It'd be interesting to look at one of civil society's major organs, the human rights organizations. It is commonplace in keralam to accuse many of them as masks of "Islamic fundamentalist outfits". The logic is simple and modern: "humans" cannot and should not have other identities in this realm of universal rights. Not even the idea of "lesser humans" could be legitimate! It's amazing that the civil society in keralam is so comfortable with this logic that majority of our civil society idols subscribe to it lock, stock and barrel. This is exclusion at its best. So it'd be worthwhile, as damodar suggests if we could deploy Partha Chatterjee's concept of civil/political society critically in this context.
----- Original Message ---- From: damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Green Youth Movement <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 2 June, 2008 6:36:21 AM Subject: [GreenYouth] civil society & left Hello, Sorry for the pretty longish posting. This is only to share a few thoughts that came up after reading TT Srrekumar's "Civil Society and Left". Hope some of you have seen and read the articles in this book and also saw the reviews that recently appeared in malayalam weeklies. mnw, Sreekumar has referred to a discussion in an e-group in one of his articles and to a particular posing by nri youth. As a person who closely observes discussion in e-groups, my posting here has some justification!!!! 1. In the aftermath of the soviet coup led by the CPSU PB members in 1991, which dislodged Gorabachev, people came out in large to the streets to protest and strike against this take over of the soviet state. The reports of these days points to the uncertainty and tension mounting on the streets. But people were determined to face the eventualities. They put up barricades. Within a few days after the direct confrontation between soviet military and people, the world came to know that coup has collapsed. 2. This urgent gathering of the people right in Moscow square was something the empire never would've imagined. What made this possible? The civil society was till then conditioned to exist as, TT Sreekumar says, a "civic engagement." (In the article "Class struggle and the Marginalized). 3. The resentment against the soviet state was brewing in the minds of soviet people, which gradually evolved and solidified through the period of glasnost. The emotional release points at schools, universities, offices, factories, home since the introduction of glasnost would've certainly enabled people to associate and restore (!) the possibilities of a civil society. Here, the civil society was in direct opposition to the soviet state. 4. Except two years of emergency under the rule of a CPI Chief Minister and a constabulary headed by Karunakaran, Kerala is indeed fortunate not to have experienced a tyrannical regime. But then the civil society in Kerala did not in that sense evolved in direct opposition to state as perhaps has happened in Europe, Latin America etc. However, the new micro-movements which strengthened and democratized civil society had to face the severe onslaught from the political society along with the state repression. 5. Sreekumar's assessment of the emergence of new social movements and its resilient strength to put upfront concerns hitherto marginalized by the political society and the conditioned Left is premised in the concept of civil society. The concept is western in its origin. Nevertheless, it is impossible to understand the political modernity of non-western society without the concepts originated in western social and historical conditions. But then it is equally important to field the concept in our own grounds. How has Sreekumar grounded the concept of civil society in the political processes of Kerala? 6. The beginning article of the book titled "space of civil society and spaces in civil society" is informed with conceptualizations of civil society. 7. Central to the assessment of NSM is the distinction set forth by Sreekumar between the concept of civil society as propagated by the "Nallam Lokam" and people's plan theorist and his idea of 'civil society'. Sreekumar initially points to the fact that it is difficult to advance praxis on a pre-condition that civil society is a "realm of freedom". As he remarks, it is also an area colonized by the post-Marxists, religion, market fundamentalists, bourgeois liberal and organizations like RSS. 8. Rejecting the notion of civil society as applied in the literature of people's movements and auxiliary organizations, Sreekumar derives a new meaning for civil society informed with a Gramscian understanding, which is well- rooted in the politics of Kerala. Nevertheless, civil society is not devoid of problems inherent to it as several interests compete with each other. 9. Crucial to this understanding of 'civil society' is the distinction between civil and political society. Political society, in this sense, is venue for the instruments of the state to enforce and perpetuate their interest. Whereas civil society is a venue constituted by different agencies such as new social movements, independent individuals, spokespersons of the market etc. 10. Political society and the state are relentlessly opposed to civil society initiatives. The single-issue movements, micro-political mobilizations, identity-based political movements which have evolved through the period had to face the brute forces of the state and the political society. 11. Very importantly, Sreekumar in the article "Class struggles and the marginalized" calls to our attention the structure of the civil society, which is its inclusiveness. The inclusiveness is identified as an issue. The inclusiveness facilitates the forces of market and capital to intrude into and appropriate the civil spaces. II. Political society: after-effects 1. It is agreed that civil society is inclusive by nature. But then it is also the point of disagreement. From here the vulnerability of the concept of the "civil society" begins to get exposed. Because the civil society is inclusive only to the extent that the entry into this "inclusive zone" is based on an exclusive mobilization strength. 2.Sreekumar identifies the new social movements that have ignited the political imagination of Kerala. They are the movements led by the fishworkers, women, adivasis and broad-based environmental groups. 