, right to make war and peace and duties assigned in terms of- duty to maintain the sovereignty, duty to teach people, duty to administer equal justice, duty to tax equally and many more were ensured (Losco & Illiams, 1992).

Locke’s state of nature is just opposite to Hobbes’s as here people are not under constant fear and danger to life. In Locke’s scheme of thought, here people are in bond with others, having family and most importantly having private property. However, for Locke, the problem is absence of security to the private property as there is no centralized system which can guard it. In this situation, Locke suggests, it is important the people leave the state of nature arrange a social contract with a centralized body which can ensure their happiness in terms of enjoyment of private property. Lockean state is a limited state, very unlike the Hobbesian one. Here, for Locke the compulsion to create the civil society increases as it can only lead to preservation of natural rights and its flourishment (Baccaro, 2001). Here, another major difference between Hobbes’s and Locke’s idea is that Locke’s social contract is a dual process in which the contract for civil society takes place first and then the political society emerges. Thus one can say that civil society forms first and then the government. Unlike Hobbes, Locke opposed monarchical rule and argued that “ the absolute monarchy, which by some Men is counted the only Government in the world, is inconsistent with civil society and so there can be no form of civil government at all” (Losco and Illiams, 1992). However, despite all these attempts by Locke, the distinction between civil and political society is not clear in both Hobbes and Locke as both used the terms civil and political interchangeably (Chandhoke, 2004).

Gurpreet Mahajan argues that Locke differentiated civil society both from state of nature as well as a political society. Locke contrasts the civil society with the state of nature, arguing that in the later men have equal natural rights but no legal force to guarantee it. Thus the state of nature is uncivil stage of human existence. In Locke’s political thought, ‘publically recognized sovereign’ is the minimum condition for maintaining the civility in the society (Mahajan, 1999). For Locke, the presence of sovereign will transform the collective body into the political society. He further argues that this presence of rule of law and an authority to ensure the smooth functioning of the political society will ultimately leads to formation of civil society. Mahajan further argue that in Locke’s understanding civil society is a specific kind of political society I which the rights of individuals receive primacy over all else. And it is this primacy of rights of individuals that separates civil society from political society and all other forms of associations and organizations. She further argues that Locke’s civil society is since signifying a collective body that cherishes individuals rights, thus it is necessary for the existence for the democratic state (Mahajan, 1999).

In Rousseau’s scheme of thought, civil society lies somewhere in between the state of nature and state of war. For Rousseau, the state of nature is inherently not bad and conducive for human kind but is lacks stability which is necessary for human survival. And it is for this reason that Rousseau conceptualizes the idea of civil society and state as further stages in human civilization. For him it is the quest to fulfill Amour Propre- human instinct for self love and desire to achieve perfectibility, which has led to the emergence of family, society, market and later the state. This development finally led to human being losing their natural liberty and he gains civil liberty.

Kant, used the term civil society (Burgerliche Gesellaschaft) in terms of public arena of rational, critical discourse where each person treats other as end in itself rather than means to end of others. To put it in other words, kant is of opinion that we must consider how others would benefit themselves from our actions, rather than how we might use them only for our benefit.

In the fast changing economic sphere of 18th century, Adam Smith argued for clear separation of civil from the political society, where civil is the realm of self dependent economic activities which should be left free from the state interferences. Central to Smith’s idea is the self regulation in the matter of economic and society. Smith imposed great faith on this society as he was of view that it can ensure just division of resources provided it is left free from the interferences of the political society (Chandhoke, 2004).

Idea of Civil Society in 19th Century

Hegel, the foremost philosopher of the 19th century, elaborately dwelt upon the idea of civil society and expanded it. His contribution was significant in the sense that the contemporary understanding of the civil society is primarily shaped by Hegel’s notion of civil society. Hegel in his book Elements of the Philosophy of Rights presented a distinction between the state and civil society. He propounded that these two are stages in between the development from family to nation. This distinction perhaps remained the most vital of Hegel’s discoveries in political philosophies.

Hegel carry forwarded the Lockean idea of prioritizing the individual although by re looking into the idea freedom, law and the idea of the state. In Hegel’s scheme, civil society represents a ‘system of relation’ that ‘support and enhance freedom of all’ (Mahajan, 1999). However, argues Mahajan, Hegel begin his idea on civil society by countering Locke’s argument that there is a conflict between the particular will of the individual and the universal will reflected in the laws of the state. Hegel is of view that general will must emerged from the self will of the individual. With this understanding as the reference point, Hegel defines civil society as a form of ethical life in which the subjective and the objective co-exist in harmony. Hegel is confident of this possibility on the ground that civil society is an embodiment of relations built upon mutual recognition of the rights of the self and the other (Mahajan, 1999). Hegel moves on to argue that within civil society the self acknowledges the other, develops the link with it, recognizing the rights of the each subjectivity i.e. the self and the other. For Hegel, this becomes the system of actualization of the idea of freedom and civil society becomes the objective embodiment of this actualization. This is so because in Hegel’s conception civil society is representative of those institutions and structures that take into consideration the mutual rights of the self and the other. This makes Hegel’s civil society a collective body whose members are conceived as self subsistence members (Hegel, 1953).

