DEMOCRATISING GOVERNANCE in INDIA 14-15 September, 2017 Organized By

National Conference

DEMOCRATISING GOVERNANCE IN INDIA 14-15 September, 2017 Organized By:

Department of Political Science University of Delhi

Concept Note DEMOCRATISING GOVERNANCE IN INDIA

Etymologically, democracy means the rule of people since it is derived from the Greek word, Demokratia which is a combination of Demos (people) and Kratos (rule). As per the history of democracy, the rule by people had begun in Athens in the middle of the fifth century BC. The system that the rule by people established was not absolute, but controlled by the rule of law or the constitution, as it is commonly known. In its ideal manifestation, democracy as a form of governance is structurally perfect and ideologically persuasive since it leaves no room for decisions, whimsically made; this is a system in which governance is meant to be non-discriminatory and people-driven in the strict sense of the term, Hence democracy is defined as a government by the people, of the people and for the people. It is a much clichéd definition. Nonetheless, it draws our attention to the core of governance which is democratic in spirit and substance.

An analytical scan of the functioning of democracy in the real world however reveals that democracy manifests in three different forms: (a) there are political systems which are democratic in character in the sense that elections are held and the vox populi is respected; but governance defies the very principles in which democracy is articulated. A majority of the countries, ruled by the ‘Man on the Horseback’ follow this pattern. (b) Some of the so-called democratic countries, despite being appreciative of the structural distinctiveness, tend to deviate from the core values, norms and principles while governing the demos on their behalf. Driven by the leaders, the political system becomes their hostage. It was BR Ambedkar who conceptually articulated this when he forewarned his Constituent Assembly colleagues of the devastating politico-ideological consequences of what he defined as ‘the Bhakti’ syndrome in Indian politics. Fascist states, both their classical and contemporary forms, belong to this category. (c) There is a third pattern which is visible in those political systems which are democratic in both spirit and substance and yet are subject to tendencies to the contrary; as a result, there are occasions when democracy loses its grip in the political system and seemingly endorses the duly-elected political authority’s politico-ideological preferences. Prominent examples are Brazil and India. In case of the former, the 1945 Constitution which was promulgated after the ouster of the dictatorial regime, led by Getulio Varga, upheld democracy as fundamental to the political system that had emerged. The journey was halted in 1967 when the military dictatorship adopted Institutional Acts, a set of supra-constitutional laws to supersede the 1945 Constitution. The year 1988 however marked a new dawn in Brazil’s political history; a new constitution was adopted which was not only democratic but was also receptive to those ideas that have gained salience in the context of the global drive towards creating inclusive societies. This is an endeavour for democratizing governance to the extent which was inconceivable in the recent past.

India’s democratic trajectory does not seem to be radically different from that of Brazil and other sister countries where democracy despite being casualties on occasions, thrived presumably because it was not, at all, a window dressing, as was apprehended at the dawn of constitutional democracy in India, but has become integral to her existence as an independent and also vibrant polity. Like their Brazilian counterpart, the demos in India confronted an authoritarian regime during the 1975-77 Emergency which, instead of diluting their faith in democracy, reconfirmed that it was perhaps the best mode of governance in a diverse country like India; it further confirms that the ‘Bhakti’ syndrome was at the root of devastation of the system and degeneration of the beliefs that formed the core of democratic agility for which the Indians stood out. Barring these two years in the 1970s, India’s constitutional democracy did not seem to have faced threats to her existence to the extent that Brazil had faced intermittently in the last two decades.

In view of the fact the constitutional democracy has evolved deeper roots in India than those decolonized countries that also had adopted democratic form of government, it can safely be argued that it is primarily due to the consolidation of a supportive mindset which is strong enough to scuttle the tendencies to the contrary. This has two serious implications which need to be taken into account for conceptualizing constitutional democracy and also theorizing its grip in India: first, the strengthening of constitutional democracy in India redefines its conceptual parameters and theoretical contours in contrast with what the classical liberal theorists, like James Mill, JS Mill, SM Lipset, among others, argued in defence of their contention that a socio-economically diverse society like India was neither fit to be democratic nor a liberal polity. Secondly, India’s democratic experiences confirm that the role of the democratic structure of governance cannot be undermined in initiating and also consolidating the supportive inputs at the grassroots. This means that the privileging of the context does not seem to be theoretically as persuasive as is made to be. The democratic political system also contributes by creating a template supportive of the processes of democratization which complements the drive in its favour.

