Citizenship and Governance by gjjur4356


									   Vth International Conference on
      Citizenship & Governance

  Re-visioning Social Transformation in the
                21st Century

           Conference Proceedings

                  February 27 – 29, 2008

            Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA)
      42, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110 062, India
          Phone: 29960931-33, 29956908, Fax: (91-11) 29955183
             Email:, Website:

The series of Citizenship and Governance Conference began in 2003 with the objective of
bringing academia and practitioner community for collective reflection on contemporary
issues that affect the marginalised sections of women, tribal, dalit, and poor in their quest
for inclusive citizenship and governance. The conference posed a question to all those
who share the millennium vision of a just and equitable society: How is such a society
possible? The conferences were designed to find answers to the question. The first
Conference focused on the issues of identity, inclusion, and voice. Subsequent
Conferences in the series brought up issues of civil society, state, social movements, local
governance, empowerment, leadership, participation, and participatory methodologies
for knowledge and change. The Vth Conference was the closing Conference of the series,
and it, under the theme of ‘Re-visioning Social Transformation in the 21st Century’, took
up some of the key issues discussed in the preceding Conferences for deeper reflection.
The Vth Conference was organized at YMCA, New Delhi during 27-29 February 2008. The
conference had participants from India, China, Canada, South Africa and U.K.

The Conference deliberated on the following specific themes:

   •   Inclusive democracy: Institutions, policies, processes.
   •   Citizens at the centre: Innovation, mobilisation, voice.
   •   Spheres of participation: Autonomy, diversity and plurality in civil society.
   •   Spheres of participation: Accountability and responsiveness from the state.
   •   New forces: Globalization and market.

We take this occasion to thank all the participants for their enthusiastic participation in
the Conference deliberations.

We thank Twinkle Pal for the meticulous preparation of the proceedings.

Dr. Ranjita Mohanty                                         Dr. Rajesh Tandon
Conference Co-ordinator, PRIA                               President, PRIA


The conference was held over two and a half days. The discussions took place in two
broad sessions- plenary sessions and paper presentations. The plenary session comprised
of five thematic plenary and paper presentations constituted of a total of nine paper
presentation sessions.

The thematic plenary were based on following topics:
   • Civil Society, Participation and Citizenship
   • Democracy: Challenges for Participation and Accountability
   • New Actors in Social Change
   • Researching Participation and Empowerment
   • Community-based Research

The paper presentation sessions deliberated on following themes:
   • Demanding Accountability from the State
   • Building Inclusive Democracy
   • Appraising Democratic Performance: Acts and Regulations
   • Debating Globalisation
   • Civil Society: Plurality and Potential
   • Building Citizenship at the Grassroots
   • The Urban Question
   • Participatory Methodologies
   • Pedagogies for Change


Dr. Ranjita Mohanty- Research Fellow, PRIA, New Delhi

The conference began with coordinator of the conference, Dr. Ranjita Mohanty
introducing the rationale, relevance and deliberations of the past conferences. The
conference was launched with the underlying principle of creating space for bringing the
world of academia and practitioners on a common platform to discuss, debate and
deliberate on varied topics. This also enabled the researchers and practitioners to
exchange ideas and mutually engage with each other. The main objective of this was to
focus upon the contemporary research issues and documenting the various field practices.
The past conferences focused on diverse interests. They deliberated on the contested
concepts of democracy (desirability and disillusionment), participation (rhetoric or real),
citizenship (exclusion and inclusion) and development (assumptions and outcomes) and
governance. Conferences in the past discussed at length issues pertaining to knowledge
production and use. Pertaining to research and practice, the conferences debated on the
possibilities of collaboration and conflict. It shifted the focus to participation of
community in the research studies rather than dealing with the community as mere
subjects of study. It discussed the areas where the world of academia and practitioners
could work in a collaborative manner and adjustments required thereof.

The first international conference was held in 2003 on issues pertaining to identity,
inclusion and voice within the broader theme of citizenship and governance. In 2004 the
second conference was organized based on the theme of re-visiting the relationship
between the state, civil society and citizens. The following year conference was organized
to examine the rhetoric and impact of participation, learning and social transformation
was organized. In 2006, the fourth conference of the series addressing the critical
methodological issues in the existing participatory methodologies was held. This year’s
conference was the closing conference of the series. It focused on critical issues that
emerged in the previous conferences. It reflected on the issues of democracy,
participation and accountability. The newer forces of globalisation and market which are
responsible for changing the state-citizen relationship were also focused upon.

