BEYOND NEOPATRIMONIALISM: A NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICAL INQUIRY INTO LEGITIMACY AND STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE IN POST-COLONIAL INDIA A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By Ashish Akhil Vaidya July 2015 Examining Committee Members: Joseph M. Schwartz, Advisory Chair, Political Science Jane A. Gordon, Political Science and Africana Studies, University of Connecticut Hillel D. Soifer, Political Science Sean L. Yom, Political Science Bhrigupati Singh, Anthropology, Brown University i ABSTRACT The purpose of this project is to demonstrate that the rational-legal bureaucratic institutions inherited by post-colonial states from their former colonial patrons have clashed with indigenous cultural norms, leading to legitimation failure. This lack of legitimacy, in turn, leads to political and bureaucratic corruption among the individuals tasked with embodying and enforcing the norms of these bureaucratic institutions. Instances of corruption such as bribery and solicitation of bribes, misappropriation of public funds, nepotistic hiring practices, and the general placement of personal gain over the rule of law on the part of officials weaken the state’s ability and willingness to enforce its laws, promote stability and economic growth, and ensure the welfare of its citizens. This corruption and its multidimensional detrimental effects on the lives of citizens are forms of what has been called structural violence. In this project, I examine four case studies of Indian subnational states that have experienced varying degrees and types of colonial bureaucratic imposition, resulting in divergent structurally violent outcomes. Deeming these systems “violent” has normative implications regarding responsibility for the problems of the post-colonial world. Corruption is often cited as a reason not to give loans or aid to certain developing countries; but viewing the matter in terms of structural violence highlights the need for not only economic assistance but also institutional overhaul. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not have been possible without the immeasurable support of certain people in my life. I thank my parents, Akhil and Sheila Vaidya, for giving me unconditional love and a passion for both knowledge and social justice; my brother, Avinash Vaidya, for helping me to put things in perspective, and for lifting my spirits during difficult times with his odd sense of humor; my fiancée, Heather Bosak, for her constant love, support, patience and insight; and the extended Vaidya and Nayak clans (including those who don’t have the names Vaidya or Nayak) for being the best family support network I could have ever asked for. I thank Joseph Schwartz, my advisory chair, for first sparking my interest and then providing me with a solid foundation in political theory; Jane Gordon, for stirring my passion for postcolonial theory and for tremendous academic guidance and emotional support throughout this process; Hillel Soifer, for believing in my vision and for investing a great deal of time and effort into helping me to turn a disorganized amalgamation of thoughts and ideas into a coherent project; Sean Yom, for his thoughtful and constructive feedback at various stages of this work; and Bhrigupati Singh, for agreeing to be my external examiner and for providing me with a much needed perspective on my individual cases as a scholar of India. I thank Nick Catsis for being both a great friend and an intellectual sparring partner throughout my time in graduate school. I also thank Brian Shott, Arnold Kim and Danielle Scherer for their unfailing companionship, support and advice. I thank Richard Deeg for his guidance and mentorship in teaching, research and coursework; Sandra Suarez, Michael Hagen and Kevin Arceneaux for investing in me as chairs of the graduate program; and Antonio Lucero for setting me on my path of scholarship during my first year of graduate school. I thank the iii faculty and graduate students of the Temple University Department of Political Science for collectively providing me with intellectual and social nourishment over the years. I thank Lori Salem, Lorraine Savage, Jennifer Follett, Leslie Allison, and the wonderful staff at the Temple University Writing Center for supporting me and giving me the opportunity to help others with the writing process, thus enabling me to better evaluate my own work. I thank Rajiv Vora for inspiring me during my brief stay in New Delhi and revitalizing my perspective on my own work; and I thank Ashis Nandy and Manorajnan Mohanty for giving me the opportunity to tap into their vast knowledge and insight. Last but certainly not least, I thank my dear friends Christiana Yunkunis and John Walters for helping me to create and maintain a balance in my life between work and leisure, and for teaching me to enjoy both. