35 Intervention and impact of civil society in India

Kanika Sud

Introduction

In the following module titled The Intervention and Impact of Civil Society in India, the author aims to explicate the notion of Civil Society, by referring to various scholars who have theorized the term. In an attempt to further explain the concept of civil society, the section is followed by looking at how civil society is understood in contemporary times; to understand the ongoing paradigm that the current understanding rests on. Some commonalties are drawn from the Habermasian notion of Public sphere. As previously mentioned, the concept and term Civil Society is a western concept; it has evolved in the Western political philosophy. So, the succeeding session would give a bird’s eye view of the application of this term in the Indian context, after which a small section is dedicated towards delineating the historical roots of civil society in India, and what constitutes membership in Indian civil societies, given their hierarchical and divisive nature. Towards the end of the module, the author endeavours to give a brief overview of the debates around the digitalized era that the Indian civil societies are a part of. Given the digitally mediated lives we lead, it still needs to be seen whether civil societies benefit from such an arrangement. Or is it all noise and no activism but only “slacktivism”?

Civil society as a concept, has numerous theories allocated to itself. Nonetheless, there is no consensus among theorists about its meaning, as yet. Urry and McIlwaine, state that civil society generally inhabits the space between the state and the household. (Urry 1981;  McIlwaine 1998). Use of the term “Civil Society” is not limited solely to academic circles. The definitions of the term found in two popular dictionaries mentioned subsequently allude us to the popularity of the term used in common parlance. According to the Dictionary.com’s 21st century Lexicon, Civil Society is defined as a) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens or b)individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government. 1 Occasionally, the notion of Civil society is applied to the more usual sense of “the

1 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+society?r=66elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc that make up a democratic society.”2

However, the meanings and interpretations of what constitutes a Civil Society have been subject to change over a period of time and are open to contestation. In the following section, readers will be acquainted with how the concept of civil society came to be theorized until now. From this supplementary reading, students will learn to;

1)  examine how the concept of civil society developed in the western tradition of political thought;

2)  The questions around the applicability of the concept of Civil society in India

Oommen (2004) has laid out the three phases (incarnations) in enabling us to understand the notion of civil society, and how it came into being. The following section will begin by setting out Oomen’s articulation of the three incarnations of the civil society, followed by several other scholars

1) Theorisation of Civil Society

In the first incarnation, civil society was distinguished from primitive societies by many anthropologists, such as Richard Puttenham in 1589. Seventy five years later, Hobbes published Leviathan which was regarded as the political counterpart to Puttenham’s anthropological discourse. A century after that, Adam Ferguson ( the father of modern Sociology) wrote An essay on the History of Civil Society. This text contested that Europe had already attained civil society, the loftiest position in the assumed hierarchy of societies.

Thus, as one can observe, civil society is the space which occupied the premier position among the multiplicity of societies.

In the Second incarnation of civil society, two intellectual lineages were acknowledged;

• Works of Hegel, Karl Marx;
• Works of Antonio Gramsci and Franco-Scottish (with Tocqueville as the central figure)

2 Civil Society. Collins English Dictionary‐ Complete and Unabridged 11th Edition. Retrieved from CollinsDictionary.com website: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/civil‐society

While it is difficult to see homogeneity in their conceptualizations within these lineages, one cannot deny that the parallels between them are substantial. Hegel wanted civil society to be subordinated to the state. He placed universal altruism of the state adjacent with the universal egoism of civil society. Marx on the contrary, wanted the state to be subordinate to the civil society. According to him, state could turn oppressive and despotic, and civil society, a space to for crass materialism and contestation. The predicament with the Marxian conceptualization, Oomen articulates, lies with the disproportionate anticipation that the state will shrivel away. Gramsci’s theorization of civil society surpasses economic context. According to him, civil society is located in the superstructural sphere, and not the structural. When the civil society is located in the state, then it is stripped off its legal specificity and autonomy, not to mention its real purpose vis-à-vis the state; that of functioning as a power which counterbalances the hegemonic forces at play. Tocqueville too, places the state side by side with the civil society, the latter being rooted in private interest and economic activity.

