Marginalized Communities and Decentralized Institutions in India

An Exclusion and Inclusion Perspective

Bala Ramulu Chinnala

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000296228
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book examines the causes and consequences of marginalization of social groups and the state of democratic decentralization in India in the unfolding context of globalization and changing perspectives of development models and institutions. The first of its kind, it correlates macro-and micro-level issues to understand social exclusion and inclusion and the level of participation of democratic institutions at the grassroots level since economic liberalization (1991) and the 73rd Constitution Amendment Act of 1992, marking three decades since granting constitutional status to the Panchayati Raj Institutions.

The study looks at the linkages between certain key themes: the neoliberal model of development, growth, and distributive justice; the role and mandate of grassroots-level public institutions enshrined in the Constitution, inclusive growth, and the Indian State; the role of political executives from marginalized communities; factors involved in people's active participation in the development process; and challenges in current political structures, inclusion of marginalized communities in governance and development, and real empowerment of local bodies and institutions. The book argues that legislative enactments, constitutional status, reservation of seats to marginalized communities, and so on can only empower local bodies and their leadership symbolically. The success of these provisions depends on the overall development model of the country; the support of national and state governments; the socio-economic and political environment of the institutions; and effective service and accountability.

Topical and rich in empirical data, including case studies, this book will be an essential read for scholars and researchers of political science, development studies, governance, public administration, sociology, public policy, and also for government agencies, administrators and bureaucrats, policymakers, international organizations, think tanks, and NGOs working in the area.

1
INTRODUCTION

India’s system of democratic decentralization offers enormous opportunities for inclusive grassroots democracy to the majority of people, especially marginalized communities, to participate in governance and development. But its political structure is a formidable impediment to the transfer of power and autonomy to local self-governments. The State-level politicians and officials generally think that local leadership does not have the capacity to govern the institutions. Added to it, the agenda for rapid economic growth of the Indian State, during the post-economic reforms period, raises several questions about the role and mandate of public institutions, including democratic decentralized institutions. Further, the globalization process has been marginalizing the Indian State and its institutions, including those meant for governance at the micro level. These aspects have significant implications for ensuring participation of marginalized communities in governance and for inclusive development in the country.

The concepts of marginalization of communities, social exclusion, social inclusion, social equity, and inclusive growth are complex phenomena and have varied implications for the individuals, groups, and community as a whole. These concepts are interconnected. The vocabularies of social exclusion and inclusion originated in Europe in response to the crises of the welfare state and the fear of social disintegration caused by socio-economic crises. This is largely in response to the realization that while some developing countries demonstrated rapid economic growth, others were receiving increasingly unequal shares of the rewards of success. This process became a major focus of study, particularly by those influenced by dependency, Marxist and ‘World Systems’ theorists who argued that the phenomenon was related to the overall world capitalist order and not just confined to particular societies (Saxena, 2013). Though the phenomenon of social exclusion and inclusion are as old as the society, they have traversed across the world with new meanings and contexts and have acquired important space in social and economic policy discourses of national and international development agencies (Pankaj and Pandey, 2014). Over the last few decades, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), the World Bank (WB), the Department for International Development (DFID), non-governmental organizations/civil society bodies/pressure groups, and social scientists—especially sociologists, human rights activists, and the like—have been contributing to the debates on what constitutes and causes marginalization of social groups, and its consequences to the individuals, households, and society. The debate has also covered affirmative polices and institutions for social inclusion.

Concept of marginalization of social groups

Marginality is an experience affecting millions of people throughout the world. People who are marginalized have relatively little control over their lives and the resources available to them. This results in making them handicapped in their contribution to society. A vicious circle is formed whereby their lack of positive and supportive relationships means that they are prevented from participating in local life, which in turn leads to further isolation. This has a tremendous impact on the development of human beings, as well as on society at large.

There are different views on the concept of marginalization. It is often based on such notions as gender, culture, language, race, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, socio-economic position, and geographic location. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary gives several meanings of the word ‘marginal’. They are: situated on the border or edge; marginal subsistence; and marked by contact with two or more different groups. The term ‘marginalization’ generally describes the overt actions or tendencies of human societies where people who are perceived as undesirable or without useful function are excluded (i.e. marginalized). Broadly, the term ‘marginalization’ evokes a dynamic relationship between two social categories: the ‘centre’ (or mainstream) and an area called the ‘margins’. While the centre is normally associated with dominance, privilege, and power, the margins are marked by subordination, obligations, and relative powerlessness.