Keynote address:

Prof. T. K. Oommen- Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Prof. T.K. Oommen delivered the keynote address. He began his lecture by saying that
concept of citizenship and democracy is interrelated. Democracy is getting universalized.
On the contrary, governance is a new concept. While the idea of citizenship is entrenched
in the institution of state, that of governance originated out of market. Prof. T.K.
Oommen’s paper traces “the evolution of these two notions and suggests a practical
outline to reap the optimal returns.”

Civil rights were the first to emerge. With the expansion of democracy, political rights
manifesting in the right to franchise and the right of access to public office emerged in the
18th century. The third right to emerge was designated as social rights although its content
was mainly economic. The twentieth century witnessed the consolidation of the three
rights- civil, political and economic. The first two were individual rights and they were
universally endorsed. The latter i.e. economic rights were group rights. They were often
viewed as assistance availed of by lazy and the under motivated. One reason for
universal endorsement of civil and political rights is that they are defined as cost free. On
the other hand the economic rights are perceived as eating into the state exchequer. This is
however a flawed argument because the state has to make massive institutional
investment for facilitating the practice of civil and political rights too. The real distinction
between civil and political right on one hand and economic right on the other is that in the
former the state has to pursue a policy of non-intervention whereas in the latter the state
has to intervene deliberately. In a relatively homogenous society, the civil, political and
economic rights of women and the poor are not conceded. In a heterogeneous society
(with cultural and racial diversity) the issue of rights takes a different turn.
Heterogeneous societies have innovated institutions to overcome this deadlock. The idea
of multicultural citizenship was floated to de-link nationality and citizenship. The second
conceptual innovation was the development of concept of human right. Prof. Oommen
emphasized that social structure features of a society not only influence but largely
determine the nature and types of rights required in that society.

The recent thoughtless development agenda had led to environmental degradation and
devastation. This led to institution of a new right, which came to be referred to as
ecological right. This right is applicable to all who inhabit particular localities, regions,
nations and states. The need of the hour is to aim at sustainable development which is not
possible if nature is mutilated. Ecological rights pre-suppose the harmonious co-existence
of humanity and nature. Prof. Oommen emphasized that in order to institute and
implement an appropriate regime of rights the co-operation of the state, the market and
the civil society is vital.

Prof. Oommen stated that the notion of governance is more encompassing than the
government. It recognizes the role of market institutions. Though ideally governance
should establish equanimity between the state, civil society and market, in practice their
interests differ and they pull in opposite direction. Higher the rate of growth, steeper the
inequality. Prof. Oommen concluded by putting forward a critical minimum agenda for
harmonious co-existence of citizenship and governance. He suggested that it was possible
through fostering equity, nurturing identity and provisioning security. The notion of
equity is inconceivable without endorsing the value of equality. For rendering equality in
real terms an important criteria is equality of opportunity which in turn is dependent
upon equality of condition. Once equality of condition is created, the citizens will be
differentiated as superior or inferior based on their intrinsic worth. “Thus inequality of
rewards will be legitimatized through equality of opportunity, facilitated by equality of
condition establishing equity”, said Oommen. The greatest obstacle in bringing to fruition
equity is the perception associated with their identities. The citizens drawn from marginal
and weaker identity groups are expected to submit their identity in lieu of equality
promised by state. However, the deprived groups demand equality without dismantling
identity. The point that Prof. Oommen emphasized was that providing equity at the cost
of identity is not the right route to governance. An important aim of governance ought to
be security, security enclosing physical, structural and symbolic aspect. Equity is a pre-
requisite for security. And when people are denied equity based on their identity, the
sense of insecurity deepens. Equity, identity and security are all intertwined. The
harmonious co-existence of citizenship and governance can be smoothened if the state,
civil society and market give support to equity identity and security as their shared goals.