Oomen shows us how the specificity of the two lineages has been somewhat lost. What was assigned as civil society by Marx (a space for crass materialism) and Tocqueville (rooted in private interest and economic activity), are actually market forces. It is thus at this juncture that lies the advantage of viewing what Tocqueville labels ‘political society’ as civil society.

According to Tocqueville, civil society is supposed to protect the individual from the state. However, he further claims that if the state is democratic, we wouldn’t then need a civil society. He raised the possibility of counter-hegemonic forces in the society that topple the dominant class ( Giles: 2002). In contrast to him, Gramsci claims that civil society protects the state. This would mean that in a ‘good society’ the two would merge. Thus, from the former’s view, civil society is anti – state, while from the latter’s view; civil society is pro-state. To both, it plays a democratic role. However, there’s confusion in terms of the space and quality. As a result, Oomen posits that civil society has to be understood as a space between the state and the market. Just as a state can be either democratic or totalitarian, a civil society too, according to Oomen, may have contradictory and differing orientations or may contain such segments in it.

2)  ‘Associational’ versus ‘Regime’

These dimensions have been brought into contemporary discussions of civil society as well. Civil society is therefore seen as this pluralistic space by which associations operate as belts which transmit between the individual and the civil society (Giles: 2002). The ‘associational school’ (O’ O’Donnell and Schmitter, 1986; Bratton and Van de Walle, 1994) and ‘regime school’ (Diamond, 1994) both understand civil society in this way. The former is largely inspired by Tocqueville; it prescribes keeping a check on the state, by calculating and thoroughly examining its processes and operations. The aim here is to instill a sense of political participation and tolerance in the population. The latter, stirred by Locke, is a little less pluralistic. Here, civil society and an active associational life do not, on its own, lead to improved governance. Therefore, they prescribe the need for state reform; alterations of state-society to further democratization are seen as the need of the hour. The ‘neo liberal school’ on the other hand, views civil society as a space for private property rights (Giles: 2002). Thus, the ‘good governance’ initiatives are aimed at establishing market-friendly political institutions. The solution, Giles posits, is “some form of a social movement based alternative, but the conditions in which these might become significant are poorly addressed” (Ibid: 2002).

As documented by Allen (1997) the donor discourses on civil society are informed by associational school -to a very large extent in comparison to the Regime school. Giles (2002) maps out the key arguments of the donors. The general discourses are threefold:

1) Civil society is in conflict with the state. He quotes from Keane’s work on Europe and totalitarianism, which mentions that “civil society confronts the state and is comprised of associations whose interests are primarily non-economic” (Keane: 1988; Giles: 2002). The civil society, in this sense then, opposes the infringement and violation of a tyrannical state. Hyden (1983) gives an analogy of a balloon suspended above society to be described as a state- thus signifying that the two are not linked, and the need to promote re-engagement between state and civil society in the form of civil society strengthening and citizenship building.

2) Civil society is at the spirit of the democratization struggle. It is the medium through which public opinion in favour of justice, is channeled into policy making in a collaborative manner; at the same time augmenting people’s confidence and interest in getting concerned with public affairs, as well as establishing their institutional capacity to do so.

3) NGOs form a highly significant part of civil society. According to McIlwaine (1998: 416) “NGOs are ‘vehicles’ or ‘agents’ in civil society”. They thus come between the state and the citizens. State is thus relieved of its welfare position (Giles: 2002). NGOs are thus, perceived as more resourceful than the fraudulent and corrupt states. If looked at in terms of economics, there is freedom to mobilize resources.

Hence one can note that several scholars have recognized that although the definition of civil society might be subject to numerous interpretations in the western traditions, it mainly arose from the idea of a limited state and as an area of resistance to the state (Verma 2004)

3)    Civil society – a space for the marginalized?

