Appendix I: Mahila Samakhya Program Structural Hierarchy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Appendix I: Mahila Samakhya Program Structural Hierarchy Literacy camps, vocational trainings, Sanghas (village- Literacy centers at MSK school for women and level collectives) the village level girls in Karwi, Chitrakoot district, Uttar Pradesh Sahyogini (supervisor of cluster of ten villages) District Resource District Implementation Groups (NGOs, Unit (DIU) (coordinators, training groups) consultants, support staff) State MS Society State Office State Resource Group Executive Committee (with (project director, (NGOs, resource Government of India, consultants, institutions) State Government, support staff) women activists) National Resource Group (NRG) (guidance, support, policy) National Office (project director, consultants, support staff) Notes Introduction 1. James Ferguson, The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 17. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid., 18. 5. Michel Foucault (1971, 1973). 6. Ferguson (1990), 18. 7. Ibid., 20. 8. Ibid., 75–89. 9. Ibid., 255–256. 10. Ibid., 275. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid., 274. 13. Ibid., 271–273. 14. Ibid., 276. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid., 277. 17. I am modifying Ferguson’s argument based on my experience of a govern- ment program in India. Through his experience of the Thaba Tseka govern- ment project in Lesotho, he is led to disagree with Foucault’s argument that in the conduct of “biopolitics,” the state assumes a “central, coordinating, managing” role. Instead, Ferguson argues, “growth of power does not imply any sort of efficient, centralized social engineering role” but that “power relations must be increasingly referred to through bureaucratic circuits; there is no single relationship.” I would argue, based on my experience of a government program in India, that in order to re-assume its “central, coor- dinating, managing role” (undermined by the new global politics of liberal- ization and by the scandals of the state in the early 1990s) state bureaucracy requires that power relations (ideological and otherwise) not be referred through its circuits, national or local. The bureaucracy in making policy- making itself public and inviting large-scale public investment in its con- ceptualization and its implementation was not only relocating itself as the reference point for a modality of governance, it was dispersing the modality itself. But through just such a strategy, the bureaucracy was intending to spatialize the authority of the state, its “central, managing role,” as never before. Ferguson (1990), 274. 18. Ferguson (1990), 17. 234 Notes 19. Kamala Visweswaran, Fictions of Feminist Ethnography (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994). See chapter 3, “Betrayal: An Analysis in Three Acts,” 40–59, for more discussion on “partial perspectives.” 20. Ferguson (1990), 20. 21. Ibid., 20–21. 22. Ibid., 270 or 251–277. 23. Ibid., 256. 24. Ibid., 276. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid., 256. 27. Visweswaran, Chapter 3, “Betrayal: An Analysis in Three Acts,” in Fictions of Feminist Ethnography, 40–59. 28. Ibid., 41. 29. Ibid. 30. Elizabeth Spelman, Inessential Woman: Problem of Exclusion in Feminist Thought (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1990), 178–179. 31. Martha Nussbaum, Sex and Social Justice (London, New York, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), 46. Here Nussbaum, borrowing the idea of citizen as free and dignified human being from John Rawls, defines “capa- bilities” as representative of those “activities characteristically performed by human beings that are so central that they seem definitive of the life that is truly human” (like life and bodily health). 32. Nussbaum, Sex and Social Justice (1999), 41–42. 33. Vivienne Jabri, “Feminist Ethics and Hegemonic Global Politics” (Alternatives, v. 29, n. 3, 2004), 265–284. 34. Uma Narayan, Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third World Feminism (New York: Routledge Press, 1997), 122. One “Education for Women’s Equality and Empowerment”: The Mahila Samakhya Program (MS) (1989) 1. NPE (1986, 92) item 4.1, 7. 2. Ibid., item 2.1, 4. 3. Ibid., items 2.2 and 2.3, 4. 4. Ibid., item 3.13, 7. Generally education is an item in the Concurrent list, which means it is the simultaneous responsibility of the states and of the Union government as per the Constitutional Amendment of 1976. But the NPE granted the Union government more responsibility and, therefore, the greater burden of implementing this NPE in the best way possible. 5. NPE, Part IV, 8. 6. Ibid., item 4.2, 8. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. Notes 235 10. Ibid., item 4.4, 8. 11. Ibid., Part VIII, item 4.5, number iv and v, 8. 12. Ibid., item 4.8, p. 10. 13. Mahila Samakhya: Genesis, item 1.1.3. 14. Genesis, section, 1.2, item 1.2.1. 15. Ibid., item 2.6, 3. 16. Ibid., item 1.2.1. The program was extended to Andhra Pradesh at the end of 1992 and to Kerala in 1998–99. In 2002, after Uttaranchal was carved out as a separate state from Uttar Pradesh, a separate program was started in Uttaranchal. From 2003 to 2004, the program covered Assam, Bihar, and Jharkhand. 