There is no doubt that India has matured as a democracy with the slow but steady consolidation of representative institutions, the separation of powers, and increased participation of the people in elections. Even the prevalence of staggering inequality which BR Ambedkar had highlighted during the drafting of the 1950 Constitution did not seem to have deterred the processes of democratization. This is certainly a great achievement especially in the context of India’s South Asian neighbours that, despite having the same the same colonial legacy, are still struggling to establish democracy on a solid politico-ideological foundation. What it entails is the argument that the mere prevalence of an institutional structure purportedly supportive of democracy does not always create circumstances in which democracy thrives not just as a structure of governance but also as a process contributing to the consolidation of a mindset in its defence. By being democratic since the inauguration of the 1950 Constitution, the text that has emerged out of India’s experience helps us discern a new mode of conceptualization which is theoretically innovative and politically persuasive.

Besides seeking to understand how constitutional democracy evolved in India in the wake of colonial rule and its aftermath, the aim of this conference is also to comprehend and conceptualize its changing texture. The outcome of the 2014 national election and the recent UP assembly election confirms that the voters remain supreme and the political leaders hardly possess an authority in case they are alienated. In others words, voters are, neither predictable nor indecisive, as is generally believed, but are clear-headed while making their preferences in the polling booth.

Despite the continuity of constitutional democracy in India for more than seven decades, questions are being raised about the depth of our democratic consciousness. For instance, have we been reduced merely to being ‘voters’ who remain contended with the casting of votes in elections, or do we need to become ‘democratic citizens’ acting as a shield against the tendencies, both the state-driven and otherwise, towards undermining the very ethos, values and principles of democracy? Is it merely adequate for us, as citizens of democratic India to elect and leave the representatives to always decide for us? Is there a need to devise mechanisms other than the available-ones to make Indian democracy more accountable, participatory and deliberative?

India’s democratic trajectory is full of turns and twists which make the effort towards understanding its nature theoretically innovative and conceptually enlightening. By directing attention to the changing texture of democracy since the inauguration of the 1950 Constitution of India, the proposed conference seeks to grasp the processes contributing to the way in which it is being reconceptualized. Since the aim is to comprehend the unfolding of the processes of democratization holistically, the following thematic demarcations are proposed merely to organize the discussion during the conference:

A) understanding the 1950 Constitution and constitutionalism since the beginning of the efforts during the British rule towards constitutionalizing governance in India in liberal–democratic terms

B) comprehending the unfolding of democratic governance in independent India in the state-led development era

C) grasping of democratization of governance since the 1990s in an era of globalization and the evolution of new modes of politico-ideological mobilization around concerns for identities with the promulgation of the Mandal reservation in 1990 and the nationalist upsurges over the controversial structure in Ayodhya, known as Babri Masjid.

The objective of the conference

The concern for democratizing governance is nothing new in intellectual discourse; it was a source of concern in the past and continues to remain so even now. The objective of the conference is thus two- fold: (a) to get acquainted with the discourse that has been developed by host of scholars who endeavoured to understand the theme in their distinctive perspectives, and (b) by laying-out the available discourses, the conference seeks to provide an opportunity to the young scholars who have or are being drawn to this area of concern. It is an endeavour in mentoring the young minds in the field.