Thus, as one can observe, in the face of several theories of civil society, the ongoing paradigm rests on a specific vision wherein civil society is treated as an autonomous realm of associational life, in which ‘interests’ can be pursued collectively. The relationship between the civil society theory and discourse is then closely tied with democratic theory and discourse (Baker 1998). According to Shah (2008) civil society is the space which is used to protect the interests and rights of the marginalized groups. He further mentions this to be a political issue. Civil society is then, viewed to have a number of crucial functions in development and democratization which they endeavour to support. For instance, Joseph (2006) articulates in depth about various non-political outfits that were occupied with introducing Maharashtra’s Employment Guarantee Scheme3. These organizations apprehended EGS’s potential to deal with myriad issues concerning the marginalized sections of the societies, such as women, Dalits, tribals, landless and so on. Joseph has succinctly analysed how “these groups engaged with the state in defining the scope and reach of EGS and how the definition was enlarged by the same group to empower the poor” (Ibid: 2006). It is therefore, a space concerned with the “common good”; as a space for deliberation and activities related to common good in the outer orbit of the state (Shah 2008).

3Short form: EGS

In a hierarchical society, wherein various segments of population have embroiled in real or imaginary conflicts (Ibid), civil society provides a space for the members and agents to contest for sectional and collective interests. It is a space where discursive discourse on various facets of common good are discussed, which offers an opportunity for persuasion to conflicting views. One is reminded of the Habermasian notion of the Public Sphere, articulated by Habermas in one of his influential texts, an important contribution to modern understanding of democracy titled; The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, published in 1962. Habermas had emphasized that the idea of public is related to the notion of the common. 4 According to Hannah (1958) the public sphere is thus, “the common world” that “gathers us together and yet prevents our falling over each other”.5 Habermas thus articulated that the public space is a “society engaged in critical public debate”. He laid out the conditions of public sphere as discussed in his work⁶;

• The formation of public opinion
• All citizens have access.
• Conference in unrestricted fashion (based on the freedom of assembly, the freedom of association, the freedom to expression and publication of opinions) about matters of general interest, which implies freedom from economic and political control.
• Debate over the general rules governing relations

In order then, for civil society activism to evolve, it is important that an arena can be established wherein voices can be raised, heard and exchanged with society and government. The question of civil society is therefore linked to conditions, contours, limitations and possibilities of communication, media, and the public sphere (Hirschman

4 Habermas, Jürgen (German(1962)English Translation 1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Thomas Burger, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, p. 6, ISBN 0‐ 262‐58108‐6

5 Please read‐ Arendt, Hannah (1958), The Human Condition, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, p. 52

6 Taken from Habermas, Jürgen (1989), The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. In Critical theory and Society A Reader, ed. Stephen E. Bronner and Douglas Kellner, 136‐142., New York: Routledge, p. 136 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere 1970; Hoffman 2011). However, various scholars have pointed out some differences (along with the similarities) in their sociological perspectives between the two terms. 7

4) A) Civil Society- a western concept in the Indian context?

Civil society thus, on one hand, from the way it has been evolved and interpreted, can be seen as a vast and a fluid space, whose boundaries cannot be delineated differently. Reason being, the strength of multiplicity segments which form a civil society change from time to time and from issue to issue (Ibid 2008).On the other hand, several scholars view civil society from a different lens. Chatterjee (2004) affirms that civil society comes into view as a close alliance of modern elite groups, isolated from the “wider population life of the communities, walled up within enclaves of civic freedom and rational law.” According to Berglund (2009) theories on civil society have been unsuccessful in making an impact on general democratization theory. Berglund further articulates that the term “civil society” has been overlapped with a strong predominance of liberal social theory, and with the consolidation of a neo-liberal regime within politics and economics. The debate on civil society, Bergland argues, has misplaced its momentum. In return however, the notion is now a significant part of the dominating development models which are premeditated by the World Bank and IMF (Berglund 2009). Through the concept of “good governance” the World Bank forces its debtors and its member countries to promote the role of civil society as a catalyst of both, democracy and market economy.