3.The struggles of Adivais, Fish workers, and women's movement all signify the agility and politics of the possible of the civil society. In developmental discourse, the communities were originally termed as 'outliers' of development. It is also an indication of the way dominant developmental discourse coming to terms with the new social movements. The NSM largely also brought into the question of citizenry and spoke on behalf of constitutional rights, which were denied to them. 4. Through persistent struggles, these movements could mobilize from inside and strengthen the base within the community and seek attention of the public at large. I am not disputing the liberating possibilities of these movements. 5.With respect to citizenry, which is territorial by nature, the civil society reduces itself to an exclusive zone as and when the 'minorities" seek civil rights. By minorities, I mean, perhaps numerically limited and "visibility" limited people such as sexual minorities, Pakistan citizens living in Kerala, Sex workers, and migrant laborers. 6.The mobilization of fisher community, adivasis and dalits are possible not only based on identity issue but also as they raise concerns of political economy. In short of an effective political mobilization seeking concerns beyond political economy, the "minorities" work outside the 'civil society". 7.To engage with such contemporary issues of concern, a new understanding and conceptualization of "civil society" and "political society" is needed. Partha Chaterjee outlining of "political society", which very different from the Gramscian notion gains much importance in this context. 8.According to Partha Chaterjee: "The institutional forms of this emergent political society are unclear......the uncertain mobilization of this domain of political society can be traced to the absence of a sufficiently differentiated and flexible notion of community in the theoretical conception of the modern state." 9.The four features of political society are 1. Many of the mobilization in the political society are founded on a violation of law. 2. Even as they appear before the state as violators of the law, they demand governmental welfare as a matter of right. 3. Even as welfare functions are demanded as a right, these are rights are to be seen collective rights. 4. The agencies of the state and of NGO deal with these people not as bodies of citizens belonging to a lawfully constituted civil society, but as population groups deserving welfare. 10.It is also worth observing how the civil society with competing interests responded to different new social movements. After the initial ice-cold response to Plachimada, political parties, media (part of civil society interest) joined the movement. Political society (Gramscian version) participated in the agitation. I remember a dyfi leader stating that "plachimada is not a local issue but an 'inter-national one because we are fighting against the exploitation of a MNC'. 11. It is good that large participation facilitated the agitation. Mathrubhumi syndicated the cause of plachimada (also express highway). LSG was called for issuing orders to lock out the factory as part of the constitutional rights accorded to LSGs. 12. As there was an anti-imperial cause and we were fighting a global (any ways, not one among us), a large participation of the political parties was possible. 13. On key developmental issues including rehabilitation due to the impact of a developmental project, participation from the civil society and involvement of the political society is possible. 14. But then for an issue in which the identity rights are the central concern, civil society refuses to recognize the issue. The stand taken by the media is particularly to be noted. This not mere media-baiting. But an urgent and non-partisan fourth estate critique. 15. How can we forget the stand of environmental groups imploring the government to vacate Adivasis from Muthanga. Civil society took an antithetical stand till the happening of Muthanaga tragedy. And Chengara land struggle is alive before us. 16. I am only pointing that the high hopes about civil society politics in this context are doubtful. Let me come to the point indicated at the beginning about civic engagement. Despite the valiant struggles waged by the NSMs, the political society (parties etc.) and the state have domesticated (disciplined) the civil society to exist as civic engagement. And colliding with these forces is the fifth estate, namely NGOs. 17. The mention of NGOs needs clarification. (A very good discussion had taken shape in greenyouth on ngos and social movements) The point is that the domain of NGOs is also the civil society. They even term themselves as civil society organization. Many of the NGOs and NGO leadership has evolved with the mobilization at a national level along with the Chipko, Baliyapal, Narmada .. Right to information movement. Since these times, we know that it is not difficult for a new social movement morph into an NGO evacuating the politics of ignition. The reverse process has also perhaps taken place. But then it is relatively less. 18. State has bestowed a kind of legitimacy to NGOs as you can see retired academics and civil servants (including voluntarily retired!!) launching NGOs. State legitimizes these NGO as a master to tame the new social mobilizations. Such statist agencies, which provide very lucrative jobs are no problem to the extent they perform statist functions. But then NSMs has to definitely think twice before aligning with such NGOs which intends to perform functions other than statist. The purpose of such NGOs is to condition the civil society into civic engagement; a sort of containment strategy. 19. Hardt and Negri in their work "empire" while discussing the withering away of civil society in the contemporary period, terms schools, family, hospital etc., which are closely related to the understanding of civil society, as disciplinary societies. In a similar vien, the NGOs also constitute disciplinary society. 