Programme Schedule

DAY-1: Thursday, 14 September 2017

9:30 am - 10:00 am Registration

10:00 am – 11:30 am INAUGURAL SESSION

Welcome Address Prof Bidyut Chakrabarty (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi) Chair’s Remarks Prof J. P. Dubey (Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Delhi) Special Guest Prof Virender Malhotra (Eminent Economist) Keynote Address Prof Ashish Nandy (Eminent Social Scientist) Vote of Thanks Prof Sunil K Choudhary (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi)

11:30 am—12:00 pm HIGH TEA

12:00 noon – 2:00 pm PLENARY SESSION

Chair: Prof Sushma Yadav (Eminent Social Scientist)

Keynote Speakers: Prof Mahesh Chandra Sharma (Eminent Social Scientist) Prof Badri Narayan (Eminent Social Scientist)

2:00 pm - 3:00 pm Lunch

3:00 pm – 5:00 pm Working Session I

Chair: Prof Bidyut Chakrabarty (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi)

Speakers: Prof Gurpreet Mahajan (Eminent Political Scientist) Dr Chandan Mitra (Eminent Journalist) Prof Dwaipayan Bhattacharyya (Eminent Political Scientist)

DAY-2: Friday, 15 September 2017

9:30 am – 11:00 am Working Session II

Chair: Prof Shri Praksh Singh (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi)

Keynote Speaker: Dr Swapan Dasgupta (Senior Journalist) Dr Jatinder Bajaj (Eminent Social Scientist)

11:00 am—11:30 am Tea/Coffee

11:30 am – 1:00 pm Working Session III

Chair: Prof Rekha Saxena (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi)

Keynote Speaker: Prof Bidyut Chakrabarty (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi) Presenters:

Dr Sangita Dhal (Kalindi College, University of Delhi) Dr Madhu Jha (Lakshmibai College, University of Delhi) Ms Shubhra Pant Kothari (Zakir Husain Delhi College, Evening, University of Delhi)

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm Lunch

2:00 pm – 3:30 pm Working Session IV

Chair: Shri Shakti Sinha (Eminent Strategic Thinker)

Keynote Speaker: Prof Deepak Pental (Eminent Scientist)

3:30 pm—3:45 pm Tea/Coffee

3:45 pm – 5:30 pm VALEDICTORY SESSION

Chair Prof. Amita Singh (Eminent Political Scientist) Special Address Dr. Gautam Bhatia (Eminent Lawyer) Guest of Honour Prof M Jagadesh Kumar (Eminent Scientist) Valedictory Address Smt. Aruna Roy (Social Activist) Vote of Thanks Prof. Bidyut Chakrabarty (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi) 5:30 pm Light Tea & Photo Session REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE

10:00 am – 11:30 am INAUGURAL SESSION

The Inaugural Session of the conference began with the welcome address by Prof. Bidyut Chakrabarty who congratulated the entire team which worked for organizing this conference and how this conference is an outcome of hardwork and perseverance and the objective of the conference lay in making it useful for young minds and help in enhancing their knowledge on democratic governance in India. He spoke about how elements such as friendship, goodwill and cooperation are integral to the success of any endeavor. Prof. Chakrabarty spoke about the contributions of various scholars to the discipline of public administration and governance such as Rajni Kothari, Partha Chatterjee, Mohit Bhattacharya, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Ashis Nandy each enlarging the conceptual process in their diverse understandings. He spoke about the inter-connections that exist between administration, governance and democracy and emphasized on understanding governance as a political process and thus conceptualize democracy in action and experience its structures, processes and functions through a dialogical engagement. He also pointed out how one has to address the inadequacies in the dominant paradigms through dialogical engagement and devise a pathway in unraveling the complexities present in democratizing governance in India. Prof. J.P. Dubey who is the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences addressed saying how administration and governance are integral to how a government operates and it is the democratic governance that could bring the issues at the level of marginality to the core, giving it some significant attention. He discussed the concept of governance as that which paves way towards creative innovations and as a concept it is mostly related to economic terms in the classificatory forms of rich and poor.