The critics of the notion of civil society dispute that as a concept, the civil society is rooted in western bias, and that it has little or no global relevance. Plashikar (2002) and Mahajan (1999) have problamatised this tendency to directly espouse the western centric, participation-based conception of associative democracy. They assert that this espousal has direct repercussions in the Indian context. India is deeply rooted in hierarchical power relations, which have not yet broken down; quite the contrary, they have been reinforced and re-established politically. In this context, emphasis on direct participation will let inequalities and structures of domination remain intact. Chaterjee (1998) and Mahajan

7 See Taş(yearunknown)CivilsocietyinGramsciandHabermas

(https://www.academia.edu/1619415/Civil_Society_in_Gramsci_and_Habermas)

(1999) have explicitly argued against sharing with our western counterparts the notion of civil society as something opposed to the state. Chatterjee is critical of the notion of civil society. In one of his works, Chatterjee (2004:4) defines civil society as a “closed association of modern elite groups, walled up within enclaves of civic freedom and rational law”. Civil society then is confined to a unique Western European experience.

Thus, a participatory civil society without the intervention of the state in the Indian context, they argue, will have consequences. In opposition, Mahajan supports for an older western idea of the state where the guarantor of Individual rights. Zaidi (2006) reiterates that direct importation of the term civil society in the “southern” countries becomes more complicated. The presence of indigenous belief system, organization and politics in such countries give the western meaning of the term a very different angle.

Kishwar (2011) is skeptical about civil society involvement in India, as she asserts that they draw financial assistance from western agencies, and tune into their political, social and economic agendas. She prefers that a genuine civil society organization should draw from the social groups it claims to represent, as they should owe some accountability to that particular group.

However, in her work titled Civil society and democracy, Elliot (2003) states that relationship between civil society and democracy is intrinsically political, undividable from the nature of the state and the political forces arising from the society. Contrary to scholars who view civil society as only a western concept she opines that civil societies differ according to the politics of each region. Nevertheless, the expansion of democratic governance based on civil society depends on the array of values, organizations, and political institutions. Thus, the rise of civil society does not necessarily give rise to democracy. Verma (2004) articulates that civil society rests on entirely different social forces- on market forces in East Europe, new social movements in Western Europe and Islamic countries in South-East Asia.

B) Usefulness of Civil Society in India

In the last three decades or so, India has witnessed civil society organizations becoming an integral part of policy and law making processes. Every legislation which has been involved in education, women’s rights, environment rights and forest rights, employee and workers’ rights, welfare rights for poor and so forth, has stemmed from the civil society organizations. They are also very critical of liberalization and corporate forces and are enablers of slowing the impact of these forces towards the marginalized.

The influential Ganga River Basin Authority headed by the PM has a good representation of the civil society organizations. Well endowed organizations have supported the RTI movement, which has gained a lot of momentum, are two of many examples one can think of when it comes to work from civil society organizations in India. 8

In fact, the term civil society in India covers such a wide range of actors, processes and identities that some doubt its usefulness (Dubochet 2010). According to Chandoke (2007) the term Civil society has lost both in shape and content, as it is on everyone’s lips with a fair amount of readiness. The organizations which inhabit this space range from people’s movements which have not registered with the government to research institutions to local NGOs: all allegedly to fall under the same grouping, despite their very different operational modes (Ibid 2010).

Tondan and Mohanty(2003) in their work titled Does Civil Society matter? Governance in Contemporary India, have spelt out a few case studies substantiating the positive impact of civil society on governance. 9 The chapters on saving the Chilika movement, Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha and Land distribution for Kol Tribes are particular case studies discussed, while chapters on Dalit movements and subaltern movements are more general in nature. The case studies, according to Sultanat (year unkown) grant some patterns to shape a role for civil society in the governance processes. The point to be emphasied is that these patterns are different and not pertinent in all places in an identical manner. For instance, in some cases like the Kol tribals of UP persuading influential

8 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit‐page/Civil‐societys‐challenge/articleshow/9615072.cms

9http://www.ipcs.org/books‐review/india/does‐civil‐society‐matter‐governance‐in‐contemporary‐india‐178.html

persons from the larger civil society to express their solidarity with the cause of the tribals this was a useful part in the movement, while solidarity and association of various social movements with a larger front was decisive in the cause of the Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha. The chapter by Sudha Pai and Ram Narayan on the part played by Dalit protest and its impact on democratic governance and civil society gives an exemplification of the inductive approach. Caste is one of the single most determining factors which manipulate civil society and the democratic purposes in contrast to the western societies. Therefore, it becomes pertinent to democratize the domains which are deeply rooted in hierarchies and in egalitarian power relations for effective governance.