Issues raised:

   •   How do explain the idea of equality of opportunity in terms of quality and
   •   How do we inculcate (intrinsic) motivation in people to come forward and
       demand from the state?
   •   Do you think that effective partnership between state, market and citizenship can
       exist in reality?

Plenary Session 1: Civil Society, Participation and Citizenship

Dr. Rajesh Tandon- President PRIA, New Delhi.

Dr. Tandon began with the idea that people had in past one dominant idea of knowledge
was that elite knew all and the poor and rural people did not know anything. The poor
were regarded as mere beneficiaries who knew none and were ignorant. This idea of
dominant knowledge was accepted by both the parties. The poor, too, had accepted that
they knew nothing. One way to change this agreement between the ruled and the rulers
was to work with the ruled. The idea was to work with the marginalized, help them get
collectivized and organized. The aim was to instill confidence in them and use their
learning. There was a need for shift in power relation between the so-called ‘power
providers’ and ‘beneficiaries of resources’. There was a need to find ways to enable
agency of beneficiaries not as mere passive absorbers of what was designed centrally and
bestowed upon them but involve them as active agents involved in all aspects. Over a
period of time this graduated to valuing knowledge one has, linking knowledge
production and involving participation not as something merely necessary for
development but as the starting point. However, what this approach did not tackle was
the link of micro-institutions. Neither knowledge nor participation was adequate to deal
with issues of transformation. It became imperative to look at how institutions were
designed, resourced and managed things. Dr. Tandon said that his first understanding of
institutional analysis showed that nature of institution has not changed much. It is still
not clear whether there is an universalisation of how the institutions are designed or there
is particularity of institutions in a given socio-political context.

Civil Society framework came into re-currency in 90s. Civil society framework was
adopted with the idea to work for a common goal. Civil society framework was adopted
to create balance between state and market. It provided an interactive phase to interact
with the two. It was realized that there was a wider arena of actors- academicians, trade
union, community-based agency and youth group with whom one could work with. Civil
society framework created the opportunity to work with these varied and large numbers
of actors. With time the civil society concept began to create some discomfort. Formal
organization of NGOs started to be equated with civil society. This was source of
discomfort. Another sense of discomfort was ‘a sense of morale inflated righteousness’.
The notion that our understanding of issues was above and superior to others, lead to
revisit the idea that we are the experts and others knew none.

With the passage of time the focus shifted to citizens. Given the discrimination and
disparity, it was realized that some citizens were ‘more citizens than others’. Thus in the
practice of citizenship some were more disadvantaged and marginalized. Looking at the
scenario the question that came to mind was how these people were coping with all this
and how were they getting along. The answer was that they had become self organized
and in doing so they were acting as citizens. All this raised a vital question: Can we
understand the concept of citizenship if our approach is state-centric rather than citizen-
centric? We should remember that state is merely one of the players but not the only
player. In some places market is there but state is missing.

He continued by saying that there was a need to re-claim the public sphere. There was a
need for expansion of public spheres as places of discourse. Second thing was the
democratization of commons. Commons are also spaces of ideas and knowledge.
However, knowledge society is distinct from knowledge economy where knowledge is
neither restricted nor confined. He said that this euphoria of becoming knowledge
economy is reducing access to knowledge commons. The third arena for social
transformation, according to him, is the new reality that is coming to surface. There are
forces that are operating from multiple locations. Many of them are hidden, many others
are non-engaging. We are living in an era where distinct solidarities exist and are
remarkably expressed. These solidarities transcend the idea of nation state. Today the
arenas for action are becoming multi-locational. People involved have multiple identities.
The challenge lies in imaging citizenship which is multi-local but with a common goal.

He concluded by saying that the concept of participation is getting deepened and
universalized. However the concept of civil society is at stake. The thrust lies in retaining
the concept of civil society which provides space other than the state. The question of
citizenship is the notion of participation and engagement in public sphere. Here the
engagement is with the ‘unknown other’. It is the transnational citizenship action that
would hold the global forces around.

Plenary session 2: Democracy: Challenges for Participation and Accountability

Chair Speaker:
John Gaventa- Fellow, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex, U.K.

