State Practices from India's Watershed Development Programme
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Decentralised Development: State Practices from India's Watershed Development Programme Vasudha Chhotray Department of Development Studies School of Oriental and African Studies University of London 2003 Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of London ProQuest Number: 10672940 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10672940 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Abstract Decentralisation is now central in the theorisation and practice of contemporary government. Within the contemporary mainstream discourse, decentralisation is projected as a policy move to localise as well as reduce the domain of state intervention. This discourse is supported by the new institutionalist, communitarian and New Political Economy (NPE) theories. However, the concept of decentralisation, as underpinned by these theories, rests on highly questionable assumptions regarding the relationships between individuals, communities, markets and states. In the process of defining decentralisation simplistically, as 'less of state’, the critical relationship between decentralisation and the state remains ill theorised. This is the principal problem addressed in the thesis. The particular context of study is India. The recent restructuring of the national Watershed Development Programme (NWDP), in 1994, encompasses the key issues confronting decentralisation in India today. The major elements of such policy reform embody familiar tensions between planning, politics and participation. Moreover, they appear to skirt panchayat reform, which has been long contested, in general, the 1994 watershed guidelines mirror the broader Indian development strategy, and bear a strong thrust towards viewing development apoliticaily. This is of consequence given the postcolonial context of development as the principal basis of state power in India. Based on empirical research in two Indian states, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the thesis reveals a strong association between the extent to which development can be depoliticised, and the political context of decentralisation in each state. This context is informed by the contingent relationship between panchayat reform, bureaucratic reorganisation and participatory watershed development. The analysis shows how different actors engaged in programme implementation interpret the guidelines, and their development discourse, differently. In the process, they adapt ruling development ideas according to their own interests and institutional histories. The thesis argues that these are influenced by the prevailing political context of decentralisation. The principal conclusions thus establish the important relationship between decentralisation and the state. First, decentralisation can vitally impact the use of the development discourse as the basis for state power. Moreover, decentralisation increases the interface of the development discourse with regional and local actors, who shape the discourse further in innumerable new ways. Second, decentralisation reveals and enhances the disaggregated nature of the Indian state. The blurred boundaries between ‘official’, ‘local’ and ‘popular’ power contribute both to the fluidity of decentralisation processes, as well as their positive potential for change. Far from being ‘less of state’, as dominant theoretical positions might conclude, the thesis shows that decentralisation augments the many dimensions of the state, its power, authority, effectiveness and accessibility. Acknowledgements I am deeply grateful to my supervisor, Rathin Roy, for his inspiration, nurturing and incisive guidance. I am equally thankful to my research advisor, Subir Sinha, for the generosity of his intellectual inputs. 1 thank Sudipta Kaviraj for his stimulating insights. I am indebted to the Felix Trust for awarding me generously for this research. I also thank the School of Oriental and African Studies and the Central Research Fund, Senate House, University of London, for their handsome fieldwork grants. I was fortunate to have met many wonderful people during my year of fieldwork in India, who helped me generously. I owe much to Snehalatha, Satyananda Mishra, Rashmi and Sanjeev Shami, Hariranjan and Nupur Rao and Sandeep Dikshit, who welcomed me to their homes and supported my research in every way possible. My deepest thanks also to Srinivas Reddy, Sunil Chaturvedi and Viju, for giving me advice, insights and information, at the cost of personal risk. I take this opportunity to thank Deven for his help in my village research, and his friendship. I was very lucky to have found a wonderful and loyal group of fieldwork assistants, and my special thanks to Mukesh and Ram Prakash for their affection and patience. To Sunita and Vani, my translators, 1 owe appreciation for their intelligent and perceptive assistance. I am indebted to my friends in India, Anasuya Mathur, Farhad Vania, Amitabh Behar, Adarsh Kumar, Anju Yadav, Devna Dwivedi and Sarabha Reddy, and elsewhere, Mikiko Mizutani and Leila Farsakh, for their unwavering support. I owe special thanks to Priya Das for her constant faith in me, and her companionship. I am grateful to Sebastian Taylor for sharpening my ability to question what I thought I believed in. 1 thank my friends in London, Rajiv Narayan, Julika Rollin, Atreyee Sen, Keiko Okawa, Jonathan Pattenden, Victoria Chisala and Jasmine Subasat whose joyful company has kept me going. There are many others who remain unnamed, but gratefully remembered. I want to acknowledge, with deep gratitude, Prodeepta and Kaumudi Das, Amrita and Prita for being my family away from home in London. To Chris, I owe thanks for his love, patience and unflinching support. I am grateful to my mother for her love, and to my brother for lightening my worries with humour. My greatest debt is to my father for instilling in me confidence and courage. Table of Contents Abstract ..............................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................................ii List of tables, figures and maps ....................................................................................................viii Thesis Layout................................... ix Part 1 1. Introduction: Decentralisation Ontology 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Theoretical bases of decentralisation: Principal conceptual prescriptions ............................... 2 2.1 Liberalism and the justification of the state ................................................................ 2 2.2 The communitarian response to liberal individualism ............................................... 3 2.3 Rational Choice School and the justification of the state ..........................................3 2.4 New Institutionalism .....................................................................................................5 2.5 The ‘communitarian’ response to the collective choice problem ..............................6 2.6 Community based solutions for collective action .......................................................7 2.7 Public Choice Theory: Rent seeking and the state as ‘predatory’ ........................... 8 2.8 The centralised rent-seeking state: Economic arguments for decentralisation....10 2.9 Decentralisation: Individual, market, community and state .................................... 11 3. The ‘Political Settlement’ Approach ..........................................................................................14 4. Tryst with development............................. ..... ...........................................................................18 4.1 The resilience of development ideology...................................................................18 4.2 Decentralisation and Development: A mutually constitutive relationship... .......... 19 4.3 Participatory Development ........................................................................................ 21 5. Typologies of Decentralisation ..................................................................................................23 6. Decentralised Development: State andCivil Society ...............................................................26 6.1 Limitations in western perspectives .......................................................................... 27 6.2 Gramsci and his critics ................................................................ 29 6.3 A modified Gramscian approach ...............................................................................34 2. Decentralisation and Development in India 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................