C) Indian Civil Society- Historical Roots

Berglund (2009) has highlighted some differences in the recent developments of the state in both the west and in third world countries like India. In the West, the modern state developed concurrently with a civil society. With passing centuries, both became stronger, and efficient. In India and other third world countries, pre-colonial power did not enjoy absolute power as the West did. Religious and traditional power structures were outside its immediate reach. The formation of civil society was therefore affected by these alternative power structures. In the Indian context, this led to a sturdy position of native religions’ elites as well as amplification of religious identity in both private spaces and in civil societies. Thus popular mobilization was apparent already in the colonial period, but the formation of both state and civil society in India has been different from what it has been in Western Europe.

Quite a few reform movements began mushrooming throughout the 19th century, such as Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Ramakrisna Mission, theosophical society, and so on. All these reform movements had similar features in that they strongly advocated for a unification of all Hindus, in addition to playing a central part in the freedom movement, while strengthening the Indian Civil Society.

The national resistance movement, lead by the Indian National Congress became the key foundation of Civil society in 20th century India. While the struggles harbored by the Indian National Congress were basically anti-colonial, in itself it held many activities which would later on continue as Independent sections of the Civil Society, like the Women’s Movement. While INC gained momentum, other forms of social movements expanded in force during the first half of the 20th century. There was, for instance, an increased understanding among the Indian workers, which lead them to build up a sphere out of the immediate influence of both the state and capital owners. All Indian Trade Union Congress was thus formed, which played a role in shaping a civil society during the late colonial period.

Even though there were efforts to take apart the colonial state, its pattern very much dominated the scenario after Independence. For quite a few decades, central planning focused on state action and not civil society. There were massive protests which took place challenging the Indira Gandhi – led government. As a consequence, the Prime Minister declared a state of emergency in 1975, which remained for the next two years. Even as this was a brutal curbing of civil and political rights, the civil society was vitalized and one could view an escalation in new activities within both – traditional social movements10 and new social movements11. These groups openly defied the state on local, regional and national levels. New groups began to vigorously assert their rights and fight in opposition to the apparent inequalities and oppression being meted out to them. State development as a project was being questioned. From the 1980’s onward, NGO’s were expected to take responsibility for social development.

It can therefore be noted that fractional malfunction of the state to address social and economic needs has changed the quality and character of civil society. In a way, groups and individuals have been roused to engage in civil society in India. But, the development of civil society has been stalled by the lack of ability to offer basic education and other forms of social services. Also, our Indian society is characterized by blaring inequalities based on class, caste, religion, gender and other such grounds. So, the civil society too, is then permeated by an assortment of conflicts (Mahajan 1999, 2001 25. B)

10Peasants, workers, students

11Environmental and women groups.

D) What qualifies for membership in Civil society in India?

Numerous debates have been raised about the type of organizations that qualify for membership in civil society. According to the liberal political definition, associations which are internally democratic and open to all citizens, which have goals and activities in line with the core democratic values, which work for the greater common good- are seen as good enough criteria for membership. “Only those associations, which affirm openness of entry and exit, and which stand by the universalist criteria of citizenship” should be considered as part of civil society. “As such, any association which excludes persons on the basis of ethnicity, class, or religious persuasion is clearly not a part of civil society” (Jayal, 2001).

However, some associations exclude members because they have a narrow agenda. Berglund (2009) cites an example of trade unions working for better wages for their members to highlight that trade unions do not work for the ‘greater common good’. So, should associations like these be included in defining what a civil society is?