Yogender Yadav- Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi

Dr. John Gaventa began by saying that a crisis of legitimacy typifies the relationship
between citizens and institutions worldwide. One prominent issue that thus emerges
is the creation of novel relationships between ordinary citizens - especially the poor and
excluded - and institutions- especially government. Efforts are being made to intensify
citizen participation on one hand and government receptiveness on the other.

He said that we all are living in a century that can easily be labeled as a democratic
century. But there exist few democratic deficits which constitute the area of concern. Few
of these are declining political participation, failure to meet poverty and inequality,
cynicism and mistrust and hallowed out forms of engagement. All these issues raise an
important query that whose democracy are we talking about and concerned for? Around
the world, concept and construction of democracy are under renewed contestation. One
important thing that emerged from discussion worldwide was citizens were missing from
the checklist of democracy. There was a need to adopt a citizen-centred approach to
democracy. This approach sees citizens as social actors and puts citizen empowerment at
heart of democratic process.     It involves strengthening voice of citizens in multiple
spheres. It views democracy as a social power for redistribution, regulation and
recognition. It acknowledges the other spaces for citizen engagement beyond than the
voting. However, all these aspects are missing in the democracy that we witness
worldwide. Participatory citizenship involves active engagement of citizens in policy and
decision making. It sees citizens not as mere passive beneficiaries or consumers but as
‘makers and shapers’ of policies. Civil society can be seen as an important medium to
promote citizen action.

Dr. Gaventa said that the rewards of participatory democracy have been many. It has
contributed to democratic experiments in several parts of the world. A multiparty
approach to planning has started. In many places there is direct participation of locals. It
has led to changing forms of accountability in several regions.

It may be noted that practicising ‘participatory democracy’ has brought forth several
lessons. One important teaching learnt is that merely creating ‘invited spaces’ does not
mean that they will be filled with new voices. The key lies in involving and connecting
different parts i.e. linking the institutional design, political will and civil society
mobilization. Returns and rewards all over the world have not been uniform. Even the
category ‘citizens’ cannot be seen as homogenous and non-competing. It is full of internal
power and exclusions. All this has lead to newer areas and spaces. “There can be
democracy from above but with conditionality, democracy as a blueprint ignoring
contexts and history and democracy as geo-political security to counter conditions of
terrorism”. The main threat to democracy is confinement of power. New contradiction
and challenges have emerged: more democracy, less democratic spaces, resurgence of
political violence, closure of spaces for civil society, democracy of disempowerment and
hegemony of democratic spaces. Looking at all this, the questions that comes to mind is:
What should be the next course of action; how do we strengthen participatory gains,
replenish and restore mobilisation around the meanings of participation and democracy;
build coalitions across spaces that can challenge the closure of democratic spaces; broaden
the right to democratic accountability to include new actors, and maintain the democratic

Yogender Yadav introduced the book, ‘State of Democracy in South Asia’. The study was
carried out by Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) along with researchers
from Sri-Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. The research was carried out by CSDS
in collaboration with International IDEA and the Department of Sociology, Oxford
University. Yogender began by stating the rationale for the study. The fact that the spread
of democracy was not accompanied by the expansion of idea of democracy was the prime
reason. In fact, it is to note that though more and more countries were choosing to be
democratic, the idea of democracy was shrinking. He said that the governing model is
parochial and unhelpful in understanding the practice of democracy in most parts of the
world. There is a need to democratize our ideas to think about democracy.

He said that this study was carried out using multiple methodologies. A cross-sectional
survey was carried out across five countries i.e. India, Bangladesh. Pakistan. Nepal and
Sri Lanka. It used qualitative assessment by experts. A dialogue with practitioners of
democracy was carried out. This study also made use of case studies of ‘inconvenient

The findings of the study were quite startling. The findings raise an important question:
What is the promise of democracy, what is that democracy pledges? Democracy does not
guarantee the same set of ideas to different countries. Idea of democracy has transformed
South Asian common sense, practices and power relations. The idea of democracy has
become radicalized in South Asia. He pointed that the “footprint” of idea of democracy is
larger than the concept of democracy. South Asian meaning of democracy puts more
emphasis on equality and justice. He said that there is widespread support for democracy
but institutional support for democracy is quite shallow. Constitutions may offer equal
political citizenship but do not embody promise of democracy.