Prof. VirendraMalhotra who is an eminent economist and a member of ICSSR began his address saying that it is merit and capability that matters in governance and not ideology and one has to see governance as a inter-relation between poverty, inequality, development and governance. He said most of the social sciences have carried the notion of governance and a methodological understanding of governance derived from each discipline will open up a converged understanding of governance. The two words of the conference theme ‘democratizing’ and ‘governance’ each has its own significant value and when used together produces a significant outcome. Prof. Malhotra asserted that the process of governance is bound together by democratic elements which are non- discriminatory and people-driven and hence there is an effective delivery of government policies. He also discussed how democracy has a particular trajectory in the context of countries of South Asia and how within India one can know it through its federal features. Given the colonial legacy that these countries shared, the political path that they took differed and India particularly succeeded in democratic transition given that it gave importance to democratic governance from the very beginning, managing its illiteracy, population, multi-diversity, economic problems and social issues alongside. The other countries too have had their own experiments in democracy and this has proved that democracy is deeply rooted in our values and ethos and opined that democratic governance faces challenges and risks in the worrisome situations of poverty, crime, corruption, hero-worship, sycophancy, violence and strife. He therefore explained how in situations as these, the various institutional organs of the government should function in consonance towards efficient performance and ensure effective governance. He said that the gap between opportunity and outcome has to be bridged and equalized and make democracy a participatory experience and democracy and governance are concepts are not to be seen only at political and economic level, but requires a focus into its reflective attributes at the personal and social levels as well. Prof. Shri Prakash Singh gave a brief address indicating how India by adopting democratic governance can look for a bright future and said that one has to understand India not merely from the colonial perspective but from examples from past which acts our referents to what we are, how we were and where we are heading to.

Prof. Ashis Nandy attempted to understand the fundamental issues of contemporary times through a psychoanalytic orientation in terms of how things came to be believed and followed and particularly how science has a role in it. Prof. Nandy explained how organized violence and cruelty spread its tentacles ever since the 17th century and how the ideas of modernity, rationality and science had been factors in invoking and causing mass violence. He said that a huge majority of the violence is done by countries which can be called ‘ideological states’ and how in such states, human beings are reduced to a state of mere numbers and data and relegated to fringes of such ideological societies. He said three ideologies were responsible for the bane of humanity: nationalism, secularism and revolutionaries. Each of these ideological states laden with these propagandas has killed more people. Gory instances of slavery, apartheid, colonial conquest, elimination of Native Americans and other aboriginals, use of atomic bombs on Japan, the stringent curbing of Maoist and Naxalite movements and the examples abound. He asserted how fear, terror, hierarchy were concepts that can be found in scientific knowledge and were circulated through textbooks and literature and scientific inventions. Prof. Nandy said that science is not an ally of human compassion or democratic principles and has a tendency to work for authoritarianism and is a devastating venture. He expressed his concerns over how killings have become rampant in present times and how killing is done without any reason, without any feeling of guilt, without any presence of anger, threat or enemy. Killing has become a normal part of human affairs and is a phenomenon that is present in democracies as well. Killing and violence doesn’t need conflicts, clashes involving loss and bloodshed but is very much structural and occurs in various forms such as poverty, development induced displacements, ideological contests, elections, market place, education etc,.He said that science had made this world a faceless world, devoid of interaction, communication and cooperation, where its imbibed technological structures are monolithic and linear in nature. Science has made human beings mere statistical figures, as data for the purpose of statecraft to protect it from internal and external threats and made the society more individualistic and individuals more atomistic and self-possessed. He thus emphasized how there is an appropriation of discourses and thinkers into a dominant paradigm and how each of these appropriated narratives and discourses is afflicted with brutalities and brutalizations and expressed his doubts over India having a bright future given the atmosphere of fear, suspicion, threat, intolerance and suppression.

12:00 noon – 2:00 pm PLENARY SESSION

Chair: Prof Sushma Yadav (Eminent Social Scientist)

Keynote Speakers: Prof Mahesh Chandra Sharma (Eminent Social Scientist) Prof Badri Narayan (Eminent Social Scientist)

2:00 pm - 3:00 pm Lunch

3:00 pm – 5:00 pm Working Session I

Chair: Prof Bidyut Chakrabarty (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi) Speakers: Prof Gurpreet Mahajan (Eminent Political Scientist) Dr Chandan Mitra (Eminent Journalist) Prof Dwaipayan Bhattacharyya (Eminent Political Scientist)