The issue with sticking to strict definitions which limit criteria for membership is that, one runs the risk of keeping out many important associations of civil society (Ibid 2009). This risk is even higher in a country like India, which is deeply rooted in all sorts of inequalities based on gender, class, caste, religion, region, and so on. So, while the associations in India may not match up to the liberal political definition, they may nonetheless play a decisive role in challenging the oppressive state. In his work, Berglund has adopted a definition of civil society which is more open than the version espoused by the liberal politics. Under this definition, lack of openness, pluralism, etc, may be deemed as a part of civil society. This includes associations formed on the basis of elemental identities such as religion, class, caste, gender, and so on.

However, as the state enjoys all the political power, these associations may put pressure on it. And in the process their demand may challenge other sections of the civil society. For example, the demand for group rights based on religion, gender, caste, may conflict with the interests of other groups, thus turning civil society into a combat field, instead of a sheltered and isolated domain of peaceful interaction. Hence, power structures and forms of domination are identified along with the recognition of importance of interaction with civil society. A more realistic view would then be to characterize civil society in India as a public arena wherein multiple interests meet, compete, challenge the state, and also have conflicts with other groups within the civil society. One therefore, cannot deny that this arena is affected by power relations in society at large, re- generating myriad inequalities.

5)  A) Internet and the civil society

Over the past two decades, the internet has become a potent medium for individuals and groups to engage with numerous issues such as; political participation, public policies, expression of solidarity with the politics of marginalized communities. One can also witness the rise and spread of NGOs and other civil society actors, which is very attributable to the emergence and rapid spread of the internet (Deibert & Rohozinski 2008). It can be noted how search technologies like Google, Askme.com, CoolSocialSearch.com, tools like blogs, communicative systems like skype, google hangout, etc make it easier to form virtual communities, wherein likeminded people can form connections. With wide spread access to inexpensive technological devices and network connections, one can see the proliferation of the phenomenon of people advocating causes of all shapes and sizes.

The rise of the internet age has not been without consequences for non-democratic and authoritarian states. The protest against President Mubarak’s regime in Egypt comes to mind as an example of such an occurrence. The masses that took to the streets to protest used the internet and mobile phone technologies to synchronize the protests. People from all over the world watched the events through Al Jazeera satellite TV channel as the Egyptian authorities first switched off the internet (David 2010).

However, the internet in itself is not a democratic space which a democratic civil society can inhabit. There have been various instances of a wide variety of resistance networks, military groups and criminal organizations which use it for their malevolent purposes. (Ibid 2008) Nonetheless, one can see that progressive and social justice groups have made use of the internet to promote various pro-justice causes. The Internet can then, be seen as a facilitating force which enables civil society activities by offering new possibilities for citizen participation.

Hoffman (2011) takes the case of the socialist state Cuba, in order to look at civil society dynamics and compare the pre – internet era in Cuba with web based media induced communication in Cuba, post the 90’s. According to his study, in the former era, the focus was largely on “behind the scenes struggles for associational autonomy within the state socialist framework”. But now, web – based communication technologies have sustained the emergence of a new type of public sphere in which the civil society debate is marked by autonomous citizen action (Ibid 2011). However, the internet’s impact on the public sphere and on civil society dynamics in a non-pluralistic context like Cuba depends on the point at which a web based voice links with offline public debate and social action.

B) Digital age- new opportunities for strengthening Civil Society

As mentioned previously, internet impacts the authoritarian regimes in numerous ways. The control of authoritative regimes is limited to the territorial boundaries of the nation state in which it exercises power. Traditional media is too bound to the nation state. The internet however, has an inherently transborder character, which defies the conventional filters to access and patterns of regulation in any state. This signifies a political challenge to the state. Within very little time, social actors used digital and web based media to claim public space, citizen rights, raise voices and advocate various pro justice causes.

There are different ways in which individuals and groups have come to use digital and web based media. Such as the use of email communication, blogs, digital recordings, and so on. Blogs 12have experienced a wide-reaching boom. Reason being, they see writing blogs as an opportunity to author their own write ups, and share it with all and sundry, without going through a rigorous process of editing. And neither do blogs require huge technological and financial resources. They also, more or less, have the ability to pass through the censorship filters espoused by the state. It also paved way for the bloggers to reflect and write about things that were not shown in the mainstream media outlets. Thus,

12  Also known as weblogs; a discussion or informational site published on world wide web, while consisting of discrete entries or ‘posts’. Refer to Blood (2000) Weblogs: A history and perspectives.

by the very fact of using this media, bloggers and internet users are, by and large advocating a right to partake in public sphere individually, and outside the state monopoly on mass media. This in turn becomes a civic action in itself, wherein the internet users are more politically assertive.