Yogender said that politics continues to be vibrant arena. It is animated and alive. It
shapes partisan loyalties, forges ideas and ideologies, establishes economic interests and
conceives social identities. Political parties are powerful and dynamic entities. There is a
high degree of citizen involvement in party activities, identification and membership.
They continue to boast citizen support and faith, much more than any other social

The study brought forth quite a number of contradictions. One of the paradoxes was that
democracy does not ensure elimination of mass poverty. In the five countries where the
survey was carried out it was found that the cause of insecurity among the people was not
terrorism or external aggression but the everyday petty crimes.

The study concludes by highlighting the challenges that democracy in these five countries
faces. It said that the spread of democracy was uneven in regional and social terms. The
biggest challenge that democracy was witnessing in these countries was that it was not
yet deep.

Issues raised:

   •   There are places where people are struggling with the issues of starvation, lack of
       safe drinking water and absence of human rights. In such places how important is
       issue of democracy, who cares for it?
   •   How democracy is going to cope up with the organized form of violence that is
       spreading across the globe?
   •   What is the ideal relationship between economic democracy and political

Plenary session 3: New Actors in Social Change

Chair Speaker:
Priya Vishwanath- CEO, Charities Aid Foundation India, New Delhi

Panel speakers:
Don Mohanlal- President and CEO, Nand & Jeet Khemka Foundation, New Delhi
Pooran Pandey- Director, Times Foundation, New Delhi

Priya Vishwanath works with an organization that can be called as a global intermediary
organization. She said that her organization works with these so called ‘new actors’. She
said that the potential of wealth is so great that it changes the way the society behaves.
According to her, these new actors included the multinationals, big technological
companies, banking companies, infrastructure companies, diasporas especially the Indian
diasporas and the high network individuals. This segment represents the mantra of ‘India
Shining’. These actors are trying to invest in spaces which till now were dominated by the
state and the civil society. These actors have shown the desire to share; they are trying to
invest in the community; they want to give back to the society. Philanthropy and service
is an increasing important way of achieving personal meaning. However these new actors
face lot many challenges. One of the challenges faced by them is that the aspirations are
lost by the time they distil down. According to her these challenges surface due to lack of
understanding, clear absence of planning process and inability to show due diligence to
do what one is involved with. She urged for more power to them. She said that she had
strong faith in these new leaders who would soon learn on their own. She emphasized the
need to collaborate. She stated that there was no need for all the corporate to engage
independently, instead they can collaborate and work collectively for the common cause.

Don Mohanlal began by saying that reasons why these new actors have emerged is in
response to failure of market to reach the significant people and failure of government to
do what it was expected to do. He said that we are in the fourth generation of
philanthropy. First was charity, then came philanthropy followed by strategic
philanthropy and finally there is channel neutral social impact. These different stages of
philanthropy are not lineal or sequential. They all co-exist side by side. He said that it
hardly matters at what stage of philanthropy we are, what matters is the social value we
carry at time of need and hardship. The need lies in identifying a problem, defining it,
finding its solution and see what its impact will be.

He identified four categories or types of social actors. The first are the non-profit
organizations. These organizations have support from many sources, they are externally
funded. However, they are looking for a sustainable model to go on. The second category
is the network of profit organization. They also depend on external agencies. They have a
cost recovery component for what they do. They charge a fee for what they do.
Simultaneously they also do philanthropy. The next category is of social business
organization. They have a social purpose and social values. Growth is created but the
ultimate goal is to benefit people. Profits are re-invested for a social purpose. The fourth
category included the public-private partnerships. He added that what sustains
development is the coming together of three parts to create the fourth part i.e. the
outcome. The outcome draws on the best. The question to ponder is how we create these
respectable partnerships. He supported his arguments by quoting certain real life
examples. H. Harish Hande pioneered access to rural solar electrification for below
poverty line families through combination of customized lighting system, innovative
doorstep financing and an understanding of market needs of different user groups. His
company Selco creates low cost customized lighting solution for the poor. Another social
entrepreneur, Rajender Joshi set up a non-government organization called Saath that
enables the urban poor to access the financial and livelihood opportunities available in
cities. It aligns the urban poor, Ahmedabad Municipal Cooperation and private
companies in a profitable partnership. Saath works with the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation (AMC) to ensure that slum residents receive basic sanitation. In exchange,
Saath creates mechanisms through which the urban poor can save and pay the user
charges. He said that these people brought about social transformation by transforming
traditional through an innovative approach, by coming up with novel idea and
implementing it.