GURPREET MAHAJAN

- Delved on theme of governance by trying to locate the limitations of the concept and understanding of governance. - Conceptually governance came later. It was during 1990’s governance became the buzzword. - Governance involves closure. It focuses on what we miss. For governance focuses on delivery of goods and services. It brought about facts and figures and had forgotten about ends that government should focus. - It is based on illusion that basic necessity is same for everyone that is going to be delivered better than anyone. - She questions can we assume prior consensus on what is deliverable? Democracy is what kind of future we can build. - Stop focusing on ends and goals. For example water requirement so differentiate drinking water, irrigation water etc. focus on security and community of groups - Governance does not discuss limits to deliverables and modalities of deliverables. Second focus is on RTI- Transparency as an end in itself.. this focus was discussed during 1970 in Habermas work on technical knowledge. While describing Different types of knowledge habermas differentiates among Technical knowledge, Practical Knowledge, Emancipatory Knowledge. - Capacity not translating into capital so that you can change position occupied in society. - Structures of power that exist in society which ut strains on capacity building so it does not translate into end result. - There was important constitutional moment where end we pursue and what values we need to pursue. we pursue equality between groups over individual liberty. - In this scenario no one point of view has privilege access to truth. So civic virtue that should be stressed as per Martha Nussbaum is for compassion.

CHANDAN MITRA His presentation was based on his personal experience of trying to understand democracy at the grassroots. His visits to Telenghana and Andhra Pradesh and discussion with people unraveled what was the understanding of democracy by people. A strong message was sent here, that they expect better governance which could help to delivery. Primary focus of the discussion was that experience of rural is missing among the policy makers. Therefore, the speaker suggested that at Master’s level students should be sent to villages as part of compulsory programme. This can help these future policy makers to relate to their experience better.

DWAIPAN BHATTACHARYA - In the initial phase state was given precedence over market. As a result - Firstly congress system as a consensus developed. However during 1970’s we have development of class politics literature by Parnabh Bardhan, Achin Vanik and Partha Chatterjee. So power was understood through idiom of class. Some institutions of state were already developed but state was playing classes against each other to bring out a consensus. So here we sees state is everything rather than civil society contrary to Gramsci’s thesis. This is seen is Kaviraj’s formulation of Passive revolution where small doses of revolution are taking place. - After Indira Gandhi’s coming to power populism is replaced by consensus. - However structure of Indian democracy is very slippery. Process of implementation leads to failure of transparency and says that diverse country like India it is difficult to rule from center, you ought to have decentered mindset. - Indian democracy is unpredictable. - For this we require Foucault’s notion of power that shows power in ‘governmentality’ that runs everywhere which can be understood through Government in practice.

DAY-2: Friday, 15 September 2017

9:30 am – 11:00 am Working Session II

Chair: Prof Shri Praksh Singh (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi)

Keynote Speaker: Dr Swapan Dasgupta (Senior Journalist) Dr Jatinder Bajaj (Eminent Social Scientist) .

Shri Swapan Dasgupta:- In the very beginning of his words he clears that he will be discussing today’s theme purely on the basis of historical records and content analysis in which he puts his emphasis and critical insights. He raised those issues which are, meant, highly insignificant in the field of Academia. He differentiates the Western sense of Conservative tradition with the Indic sense. For him, Conservative tradition are, unlike to Western, not brainless, stupid and not particularly right wing oriented. Undoubtedly, for him Edmund Burke laid the foundation of modern Conservative thought. But he also believes that much before Burke India is dealing with the sense to preserve its cultural, spiritual, intellectual, social heritage, which he categorized with the help of RadhaKumud Mukherji’s assertions. Exploring the principled phenomenon of Conservative tradition he proclaims that- ‘Conservative is a national or nothing. It would be ignorant to count it as anti-national’. While differentiating the Indic meaning of Conservative tradition with Orientalists views he explained that there is no appropriate Hindi translation of the term (refers Charles Bayly). Meanwhile, he puts his assertion, in the context of Vidyasagar, Radhanath Deb, Bankim, Dayanand, Jadunath Sarkar, Bhudev Mukhopadhyay, Michael Madhusudhan Dutt, Vivekananda, that not all conservative are radically orthodox, vice-versa. Along with the principled discussion over Conservative Tradition of India he deposits his concern towards India’s subjection to other European thoughts. Like Bankim, he also believed that ‘Indians are, equally, responsible for their plights and subjection in the same manner like the Moguls and Britishers. He, even, cites Bankim Chandra for that where he puts his critical account, in his Ingraj Stotra, over the nature of Babu in administration who works only for the pleasure from their English Masters. In the conclusion he remarks that likewise to other nations Conservative traditions India’s Conservative traditions is also Autonomous but, unfortunately, not being well explored.