For Hegel civil society (burgerliche Gesellschaft) is the next stage after the family or “the ethical idea still in its concept,” in which the satisfaction of the subjective needs and desires is given free chance. But this freedom of fulfilling the selfish desires has the universal dimension insofar as the welfare of the individual remains bound up with that of others. This is so because, in Hegel’s conception the modern market economy requires another in some way to effectively engage in reciprocal activities like trade etc. For Hegel, the civil society is also a realm of mediation of particular wills through social interaction and a means whereby individuals are educated in their process of interaction and interdependence, reaching higher universal consciousness.

Hegel further argued that it is the role of the civil society to protect individual rights and property, and in case it fails to do so, the public authorities to come to rescue. According to Cohen and Arato (1992), Hegelian civil society is a system of needs and system of laws. Side by side it is the area of particularity, of self seeking individuals interested with the performance for his private needs (Chandhoke, 2004).

If we look at the evolution of the concept of civil society, it is clear that the idea emerged with in the context of enlightenment political and social philosophies and capitalist mode of production. And it was within this context that debate on role of the state and its control over and society and the market was going on in the 18th and the 19th century Europe. Tocqueville, concerned for the segregation of the state and the society growing control of the state on the society, argued that the modern state has created a greater threat to human freedom than earlier forms of states. In such circumstances, argued Tocquivelle, it is important to restrict the free and voluntary associational groups inside society that we today call civil society. For him, the association way of organizing the modern society is crucial for the survival of the democracy as associational life has great advantage in terms of social good.

Marxist notion of Civil Society

In the fast deteriorating socio economic context of Europe, Marx critically engaged with the Hegelian method of dialectical idealism, turning it upside down stressed on the method of dialectical materialism. This provided him the critical insight into the logic of capitalist mode of production and its offshoot. Rooting the origin and sustenance of the modern state and civil society in the material world, Marx argued that modern state is the superstructure fundamentally based on the economic basis (McClelland, 1996). And it is in this context that civil society is the stage where the dialectic between the social and political, between domination and resistance, between oppression and emancipation (Chandhoke, 1995). Thus in Marx’s conception, civil society is a bourgeois society having its roots in the modern class division and capitalist mode of production.

In such conception, for Marx, civil society is not only the source of in equality but also contains the source of protest and realm of possibilities in terms of waging the opposition against the exploiting class. So there is always a change the arena of inequality and exploitation becomes the arena of contestation and economic transformation (Galnoor, 2001). In Critiques of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’, Marx emphasized the nexus between economic interests and political institutions. Focusing on the right to property sanctioned by civil society, he argued that the civil society is not capable of expressing the universal interests of the society as a whole (Marx 1977). And precisely for this reason, like the modern capitalist state it remained the voice of the ruling class.

Later, it was Gramsci argued that civil society is not necessary an arena of exploitation and that it maintains its autonomy by resisting the state power (Baker, 1998). For Gramsci, this autonomy is obtained from both the state and the economy and the resistance against the exploitative forces can be build up using this autonomous space. Gramsci further developed this idea by arguing that state is an instrument of coercive exploitation while the civil society is an instrument of hegemonic dominance through consent. This consent is created using the cultural institutions, educational institutions and intellectuals (Gramsci, 1975). Gurpreet Mahajan argues that for Gramsci this method of ruling through consent or preponderance of civil society over the state allowed western societies to generate consent without relying heavily on direct coercion and domination. Mahajan further argues that in contrast to western societies, direct intervention by the state and frequent reliance on the coercive power of the state remained the characteristic feature of the east (Mahajan, 1999).

Chandhoke (1995) summarizes following six interpretations on civil society. In the first version all that do not belong to the state are part of the civil society, which includes religious bodies, cultural communities, health clubs and other such associations. Second, civil society may be considered as private sphere against state as a public sphere. However, in many of the liberal understanding of civil society except family every space including civil society and the state is a public sphere. Third, it is the mediation point between the state and the people in general. Fourth, civil society is a space which in intervened by the state to shape public opinion, thus having no autonomous existence of its own. Fifth, civil society is a political forum, an arena of political democracy and creating a community of participative and deliberative functions. The sixth is the civil society as a economic forum, thus an institution of market.