Pooran Pandey focused on the role of old actors in the new paradigm. He said that the
times were changing and it was important to understand where these old actors find
themselves in the new context. According to him, these actors were five in number- civil
society/ NGO, donors, government, private sector and consultancy firm. The first actor is
the voluntary sector which included the civil society/ NGO. This sector is experiencing
change faster than any other sector. This sector is trying to execute many good projects on
ground. However they are finding it difficult to operate in an independent manner.
Grassroots NGOs have not been able to get support from the government. Finances have
been the real struggle. The second actors are the multilaterals, bilateral and the individual
donors. India is witnessing 9% GDP but this does not mean that poverty has ended;
people are still where they were while a few have amassed wealth. Due to new
governmental policies many funding agencies are on their way out, few are tweaking
their agenda particularly for India. This will reduce the quantum of support that
grassroots NGOs were receiving for their cause. He said that the new government rules
have made life difficult for these small organizations. The other actor, the corporate sector
has been involved with charity since the time they came into being. Now they have set up
foundations which spend a lot of money for welfare activities, much more than many
donor agencies. Laws are changing, government policies are altering and these
foundations will also be affected by this change. It may be noted that a large number of
consultancy firms are in process of setting up a separate department for this purpose i.e.
Aid and Development Department purely for philanthropic activities. They are getting
involved with project making, training and monitoring activities. All these old actors are
undergoing very serious metamorphosis. They will be more and more defined in times to
come. He emphasized that time has come when NGOs and foundations should come
together and identify each other’s strengths and built upon them for larger interest of
society. He said that the idea was to think of combinations that succeed.

The issues raised were:

   •   Small business companies contribute in their small ways to the social cause
       without worrying about the idea of who walks away the credit. They are
       genuinely interested in the social cause with which they are involved. Big
       business houses were still not sensitized about social issues. If they were investing
       in something, the end goal was to meet the long term business goals. They were
       highly concerned about the issue of visibility and recognition. Thus, an important
       question that rises from all this how do we sensitizes these big companies?

   •   Whenever a development project is started in any community, it is the
       communities who suffer the most. They have to bear the maximum pain. They are
       the ones who have to bear the brunt of development. Their concerns are never
       shared. Thus, the question that emerges is: in whose interests do we learn and at
       what cost?

   •   The key problem that India is facing today is not the paucity of resources but how
       to reach those that are left out. They constitute what can be called as the
       ‘depressed economic zone’. The biggest challenge lies in making the government
       agencies accountable. Another challenge is to help these resources reach the actual

Plenary Session 4: Researching Participation and Empowerment

Chair Speaker:
Dr. Budd Hall- Director, Office of Community- Based Research, University of Victoria,

Prof. B. Deviprasad- Professor, Department of Social Work, Andhra University,
Visakhapattnam, Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Ranjita Mohanty- Research Fellow, PRIA, New Delhi

Budd Hall began on a philosophical note saying that ultimate source of understanding
human complexities lies with understanding complexities of human being, life as we
relate to one another.

Budd described how the Department of Community-Based Research was established at
the University of Victoria. Universities are seen as institutes which are repositories of
knowledge. The academicians create and contribute to the knowledge bank through their
research activities. There is common purpose that this formal research will contribute
towards amelioration of common lives. The current emphasis is that research is
incomplete without understanding its application and engagement. Contemporary terms
for knowledge include knowledge mobilization, knowledge exchange and knowledge
translation and transfer.

Community-based research is the term used for research that entails community
participation to community initiation to control of research. ‘It refers to activist research
designed to link community and university resources in social and political change in our
communities’. It acknowledges and takes into account the new knowledge production
that is being created each day by those who are working directly with poor, the
Aboriginal communities and other sectors on diverse issues.