Shri Jitendra Bajaj:- He strongly urged to reconstruct the social science for getting the vivid picture of social welfare and development. In India, the roots of democracy are very strong either in Tribal areas, Remote areas and others. According to Bajaj, people are actively participating in the democratically electoral politics. It was widely noticed by Political and many other Social Scientists that political and electoral institutions are delved deeper into the corruption at all level. For him, Indian Democracy did well but not in economic level. He while discussing the central theme elaborates Gandhian Oceanic circle of Polity which could be the best way for the division of power and authority in any democratic nation-state. There are end number of people who still have utter faith over the democracy. They actively took participation in every political process with a new hope, new faith but that will turn up into end when they found these institutions are not working according to the public mandate. That there is democracy which is acting only as structurally but functionally it is only corruption which flows into the democracy veins. In the end he proclaimed that, ‘Indeed we have had done a great job in democracy or preserving the true meaning of what democracy is but we are, still, far behind the relative amount of other democratic countries success.

11:00 am—11:30 am Tea/Coffee

11:30 am – 1:00 pm Working Session III

Chair: Prof Rekha Saxena (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi)

Keynote Speaker: Prof Bidyut Chakrabarty (Dept. of Political Science, University of Delhi) Presenters:

Dr Sangita Dhal (Kalindi College, University of Delhi) Dr Madhu Jha (Lakshmibai College, University of Delhi) Ms Shubhra Pant Kothari (Zakir Husain Delhi College, Evening, University of Delhi)

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm Lunch 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm Working Session IV

Chair: Shri Shakti Sinha (Eminent Strategic Thinker)

Keynote Speaker: Prof Deepak Pental (Eminent Scientist)

The session began by Shri Shakti Sinha dismissing the understanding of Indian democracy as weak. Shri Sinha argued that the argument of considering Indian democracy as a procedural democracy at best is an exaggeration and the process of democratization needs to be seen in the light of the long road to freedom. During 1960s, the odds were against the survival of democracy in India. Post 1990s, a second democratic revolution has occurred where the share of the lower strata has increased. India is the only democracy where the poor vote share is more than that of the rich sections of society. The disappointing fact remains that despite tremendous achievements, the capability of the people has remained underutilized. We have not been able to equip the people with the capability they deserve. Socially and economically disadvantaged people have been pushed out and there remains a gap between the aspirations and reality. Our smaller neighbours like Bangladesh are better in several indicators. So, governance, in substantive sense, needs to be achieved. Prof. Deepak Pental began his keynote speech with a humble submission that is not an expert on politics and has only written two newspaper articles on political issues. He argued that a great blessing for India was that it chose to be a constitutional democracy after gaining independence. Even though the constitution makers had difference of opinions, they did a great service by giving us a constitutional which was necessary owing to the reality of great diversity. Prof. Pental then moved on to argue that Francis Fukuyama’s End of History thesis cannot completely apply to the Indian case as Fukuyama’s definition of a liberal democracy is technologically driven and has a capitalist system. India is devoid of technology and is not completely capitalism oriented. Talking about technology-driven economies, Prof. Pental praised science as a liberator and discussed the logic of success of Western nations on the basis of Ferguson’s Ascent of Eest thesis. He talked about the great scientific feat of electrification that has changed the world completely as called it the jet-setting age. Other major achievements of human history include the developments in electronics and biological sciences. How the phenomenal progress has had unimaginable impact is an intriguing fact. However, development in agriculture has rarely been talked about; the world not have survived without these developments. What took Europe 300 years has been achieved by East Asian nations in 40 years. Another major point discussed related to how the very developed societies fought during the second world war and the defeat of fascism by democracies, end of colonialism and later the fall of communism drove nations to think in terms of ‘how to govern’. Moving to the Indian case, Prof. Pental discussed the need to deepen democracy and the way to do this, for him, required to go against three things: ‘caste’, ‘corruption’ and ‘complacency’. These three problems are interlinked. Talking about corruption, Prof. Pental discussed that the problem is more at the lower levels and the issue is related to that of complacency. We have an attitude of not pursuing things with the required zeal. This ‘chalta hai’, ‘ho jayega’ sort of attitude has impeded general prosperity. The two reason for complacency and corruption arises from the caste system and he discussed that the non-inclusive caste system has led our mindset in the direction of creating bourdaries between subjects and between the levels of bureaucracy. He discussed the views of major reformers and argued that the ultimate destruction of caste could only come through prosperity. Even though we have liberty and equality, we lack the ideal of fraternity. We live together but there is a sense of exclusion. This can only be dealt with through general prosperity brought about by science and technology. As Nehru claimes, science will liberate us from the dogmas. But far more than science, we need to have mastery over technology. If Japan could do it, why can’t we? Prof. Pental attributed the Narendra Modi’s win to his call for ‘sabka sath sabka vikas’ that seeks to have inclusive development. Towards the end, he talked about two levels of reforms: transparency and efficient judiciary. All the money spent by political parties must be in the knowledge of the people. Also, even though we have rule of law, the judiciary is very slow. So, we need to break away from this complacency. Prosperity needs to be seen as the fourth pillar of Indian democracy. Franternity cannot be forced, but we can have prosperity. By achieving prosperity, we can break away from the frames of exclusion.