Revival of the Concept in the 20th century

The second half of the 20th century is characterized by the loss of faith in the institutions of democracy and thus revival of civil society as an arena voicing the concerns against the state activities. Muller argues that there are primarily four reasons behind the re emergence of the idea of civil society in the end of the 20th century. Firstly, after the fall of soviet Russia, there has been ongoing struggle to rescue the central European countries form the communist totalitarian regime. The second cause was the consequence of this fall and attempts to construct the democratic set up in those countries. The third reason was the growing crises in the welfare state system at the worldwide scale. For Muller, the fourth cause is a reaction to the new forms of social mobility and diversity and to the speed and scope of technological, economic and cultural changes that globalization has ushered (Muller, 2006).

In last two decades or so there has been surprising spurt in the Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and civil associations throughout the world. Lavalette and Ferguson (2007) are of view that such development has been welcomed in those countries where there is proximity between the state and the economic forces and politics is at a distance. In such states, civil society provides the space which people can utilize to mobilize against a corrupt and unjust system.

If we look into the historical evolution of the concept of civil society, it is quite evident that the idea has always been pitched against the conception of the state. In this process, From Locke to Hegel, the state has been always given the priority over the state. The state as the upholder of the individual’s right pushed the civil society at the back seat. However, as mentioned above, in the recent past this trend has changed. The second half of the 20th century has been witnessed to the loss of faith in the institution of the state. According the Mahajan, this has forced people to reconsider the earlier conception of the civil society. She further argues that the revival of the idea of civil society has taken place in the three different contexts: i) in the framework of Marxian understanding of relation between the economic interests and political institutions, ii) in an attempt to revitalize the participation of people in the context of western democracies, and iii) in the totalitarian regimes of the socialist societies. In these contexts, one may add emergence of notion of civil society in the developing world, especially with reference to Arab spring West Asia and Anna Movement in India.

Civil Society in India: Past to Present

In the last two decades or so the idea of civil society in India has become a buzzword. Ajay Gudavarthy argues that last decade or so civil society has emerged as a ‘hold all’ concept that has been both an explanatory category as well as a normative category that sets goals in terms of what societies should aspire to be (Gudavarthy, 2013). He raises a very pertinent question in this regard that if civil society has shaped and in turn taken shape through the institutional and political processes integral to the way democracy works in a country like India, how one should approach this concept? One thing is of sure that the disillusionment with the modern state has led to revival of civil society in India too. And this disillusionment with the state has been expressed by both Marxists and liberals in India in the same vein. For Marxists, the failure of the state in accommodating the grievances of the poorer section of the society has led to civil society as the anchoring point, giving vent to people’s frustration. Thus they locate democratic struggle in the arena of civil society. Manoranjan Mohanty refers this arena as potential of being converted into ‘creative society’ by the progressive forces (Mohanty, 1998). For political pundits like Rajni Kothari, India’s path of development is so full of contradiction that it has led to the state becoming coercive in order to continue. In such circumstances, argues Kothari, civil society provides the space for weaker section to protest. In all such understanding of civil society, the central idea is of arena accommodating and giving vent to the ire against the state. Scholars like Sanjay Kumar are of view that civil society in India is torn between particular interests within the exploitative economic structure (Kumar, 2000). He is of view that despite more than six decades of liberal political set up, its hegemonic presence is not there and thus the idea of abstract right bearing citizens has yet not taken shape. The reason is, he argues further, that even dominant sections has yet not settle the issue with the feudal past.

Though, most of the social scientists in India place conceptualize civil society in India in terms of arena of voluntary associations, Andre Beteille emphasizes on individual right and social equality bearing and their place in the civil society viz a viz the state. Here, the strength of his argument lies in the differentiation between the civil society and other intermediary institutions. For him civil society is that space where right bearing individuals are situated, in link with other individuals and negotiates with the state. For Beteille then, the existence or proliferation of mediating institutions per se is not enough. Civil society is dependent upon the strength of the mediating institutions that are open to all categories of citizens and whose functioning is controlled neither by the state not by religious authorities (Mahajan, 1999).

Thus we see that within Indian context civil society as been variedly understood within the broad framework of western political philosophies. In post independent India, for long the expectations and aspirations were largely woven around the state. However, during 1970s and 1980s it slowly started fading away and replaced by voice of protest against the state’s coercive activities. Side by side emerging new crises in the form of environmental degradations, female feticides and distrust towards representative institutions has led to expansion of the arena of civil society. It will remain an enigmatic question that whether civil society as an arena of struggle and protest stands against the state authority or it is the space which absorbs and deflects the challenges pointed towards the state.