Literally, marginality connotes the existence and differential locations of two specified social categories in a society wherein those located at the ‘core’ or ‘centre’ are the ‘mainstream’ of a society. They constitute the elites—the privileged, dominant, and powerful. There are others who are placed at the periphery and are powerless as they are dominated by others. They are either denied or excluded from privileges, exercise of power, and participation in the development process. The Encyclopedia of Public Health (2002) defines marginalized groups as those “placed in the margins, and thus excluded from the privilege and power found at the centre”. The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Willam, 2008) states that ‘marginalization’ comprises those “processes by which individuals and groups are ignored or relegated to the side lines of political debate, social negation, and economic bargaining” and are kept at the margins. Latin observes that, “‘marginality’ is thoroughly demeaning, for economic well-being, for human dignity, as well as for physical security”. Peter Leonard defines marginality as, “being outside the mainstream of productive activity and/or social reproductive activity” (quoted by Saksena, 2014). Depending on the context and level of analysis, individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and even entire geopolitical systems are seen as marginalized. To be marginalized, in this sense, is to be distanced from power and resources that enable self-determination in economic, political, and social settings (Daniel and Linder, 2002).

Marginalization is sometimes used to appraise larger societal forces in numerous ways. One way in which marginalization is to be viewed is to highlight how social processes make individuals and groups feel about themselves, their beliefs, or their place in a larger social order. In this sense, marginalization can invoke feelings of oppression and alienation—a disassociation of people from meaningful work, their organic social collectiveness, or their own identities. At another level, marginalization has been used to conceptualize how poverty, unemployment, inequalities, ill health, and illiteracy are produced through an unequal distribution of power, property, information, patterns of production and consumption, and the biological impact of social inequality. Others view marginalization as a weakening of the ligatures between the individual and the society. It also denotes the situation in which the life chances of individuals have diminished because of changes in social ligatures and options.

Marginalization of social groups is not a static but a dynamic and continuous process. Different individuals or groups find themselves at different stages and in multiple contexts of the marginalization or social exclusion process, be it only temporarily, recurrently, or continuously. Marginalized communities and groups tend to overlap (i.e. groups excluded in one arena, say political life, tend to be excluded in other arenas, say in economic status) as well. On the whole, it is obvious that marginality is a ‘relative and dynamic term’ requiring a multifaceted and cross-disciplinary approach to understand its dimensions. In the Indian context, it implies an examination of the status of different social groups, particularly marginalized communities: Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), minorities, women, and the physically challenged, who constitute more than 80 per cent of the total rural population and marginalized in the institutions of governance. The questions that are to be addressed include: Which communities are occupying the institutions of governance? Do these marginalized communities have autonomy to participate in the development process? How and why are marginalized groups distanced from the exercise of power and participation, particularly at the grassroots-level democratic institutions? The present study dilates on these and other factors.

Causes and consequences of marginalization of communities in India

Development is always conceived in terms of participation. Marginalization deprives a large majority of people from participating in the development (Saksena, 2014). It involves the systematic denial of rights to participate on equal terms in social, economic, cultural, or political arenas. Marginalized communities have relatively little control over their lives and the resources available to them. This results in making them handicapped in contributing to society. A vicious circle is set up whereby their lack of positive and supportive relationships means that they are prevented from participating in local life, which in turn leads to further isolation. This has a tremendous impact on the development of human beings, as well as on the society at large. For instance, a group with its distinct culture, located at the periphery, is culturally marginal and becomes a marginalized group that does not enjoy the same esteem as the one that is located in the centre. Viewing marginality as a cause and consequence of poverty and inequality and its various facets, social science academia has generated a vast body of literature with implications for diverse issues such as justice, fairness, subaltern, equality, and inclusion.

Historically, in India, many communities such as SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, women, and physically challenged (PHC) persons are being marginalized based on religion, region, caste, creed, color, gender, and class. The sources of marginalization of these groups are: poverty, socio-economic inequalities, traditions, and cultural practices operated through religion and the caste system, male hegemony perpetrated through patriarchy (especially against women), spatial location, geographical concentration, and displacement of groups, especially tribals, and stigmatization of certain communities. The socio-economic development of these communities has been much slower than that of other sections of society. Thus, in great measure it is due to the prevailing power structures as well as social practices. Additionally, the lack of commitment of the government in protecting the interests of these groups and the absence of mechanisms meant to deliver basic services, as well as honoring their say in development programmes, have compounded the problem.