17. Genesis, 4. 18. Ibid., section 2.1, item 2.1.1, 2. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid., item 2.5, 3. 22. Ibid., 3–4. 23. Ibid., item 2.8, 4. 24. Ibid., 4. 25. Ibid., 4. 26. Ibid., 5. 27. Ibid., item 2.11, 5. 28. See website www.absss.org.in/for more details on “Gopalji’s” organization. 29. “On May 6, 1997, a new district was carved out of Banda district and was named Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Nagar but was renamed as Chitrakoot on September 4, 1998.” Source: chitrakoot.nic.in/modern-history.htm. According to the Census of India, 2001, “Chitrakoot division is an admin- istrative division of U.P. state in northern India and includes the districts of Banda, Chitrakoot, Hamirpur, and Mahoba.” The Census also shows “Chitrakoot” as different from “Chitrakoot dham” [or pilgrimage site]. Chitrakoot is the district/division and Chitrakoot dham is the central train station in downtown Karwi, a town in Chitrakoot. The dham refers to the important and sacred Hindu sites located in various parts of Chitrakoot that draw their references from such Hindu mythological texts/oral traditions such as the Ramayana. Therefore, it is an important pilgrimage site for north Indian Hindus. 30. See appendix 1—project structures (district, state, and national levels) of Mahila Samakhya program. 31. Nirantar, Windows to the World: Developing a Participatory Curriculum for Rural Women (New Delhi, 1997). 32. See Sharma, chapter 6 (this book) and Nirantar, 1997. 33. Abha Bhaiya and Kalyani Menon-Sen, Knowledge Is Like Flowing Water: A Collection of Theme Papers from the Mahila Samakhya Programme (Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi, undated), 34–35 34. Ibid. 35. Nirantar, 1997. 236 Notes 36. See Sharma, chapter 6 (this book) and Bhaiya and Menon-Sen, undated. 37. Bhaiya and Menon-Sen, 35–36. 38. See Sharma, chapter 5 (this book) 39. See Bhaiya and Menon-Sen: undated, Sharma, chapter 6 (this book). 40. See Sharma, chapter 6 (this book). 41. See Nirantar, Windows to the World, 1997. 42. Ibid. 43. See Sharma, chapter 5 (this book). 44. See Partha Chatterjee, Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993, chapters 6 and 7), 116–157. 45. See Radha Kumar, History of Doing: An Illustrated Account of Movements for Women’s Rights and Feminism in India, 1800–1990 (New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1993); and Aparna Basu, Feminism and Nationalism in India, 1917–1947, Journal of Women’s History, Volume 7, Number, 4 (Winter), 1995. 46. Radha Kumar, 1993. 47. Ibid. 48. Neema Kudwa. “Uneasy Partnerships? Government-NGO Relations in India” (Working Paper 673, June 1996), 1–45. 49. Radha Kumar, 1993. 50. Ibid. 51. Kudwa, 1996. 52. MS program document, 1988. 53. Ibid., 81. 54. Balaji Pandey, “Post-independence Educational Development among Women in India” (paper presented in the seminar on “Women in Changing Society” at the Center for Women’s Development Studies, University of Hyderabad, March, 1987), 3. 55. Pandey, 78. 56. Ibid., 95. 57. Ibid., 95, pt. 12. 58. Ibid., 96–97. 59. Ibid., 98, pts. 15 and 16. 60. Mohammed Yunus and Karl Weber, Creating a World without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism (New York: Public Affairs, 2007), 86–90. 61. Ibid. 62. See Tazul Islam, Microcredit and Poverty Alleviation (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publications, 2007); Shahidur Khandker, Fighting Poverty with Microcredit (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Aminur Rahman, Women and Microcredit in Rural Bangladesh: An Anthropological Study of the Rhetoric and Realities of Grameen Bank Lending (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999); David Hume and Arun Thankom, Microfinance: A Reader (London, New York: Routledge, 2009); Jude L. Fernando, Microfinance: Perils and Prospects (London, New York: Routledge, 2006); Howard Jacob-Koeger, Shortchanged: Life and Debt in the Fringe Economy (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2005). Notes 237 63. See Sharma, chapter 4 (this book) for a short review of microfinance pro- cesses in Biyur village in Chitrakoot subdivision, Uttar Pradesh, 2002. 64. “The World’s Women: Progress in Statistics,” 1995. 65. See Patricia and Roger Jeffery, Population, Gender and Politics: Demographic Change in Rural India (Ca mbridge: Ca mbridge Un iversit y Press, 1997), Mon i Nag and Anrudh Jain, Female Primary Education and Fertility Reduction in India (New York: Population Council, 1995); Krishna Kumar, Political Agenda of Education: A Study of Nationalist and Colonialist Ideas (New Delhi, Newbury Park, CA: Sage University Press, 1991); Malvika Karlekar, A Slow Transition from Womanhood to Personhood: Can Education Help? (New Delhi: Center for Women’s Development Studies, 1989); Karuna Chanana, Socialisation, Women, and Education, Explorations in Gender Identity (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1988). 66. Beijing Conference, 1995, Draft A: Introduction. 67. Background Document, World Conference on Education for All: Meeting Basic Needs, Jomtien, Thailand, March 5–9, 1990 (InterAgency Commission, UNICEF House, 3 United Nations Plaza, New York, April 1990), 1.