For nearly a century and half, the discourse of civil society disappeared from both the intellectual and political shelf. In this period it attended the stature of unfashionable. However, in last two decades or so, despite cynicism and hostility, it has once again gained currency. Since then, it seems civil society has become omnipresent category and the cure for all diseases plaguing the contemporary world. This key phrase has become one of the most used and one can say most abused word easily available to politicians, industrial class, extremists, human rights organizations, NGOs and to journalists alike. Despite such an omnipresence and availability of the term, it is often being asked that does civil society matter? Ranges of political arguments have been articulated in last two decades to suggest that civil society is no more an obsolete term. Scholars like Keane (2004) are of view that civil society is relevant in present context as it gives preference to individuals’ daily freedom from violence and various cruelities which one can consider as uncivil. Others like Habermas (1985) and Alexander (2006) are of view that since civil society provides the space to every right bearing individuals to interact at daily basis thus the confidence to express their social identities, which they otherwise would not be able to express, thus making civil society very relevant.

One of the unique problems attached with the idea of civil society in the context of post colonial third world society is with regard to its applicability and capacity to analyze and explain the politics and society. Such problems are obvious because of the historical fact that idea of the civil society is emerged in the west and it is imported category here. The continuity of the past in the most of the third world countries like India and its encounter with the western modernity has produced unique problems. And for this reason, the trajectory of the emergence of civil society in third world is different from the west. The main reason behind this development is that, as Kaviraj argues in case of India, societies in these regions usually have an organizing principle independent of the state.

Civil society as a western import has liberal individualist thought at its core and thus a normative charge and as an ideal to be achieved by the post colonial countries like India. As Mohinder Singh suggests, this kind of predicament poses huge problems in terms of applicability. If we take too broad a view and include all kinds of associations based on caste, religion and other institutions based on inscriptive values then the normativity of the civil society seems to be in danger. And if we take the narrow view of the civil society then we are limiting it to the urban elite section of the society. It seems to be limited in any case. The reach of the concept has not broken the shackles of the English speaking masses of the third world.

Conclusion

We have seen that how the idea of civil society has emerged and evolved over a period of time from ancient to modern. The modern journey of it started with the enlightenment philosophy and modernity. Hobbes and Locke were the first among the modern social thinkers who propounded the idea. Over the last four centuries or so, the concept has gained wide currency adding on the reflections of Hegel, Tocquille, Marx and Gramsci. In recent times Habermas and others have deeply engaged with the idea and tried to shape it in the contemporary context.

Despite its wide usage, the fact is the there are some serious limitations with the concept in terms of its meaning and applicability outside the west. Third world countries have in their own ways tried to adjust and adopt the term. Even in many countries like India, civil society is riding on the back of World Bank loans and International NGOs. Globalization has led to forced consensus about civil society as free space within the economic zone. On the other hand the fast depleting trust for state as a potent institution for social justice has led to bringing civil society at the centre stage of the social movements and protests.

References

• Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Baccaro, L. (2001). Civil Society, NGOs, and Decent Work Policies: Sorting out the Issues.
• Geneva. International Institute for Labour Studies Geneva.
• Baker,  G.  (1998).  Civil  Society  and  democracy:  The  Gap between  Theory  and  Possibility.Politics, 18(2), 81-
• 88.
• Chandhoke, N. (2004). State and Civil Society: Explorations in Political Theory. New Delhi:
• Sage Publication.
• Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1992). Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Ehrenberg, J. (1999). Civil Society the Critical History of an Idea. New York New York University Press.
• Galnoor, I. (Ed.) (2001) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vols.3).
• Gramisci, Antoini (1975). Selections from the Prison Notebooks International Publishers. New York.
• Habermas, J. (1985). Theory of Communicative Action. Mass Beacon Press, Boston
• Hegel, GWF. (1953). Philosophy of Rights. Clarendon, Oxford
• Kaviraj, S. (2001). ‘In Search of Civil Society’, in Sunil Khilani (eds) Civil Society: History and Possibilities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
• Keane, J. (2004). Violence and democracy. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kumar, S. (2000), Civil Society in Society, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 31 (Jul. 29 – Aug. 4, 2000), pp. 2776-2779
• Lavalette, M., & Ferguson, I. (2007). Democratic language and neo-liberal practice: The problem with civil society. International Social Work 50(4), 447-449.
• Leo, O. U. (2005). Beyond Liberal Political Morality: A Critique of State Colonization of Civil Society in Canada. University of Alberta, Edmonton.
• Losco, J., & Illiams, L. (1992). Plitical Theory Classic and Contemporary Readings (Vol. 2). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
• Mahajan, G. (1999). Civil Society and its Avatar, Economic and Political Weekly, May 15, 1999
• Marx, Karl (1977) Critique of ‘Hegel ‘s Philosophy of Right, (edited) by Joseph O’Malley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Mohanty, Manoranjan( 1998): ‘Social Movements in Creative Society: Of Autonomy and Interconnection’ in Mohanty, Manoranjan, P N Mukherjee and Olle Tornquist (eds), People ‘s Rights:. Social Movements tand the State in the Tlird World, Sage. Delhi.