Who cares about participation? How a rhetorical state policy is practised incredulously

Contemporary South Asia

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 429-446

  Chhotray, Vasudha ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LOCAL PARTICIPATION; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; POLICY STRATEGY;

ASIA; EURASIA; INDIA; SOUTH ASIA;

EID: 33748147838     PISSN: 09584935     EISSN: 1469364X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09584930600839115     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. D. Mosse, Cultivating Aid: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice (London: Pluto Press, 2005), p 640.
2. Ibid.
3. D. Mosse, 'Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice', Development and Change, Vol 35, No 4, 2004, p 639.
4. F. Hinchcliffe, J. Thompson, J. Pretty, I. Guijt and P. Shah (eds), The Impact of Participatory Watershed Management (London: IT Publications, 1999). The term 'watershed' above any point on a defined drainage channel is used to denote all the land and water areas that drain through that point, leading to the 'normalisation' of a 'micro-watershed' as a 'rational' unit of planning.
5. See E.M. Tideman, Watershed Management: Guidelines for Indian Conditions (New Delhi: Omega Science Publishers, 1998), p 7.
6. Micro-watersheds are geo-hydrological units and often do not coincide with actual village boundaries, leading to frequent problems in identifying the project domain on the ground.
7. The studies were undertaken by the Dharia and Hanumantha Rao Committees, respectively, See Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Guidelines for Watershed Development (New Delhi: India), Foreword.
8. D. Hulme and P. Woodhouse, 'Governance and the environment', in P. Woodhouse, H. Bernstein and D. Hulme (eds), African Enclosures? The Social Dynamics of Wetlands in Drylands (Oxford: James Curry, 2000), pp 216-231.
9. See D. Ghai and J.M. Vivian (eds), Grassroots Environmental Action: People's Participation in Sustainable Development (London: Routledge, 1992)
10. and H. Rangan, Of Myths and Movements: Rewriting Chipko into Himalayan History (London: Verso, 2000).
11. S. Sinha, S. Gururani and B. Greenberg 'New traditionalist discourse of Indian environmentalism', Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol 24, No 3, 1998, pp 169-204.
12. This amendment granted constitutional recognition to panchayats for the first time.
13. Mosse, op cit, Ref 3, p. 663.
14. P. Baumann, 'Democratising development? Panchayat Raj institutions in watershed development in India', in J. Farrington, C. Turton and A.J. James (eds), Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty First Century (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp 209-227.
15. Programme objectives in subsequent policy revisions have broadly remained unchanged, although there have been shifts in prioritisation.
16. The foreword in MRD's 1994 'Guidelines for Watershed Development' is indicative of this.
17. See P. Chatterjee, 'Development planning and the Indian state', in T. Byres (ed), State, Development Planning and Liberalisation in India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp 82-103
18. and F. Frankel, India's Political Economy 1947-1977: The Gradual Revolution (Guildford: Princeton University Press, 1978).
19. M. Srivastava, S. Corbridge, R. Veron and G. Williams, 'Making sense of the local state: Rent seeking, vernacular society and the employment assurance scheme in eastern India', Contemporary South Asia, Vol 11, No 3, 2002, p 267.
20. The first 'batch' of watershed projects was implemented in 1995, the first year that the guidelines came into effect.
21. S. Kaviraj, 'On state, society and discourse in India', in J. Manor (ed), Rethinking Third World Politics (Harlow: Longman, 1991), pp 72-99.
22. Interview, Kurnool, 2001.
23. J. Mooij, Smart Governance? Politics in the Policy Process in Andhra Pradesh, India, Working Paper 228 (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2003).
24. The National Remote Sensing Agency, which is responsible for selected priority areas for WSD treatment on the basis of remote sensing, confirmed that Kurnool was one of the few districts in the state that adhered to its action plans. Interview with Project Director, National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad, 2000.
25. See Chaterjee, op cit, Ref 15
26. K. Mathur, 'Strengthening bureaucracy: State and development', in N.G. Jayal and S. Pai (eds), Democratic Governance in India: Challenges of Poverty, Development and Identity in India (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2001), pp 109-132.
27. Although other districts in Andhra Pradesh also had exclusive district-level project offices for the WSD programme, the approach adopted by the KWO for participatory project management between 1998 and 2002 became well known throughout the state for its innovativeness. This can only be attributed to senior officials in the Kurnool project office, mainly the PD, who decided to use their powers of implementation creatively. Subsequently, a number of other districts in Andhra Pradesh also followed the procedures adopted at the KWO.
28. A circular from the PD to senior project officials was worded in the following manner: 'I expect that you shall become the agent of change by making people aware, by telling them what is good for them and thus playing the role of an enabler and facilitator' (italics added).
29. A mandal is a subdistrict tier of administration particular to Andhra Pradesh. Names of the village and individuals have been changed to protect identity. My fieldwork lasted 5 months during 2001 and 1 month in 2004. The methodology used was predominantly qualitative involving semi-structured interviews and informal conversations with project officials, and unstructured interviews, group discussions and triangulation within the village. I referred to written project documents and village crime and agriculture records. I also conducted a quantitative household level survey to understand trends of agricultural change following project intervention.
30. D. Hardiman, 'The Indian "faction": A political theory examined', in R. Guha (ed), Subaltern Studies I (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1982), p 199.
31. This account is based on personal conversations with a range of villagers, including the Reddys, and corroborated by the project WDT.
32. I was present at one such Community Mobilisation Programme and observed senior project officers publicly criticising WDT staff and watershed committee secretaries for inefficient record-keeping. WDT officers, with their temporary jobs and lower status in the administrative hierarchy, were visibly embarrassed.
33. Gangadhar Reddy, in particular, was obsessed about earning a 'good name' with government authorities. Since I was researching the project, he thought it was necessary to impress me as well. He regularly writes letters reporting his work - not just to the project office, but also to the Chief Minister!
34. Much of the following account draws on descriptions by WDT officers who requested anonymity. I was able to corroborate these through general conversations with a large number of farmers, from different castes, as well as the landless in the village.
35. Interviews with the KWO field staff, Kurnool, 2000.
36. In principle, while landowners are required to contribute 10% of the total cost if a structure is raised on their lands, for structures raised on lands that are commonly owned the contribution ought to be obtained on a shared basis from landholders who are most likely to benefit.
37. One large farmer, who took up drumstick cultivation and was able to procure massive yields, was enthusiastically referred to by project staff as the 'drumstick hero'.
38. Mosse, op cit, Ref 3, p 652.
39. Ibid, p 648.
40. Ibid, p 646.
41. Ibid, p 651.
42. Ibid, p 657.
43. See Chatterjee, op cit, Ref 15
44. Kaviraj, op cit, Ref 18
45. Srivastava et al., op cit, Ref 16.
46. D. Held, 'Central perspectives on the state', in G. McLennan, D. Held and S. Hall (eds), The Idea of the Modern State (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1984).
47. Kurnool, 2001.
48. Mosse, op cit, Ref 3, p 662.