However, the internet is not exactly a space devoid of state regulation especially in an authoritarian context. Giving Cuba’s example, Hoffman (2011) has written that the state’s reaction to independent bloggers has not been very encouraging. He briefly talks about Yaoni Sanchez’s blog and its international reach, followed by getting an award for digital journalism. She was denied permission by the state to leave Cuba to deliver talks and speeches. Her husband was threatened to be dismissed from work.

Nonetheless, despite tight state regulations, the internet activists still benefit from the prevalence of the digitalized society we inhabit. In this highly networked society13 one can observe the emergence of self assertive ‘netizens’ which demands a widening of public sphere and a larger degree of citizen autonomy from the state. This in itself leads to a different type of civil society. Thus, as one can see, technologies and shifts in communication they enable, have the potential to significantly increase at least some parts of public sphere.

C) Opportunities? E-Civil Society? Don’t think so!

It therefore, cannot be denied that new technologies lower the costs and increase the speed thus enabling a level of access to knowledge, opinions and ideas that never existed before (Edward 2014) – on one major condition that people have access to the internet. The skeptics are however, not very thrilled with the promises and rosy picture upheld by the cyber enthusiasts. The skeptics do not deny that they value horizontal organizing and communication, with little need for kinds of bureaucratic, vertical forms of non-profits, political parties, newspapers, labour unions, et al. Neither do they deny that fluid and vibrant expressions of civic interaction, spawning more exchanges and debates is most desirable, and in so doing, amplifying the civil society in the process. What they question is the validity of all these claims and many more made by the cyber enthusiasts.

13A term borrowed from Manuel Castells notion of Network Society

Thinkers in this camp do not doubt the importance of social media in enabling civic interaction. Nor do they dispute that the internet enables us to exchange ideas and information faster. What they do contend is the claim that these developments are unmistakably positive in their outcomes. They refuse to believe that there is anything inevitable about them, at the same time viewing politics and human agency as more strong influencers of the future than technology. The strengths perceived by the virtual enthusiasts of these spaces are then, seen as weaknesses, all depending on who gets access and how they use it, and if they are complimented by face to face engagement and other traditional modes of civil society activity(Ibid 2014). Digital skeptics hence see online activism and virtual interactions as not always of assistance, and they accuse the ongoing trend as “clicktivism”, “slacktivism”, and superficiality. Although they do not deny that all civil society organizations use digital tools to organize and communicate their messages, they firmly opine that no social movements are likely to generate on the digital spaces.

However, given the highly digitally mediated lives we lead in this networked society, being skeptical of technology or the changes it brings with it in the civil society organizations in India might not really help. Infact, one needs to be open to the changes brought forward and also mindful of how they can be used in ways favourable to realizing the goals of the civil societies. While wrapping up, one could say that Civil Society plays a crucial role with regards to aiding India’s government to tackle poverty (Dubochet 2014) and other issues plaguing myriad social groups in India. Since it is a western concept, its application in the Indian context has to be done while paying attention to the circumstances in the Indian context.

Web links

• Check out what IMF says about Civil Society-http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/civ.htm
• A look at what UNDP does to strengthen Civic engagement http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/partners/civil_society_organi zations/civic_engagement_dialogue_series/
• A news article titled “Politics journal: Who makes up India’s ‘Civil Society’?” http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/06/20/politics-journal-who-makes-up-indias-civil-society/

REFERENCES:

• Allen, C. (1997) ‘Who Needs Civil Society?’, Review of African Political Economy, 73, 329-37.
• Arendt, Hannah (1958), The Human Condition, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, p. 52
• Bekker (1998) Civil Society and Democratisation Theory: An Inter-regional Comparison, at the Department of Politics, University of Leeds.
• Berglund (2009) Civil Society in India: democratic space or the extension of elite domination? WORKING PAPERS 2009:1, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University.
• Chandhoke (2007) in Development in Practice, Vol. 17, No. 4/5 pp. 607-614
• Chatterjee (1998) Community in the East, in Economic and Political weekly 33, no. 6: 277-82
• Chatterjee (2004) The politics of the governed, New York: Columbia University Press
• David Ben Anat ( 2011) Digital natives and the return of the Local cause in Shah & Hansen(Ed) Digital(Alter) Natives with a cause? Book 1‐ to Be. (Pp 10‐23) The Hague: Hivos Knowledge programme.
• Deibert, R.J., Palfrey, J.G., Rohozinski, R. & Zittrain, J. (Eds.) (2008). Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Dubochet (2010) The Changing role of a Civil Society in a middle‐ income country: A Case study from India. Oxfam India working paper series‐ XI
• Diamond, L. (1994) ‘Toward democratic consolidation’, Journal of Democracy, 5, 3, 4-17.
•  Edwards (2014) Civil Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.
• Elliot (ed.) (2003) Civil Society and Democracy: A Reader. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
• Giles (2002). The disappointments of civil society: the politics of NGO intervention in northern Ghana. Political Geography, 21(1), pp. 125–154.
• Habermas, Jürgen (German(1962)English Translation 1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Thomas Burger, Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press, p. 6, ISBN 0‐262‐58108‐6
• Habermas, Jürgen (1989), The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. In Critical theory and Society. A Reader, ed. Stephen E. Bronner and Douglas Kellner, 136‐142., New York: Routledge, p. 136
• Hirschman, Albert O (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
• Hoffman (2011) Civil Society 2.0?: How the Internet Changes State-Society Relations in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Cuba. GIGA working papers, Germany.
• Hyden, G. (1983) No Shortcuts to Progress: African Development Management in Perspective, Heinemann, London.
• Jayal N. G., 2001. “Situating Indian Democracy”, in Jayal N. G. (ed.), Democracy in India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 1‐49.
• Joseph (2006) Power of the People: Political Mobilisation and Guaranteed Employment at Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 50 (Dec. 16‐22, 2006), pp. 5149‐5156
• Keane, J. (1988) ‘Introduction’, in Keane, J. (ed.) Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives, Verso, London, 1-32.
• Kishwar (2011) Civil Society’s Challenge , in Times of India
• Mahajan (1999) ‘Civil Society and Its Avtars: What Happened to Freedom and Democracy?’ Economic and Political Weekly, XXXIV (20): 1188-119
• McIlwaine, C. (1998) ‘Civil society and development geography’, Progress in Human Geography, 22, 3, 415-
• O’Donnell, G. and Schmitter, P. (1986) Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
• Oomen (2004) Nation, Civil Society and Social Movements: Essays in Political Sociology. New Delhi: Sage. Pp 108 -115 and 144-147.
• Palshikar (2002) Civil Society: Alternatives and Differences in The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 63, No. 2/3 (June‐September 2002), pp.155‐165
• Shah (2008) Civil Society and the poor at Seventh Prof. A.R. Desai Memorial Lecture, 2008, Department of Sociology, University of Mumbai.
• Taş (year unknown) Civil society in Gramsci and Habermas (https://www.academia.edu/1619415/Civil_Society_in_Gramsci_and_Habermas)
• Tondan and Mohanty (eds) (2003) Does Civil Society matter? Governance in Contemporary India. Sage Publications, New Delhi. ISBN 81‐7829‐148‐7
• Urry, J. (1981) The Anatomy of Capitalist Societies: The Economy, Civil Society and the State,
• Verma (2004) Importance of Civil Society, (Book Review of Civil Society and Democracy: A Reader by Carolyn M. Elliott) in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 20 (May 15‐21, 2004), pp. 2015‐ 2016
• Zaidi (2006) Civil and Uncivil Society in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 33 (Aug. 19‐25, 2006), pp. 3556‐3557