On the demand side, these communities feel excluded, alienated, and often feel helpless to assert their rights. Present patterns of socio-economic and political inequality are often intertwined with much older systems of stratification. Many descendants of lower-caste and lower-class people continue to face socio-economic and political disadvantages. In India, the age-old system of caste-based inequality still endures, severely constricting the lives and opportunities of lower-caste people and communities. Inequalities caused by marginalization, discrimination, and constraints on human development particularly limit the prospect of poverty reduction among certain excluded groups (Ravallion, 2009). Today, globalization, which is marked by the free flow of capital and technology, resources, trade, and so on, has changed the context of the study of the entire matrix of the centre and periphery relationship, as the globalization process has penetrated everywhere. These trends further marginalized the social groups, especially weaker sections across India. These groups are deprived of social, cultural, economic, and political opportunities to improve their status in the society.

These factors limit the participation of marginalized communities in the governance and development process on par with the privileged communities. Therefore, Klasen (2010) emphasized nondiscriminatory participation and disadvantage-reducing features as necessary conditions for inclusive growth. Thus, over time, the explanations of poverty and inequalities, and measures adopted for their elimination, have reflected a shift in thinking from a focus on monetary aspects to wider issues such as human development, enhancement of opportunities for marginal communities, and political participation. However, the intensity of the problem may vary from country to country and within the country from state to state, region to region, household to household, and even individual to individual.

Theoretical approaches to the study of marginalized communities

The issues of poverty, inequalities, social exclusion, and marginalization of social groups are interrelated and mutually complementary, and any effort to address them requires an integrated approach. The theoretical explanations of marginalization can broadly be categorized as: traditional, classical, neo-classical, Marxian, and social exclusion/inclusion approaches. A brief discussion on these approaches will provide insights on the phenomenon of social exclusion and inclusion of marginalized communities.

Traditional approach

The phenomenon of marginalization of social groups—primarily an outcome of extreme poverty, inequalities, and denial of opportunities to certain social groups—is not of recent origin. Historically, the origin of marginalization and poverty can be traced to the birth of feudalism, which institutionalized property and consequently socio-economic inequalities (Dwivedi, 1974). The traditional and religious explanation for the marginalization/poverty in India has been the ‘karma’ or ‘fate theory’. This approach finds the causes for marginalization of social groups/poverty outside the socio-economic structure of the society (Freire, 1970). Indians have been religiously indoctrinated with fatalism by the vested interests and attribute everything to God. They have been taught to believe, “Action is thy duty, and result is not thy concern”. Consequently, they concerned themselves with ‘karma’, the fruits of moral deeds of their previous birth, and never bothered considering the fruits of their labor or to whom they went. As a sequel to the complacent attitude of Indians, the old system of production and distribution and marginalization of social groups became perpetuated and reinforced (Dwivedi, 1974; Bala Ramulu, 1984).

Classical approach

Classical approach blames the factors such as low level of productivity of labor, relatively poor natural resources, under-utilization of resources, defective balance of trade (Myrdal, 1970), over population, lack of education and technical expertise, application of traditional or backward technology for increasing productivity, market imperfection, low level of savings, and so on for causing or widening inequalities and marginalization of various social groups. Some others extended the gamut of causes of poverty to cover, inter alia, foreign rule, exploitation of the masses, social attitudes, and so on. However, classical economic traditions contend that individuals and social groups are ultimately responsible for their poverty and for foregoing opportunities of participating in the development process. This approach provides a foundation for laissez-fire policies that are theoretically rooted in capitalism.

Neo-classical approach

By contrast, neo-classical (mainstream) economics holds that poverty and denial of opportunities are due to market failures that are beyond the control of individuals and social groups. It emphasizes the role of incentives on the productivity of individuals and social groups. It overemphasizes monetary aspects, the individual as opposed to the group, and concedes only a limited role for government. Neo-classicists are averse to policies of redistribution and trace marginalization to individual character flaws or to cultural resistances to individualism. Their explanations of marginalization/poverty stress the notion of the residuum, defined as those “limp both body and mind”. The residuum will work only when forced to do so. They argue that generous social policies encourage people to stay out of the labor force. To explain why some groups are found disproportionately in the residuum, economists sometimes presume the presence of a “culture of poverty” which, although adopted to alleviate the worst effects of poverty, in fact reinforces it. The Keynesian schools, in contrast, focus on macro-economic forces and emphasize the key role of government in providing not only economic stabilization but also public goods. Poverty and inequalities are considered largely involuntary and as mainly ca...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Development models, decentralization, and position of marginalized communities in India
• 3 Marginalized communities and decentralization in a South Indian state
• 4 Exclusion and inclusion in decentralized institutions
• 5 Profiles of political executives
• 6 Conclusion
• Index