3:45 pm – 5:30 pm VALEDICTORY SESSION

Aruna Roy discussed the significance of Jan Sunwais and how and why it could acquire democratic legitimacy that agitations did not have. These Jan Sunwais were dramatic affairs that gave courage to the exploited to discuss their problems openly. The Jan Sunwais had a multiplier effect. The mode of the Jan Sunwai proved to be a complementary force in breaching the walls of control and exclusion. The 1996 dharna in Rajasthan put forth an immediate demand for an amendment in the Panchayati Raj law to allow citizens to obtain certified photocopies of any document in local government offices. Particular focus was placed on records of expenditure like bills, vouchers and muster rolls.Simultaneously, a demand was made for a comprehensive law for the People’s Right to Information in all spheres of governance. This calibrated approach has characterized the right to information campaign, where partial success has been used as a wedge to extract greater and greater openness. Resistance to the people’s efforts to ease access to public records has been strong. For example, it took over two years before the amendments to the Panchayati Raj rules were made. But the resistance to provide a legal entitlement only served to highlight the importance of such a provision and helped more people understand its great potential. In addition to agitational activities like dharnas and rallies, the continuous use of the mode of public hearings helped apply these concepts, even while the struggle was on. It is often found that ordinary people stretch their ethics to make the system work for themselves. As they say in rural Rajasthan, “Yatho jack ho, yacheque ho (You must have contacts to use or money for bribes).” It is in the context of cynicism, apathy and despair that the story of the efforts for change of ordinary people in a small part of Rajasthan becomes remarkable and significant. The right to information demand formulated initially by members of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) is indeed a story of the extraordinary efforts of ordinary people. A combination of their clarity of thought and purpose and their instinctive understanding of the problems they faced in their lives has led to simple and 3 straightforward translations of their ideas into practice.

Gull Wani

Gull Wani emphasized on the point that it is not the existence of Article 370 that creates problems for integration of J and K with the Indian polity rather its non-implementation and gradual erosion of the autonomy enshrined in Article 370. He argued that though we cannot overlook the fact if underdevelopment of the state in economic terms and its link with the existence of unrest but we cannot replace the project of autonomy with the project of development. He questioned the overemphasis on Article 370 a site of critique and the silence on Article 371 that gives special powers to North-eastern states and tribal regions within the Indian federation.

Gautam Bhatia

Gautam Bhatiaraised the neglected issue of democracy in the domain of family or private sphere. Democracy is usually confined to public sphere and recognition of equality amongst individuals. Bhatia provoked us to think over the application of democratic norms such as equality to the private sphere and question the naturalness of power relations within the family that act as determent for expansion of democracy to the private sphere.