20. In relation to the above, let me also point to the role of family as disciplined variant of the civil society. We are discussing this at a time when CPM is conducting "kudumba souhrada sangamam' in anticipation of the parliamentary elections. Originally, such family get-togethers were part of the Christian missionary work. Such get-togethers organized by a political party are definitely going to have long-time ramifications as 'family' is a very powerful unit in Kerala. Deep divisions and fragmentation of civil society on political party lines will be the one fall out of such gatherings. Parties belonging to all spectrums will now start organizing such programmes meticulously and determinedly. III. Issues and movements 1.While reporting on the proceedings at the CPI (M) congress at Coimbatore, the media said that Kerala's FM, Dr. Thomas Issac argued for an "alternative" economic and industrialization policy for Kerala distinct from what was dictated by the central party. There is nothing to wonder about the remark 'alternative' because it soon became clear that he was presenting what was the norm in the neo-liberal times. The main argument of the presentation as we understood from media reports are that Kerala has no other option but pursue on the lines of WB model industrialization. 2.Soon as the party congress was over, FM mooted the NABARD idea of reclamation of the sea for starting industry. Where does the principle of decentralized decision making stand here? 3.An important segment of the CPM which had tried appropriating the civil society initiatives during the people's plan campaign is now showing its true colours. 4. The Left relentlessly opposed any civil society mobilization. More than opposition, it was hell-bent on fragmenting the political process due to its deep suspicion and anxiety about the developmental politics brought up front by the new social movements. 5.In the ongoing Chengara land struggle as well, the abhorrent stand of the conditioned Left is the refusal to acknowledge the struggle. Acknowledging the struggle is the stage one to recognizing the rights. As usual, lies were spread conscientiously about the struggle and also about the individuals in the struggle. Several times, ministers used to represent the participants of the struggle as adivasis even as they know that majority of the people who have settled at Chengara estate are people belonging to Dalit and Dalit-christian community. Even before the conclusion of party state conference, the different factions within the party opposed Chengara with an equal vigour even if not united. 6.The issues and movements raised by the NSMs from late 70s, you could very-well observe the conditioned left's hideous position --on silent valley, peringome nuclear power station, construction of dam at Poyamkooty, Chaliyar (Mavoor rayons) ecological struggle, struggle for rights fought by pe usha, initial reaction to plachimada, adivasi struggle for land and self-governance rights, chengara land and dalit rights struggle, chalakuddy anti-dam agitation-- were not only against the struggle but to castigate and affront the movements by attributing to them foreign connections, CIA relations, baseless allegations etc. etc. All the factions within the party and outside the party are united in this stance. 7.Mind that, even as we don't look at these from a win/loose binary as sreekumar points out, these were the struggles which effectively transformed the political culture of Kerala. 8.Now let us consider a trade union agitation of teachers, govt.staff, which lasted for more than 30days protesting certain governance reforms measure undertaken by the UDF government. The strike was a failure and it did not evoke any empathetic response from the public at large though it tried to raise the connected issues of liberalization and reforms. The title of the film "STHITHI"- (Status quo) made on this 'agitation' is emblematic of the kind of the strikes, hartals, agitations, supported by the varga-bahujana organizations. The inability to transform the political imagination or even at least redraw the contours of discourse reveals the exhaustion of political energies of such movements. 9.The role performed by NGOs aligning with the conditioned Left should also reveals to us a lot many things. Let me quote Sreekumar on the role of KSSP: "The negative influence of political society strangulating the civil society is mostly revealed when the Left is in power. In that kind of situation (opportunities), the intellectuals and organization like KSSP which aligns with the civil society in struggles retreat from the movement and betray the civil society...." (Sorry for the rough translation!!!) 10.Significantly, Sreekumar brings into light the ideological maneuvering made possible by the decentralized people's plan campaign. He details at the length the crises of the left and the manipulative path the Left took to resolve the crisis. 11. A very important article in this book is about "EMS" - the father of all debates in Kerala. It is a widely read article but then the CPIM never really bothered to engage with the issues raised in this article other than to abuse the author. (A culture of abusing the critics is one hall-mark of conditioned Left). Sreekumar responds to the criticism to his article that appeared in party organ. It is not only about EMS but the sanctioned ignorance is enmeshed in the conditioned Left Movement. 12. In direct contrast to EMS, K. Damodaran is positioned as a 'paragon of virtue" in many discussions on the communist movement. But his openness to issues may be refining. But then as Mathew Arnold said about Shelley, K. Damodaran was an ineffectual angel beating his wings in void (the voidness of Communist Party). He never influenced the communist mvmnt. to a great extent. 13. Before signing off, let me quote Bourdieu to highlight how and why Sreekumar's political engagement with issues and assessment is radically different from the usual "prescriptions" masquerading as social science writings in mainstream journals as well as cyber groups by social scientists and social activists. Bourdieu says about the prescriptionist: "A good number of those who describe themselves as sociologists or economists are social engineers whose function is to supply recipes to the leaders of private companies and government departments. They offer a rationalization of the practical or semi-theoretical understanding that members of the dominant class have of the social world. The governing elite today need a science capable of rationalizing its domination, capable both of reinforcing the mechanism that sustains it and of legitimizing it." (It is easy to distinguish between prescriptionist entries of the aforementioned variety and critical engagements as in the writing of sreekumar and a significant few.... more on this, shall we discuss later) regards, damodar __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