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………..iii CHAPTER 1. STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE: A NORMATIVE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK…………………………………………………………...............1 Johann Galtung and the Expanded Definition of Violence…………….................5 Max Weber: Legitimation, Rational-Legalism and Bureaucracy………………..18 Layered Hegemony and Colonial Legacies……………………………………...24 “Neopatrimonialism” and the Loss of Democratic Reciprocity…………………29 Neopatrimonialism as a Manifestation of Structural Violence………………..…36 2. EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE………..…...42 Review of Literature……………………………………………………..42 Case Studies……………………………………………………………...57 Colonialism, Culture and Corruption………………………………….…69 3. THE VIOLENCE OF GOOD INTENTIONS…………………………………...74 Introduction and Pre-Colonial History…………………………………...74 Colonialism: The Conquest………………………………………………86 The Permanent Settlement and Its Legacy……………………………….89 Caste Codification under Colonialism…………………………...………93 Modern Bihar: The Bureaucracy………………………………………...96 Modern Bihar: The Fault Lines of Politics………………………………98 4. THE MITIGATION OF VIOLENCE THROUGH URBANIZATION AND AGENCY………………………………………………………………………105 Bombay, 1534-1900…………………………………………………….109 v Maratha Interior, 1674-1818……………………………………………116 British Rule, 1818-1947………………………………………...………122 Revenue: The Ryotwari System…………………………………..…….124 Caste…………………………………………………………………….127 Party System…………………………………………………...……….128 Panchayat Raj…………………………………………………………...130 Modern Maharashtra……………………………………………………134 5. INDIGENOUS INSTITUTIONAL CONTINUITY AND DEMOCRATIC SUCCESS…………………………………………………………..…………..138 Introduction and Historical Background………………………………..138 The Janmi System: A Comparative Case of Landlord Dynamics……...145 The Enduring Legacy of Matriliny……………………………………..148 Literacy, Education and Civil Society………………………………….153 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...162 6. FRAGMENTATION, FAILURE AND POST-COLONIAL CONFLICT…….164 Introduction…………………………………………………………….164 Historical Background………………………………………………….168 Princely States…………………………………………………..168 Tribal Societies and Governance……………………………….173 Independence and Incorporation………………………………..183 Post-Independence Politics…………………………………………......184 7. RAMIFICATIONS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS………………………189 The Empirics of the Colonial Legacy…………………………………..190 Toward a New Theory of Structural Violence………………………….199 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………205 vi CHAPTER 1. STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE: A NORMATIVE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Violence is at the center of politics. All forms of political expression revolve around how to control violence and how to eliminate its undesirable manifestations. Violence lurks in the shadows of all political discourse, at times bursting into the forefront of political life and at others seeping subtly into policymaking. The relationship between violence and political legitimacy is complex and contentious. The aim of this project is to use the concept of structural violence to explain postcolonial neopatrimonialism through legitimation failure. This chapter will put forth my view of how violence should be conceptualized, how popular perceptions of legitimacy relate to violence, and the intermediary role that cultural hegemony plays with respect to these concepts. In particular, I will define and explore the concepts of structural violence and hegemony for the sake of challenging dominant conceptions of the reasons for and meanings of “neopatrimonialism,” particularly within postcolonial contexts. In a certain respect, the main questions that I want to address in this project concern the relationship of legitimacy to violence. This is an issue that can be explored on many levels, from the familial and communal to the geopolitical realms. For our purposes here, we shall focus primarily on statewide, internal manifestations of legitimacy and violence. Of course, manifestations on the state level are often greatly influenced by localized, regional or international events. This is an issue that we shall address in due course. 1 In modern democracies, the threat of “legitimate force” is synonymous with the rule of law as embodied in the bureaucratic order. When law is broken in a modern rational-legal state, this force is dispatched to restore order. Here, it is important that we make a distinction between the concepts of “force” and “violence.” Max Weber famously defined the state as an organization with a “monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory.” Some English translations have used the phrase “legitimate use of violence” instead of “force.”1 In essence, these scholars