In the Canadian context, the University of Victoria is engaged in proposals and schemes
aimed at strengthening community engagements by the University. Budd focused on
community-based research involving the Aboriginal communities. It aimed at direct
involvement and participation of Aboriginal people in research rather than as mere
subjects of research. He said that in order to partner research with Aboriginal, the
researcher needs to develop an understanding of their worldview and cultural protocols.
There is a need for creating space where the Aboriginal does not feel exploited. Such
spaces (ethical spaces) are required which value and respect Aboriginal knowledge. He
said that universities must cease to be separate entities and should develop relationship
with surrounding communities. They should be open and willing to accept alternative
methods of knowledge creation aside from what is considered valid in an academic

Prof B. Deviprasad said that it is important to understand the significance of
participation. An understanding of participation will make you a better facilitator when
researching participation. Actors involved in development transformation are
increasingly realizing the significance of participation in encouraging pro-people change.
It helps give voices to poor and marginalized. It leads to accountability and
responsiveness from the institutions including the local governance institutions.
Participation is a way to influence policy making. The key components/ ingredients of
participatory development are trust, transparency, equity and knowledge.

It has to be remembered that the researcher of participation is not a politically neutral
observer. His socio-cultural background influences his study and the findings. He/she is
historically positioned and locally situated as an observer of human condition.

Participatory research is the most appropriate form of research when researching
participation and democracy. It has to be remembered that while engaging in
participatory research, people are involved in problem identification and classification,
investigation and interpretation and also finding ways in dealing with issues. This is
important because it points to the fact that people are empowered to analyze, think about
it and act according to what they deem to be correct. Participatory research has created
different spaces for different strengths of practice and research. It provides space to utilize
research in practice. Participatory research is multi-disciplinary. It has provided
connection with others and especially practitioners and people from other disciplines.

Researching participation raises several critical issues. The issue of intrusion versus
confidentiality is an important one. Another issue is of ownership and accountability. The
issue of respect to indigenous knowledge and culture is critical one. When researching
participation the atmosphere should be a non-threatening one. It has to be remembered
that theory, research and practice are interrelated realms. Participation research is a
continuum cycle of reflection and action grounded both in theory and practice. One
important consequence and offshoot of participatory research is that it alters power
relations in terms of knowledge production and its utilization for the betterment of the

Dr. Ranjita Mohanty said that the key to researching participation lies in understanding
participation as a concept. There exist grand theories of participation and participation as
it actually takes place. It is noteworthy that the people constituting the excluded groups
are aware of the fact that they are excluded and marginalized. These excluded people may
come to form collectives. These collectives organize events to voice their protests. The
bigger events like the social movements organized and controlled by these excluded
groups are important. However, it is important to understand what the excluded groups
do in their everyday life that connects them to bigger events. It is not that they are
unaware that they have to compromise but their priorities are different. These activities
that are performed by individual on day to day basis may look insignificant when seen in
context of bigger picture. However these daily activities are not insignificant in actual
sense. Their everyday acts actually connect them to other members of the society, renew
their feeling of injustice and help them build collectivization. It renews their protest and
dissent. Mobilization of the excluded people also subsumes multiple identities. ‘There are
contexts when caste, class and gender identities become simultaneous vulnerable
experiences for people, as in the case of a poor dalit woman’. The pertinent question that
arises in this context is: Which identity is to be evoked first- will she seek inclusion as a
dalit or as a woman? The problem arises when you want to remain in the context and
fight for your identity and seek empowerment. The challenges are, then, manifold and
great. All this raises few important questions and issues:

   •   What is that people learn at one place that they carry to a new place?

   •   What does the researcher do when theories fail?

   •   What is the thing that makes women submit to the gendered stereotype and accept
       naturally the role of subservience?

Issues raised:

   •   What does the researcher do when the theories fail in the field?

   •   Can we link participatory research with public choice theory?

   •   Who else other than the academician and the practitioner is researching

Plenary session 5: Community-Based Research

Chair Speaker:
Prof. Dayanand Doangaonkar- Secretary General, Association of Indian Universities, New

Maeve Lydon- Associate Director, Office of Community- Based Research, University of
Victoria, Canada

Dr. Rajesh Tandon- President, PRIA, New Delhi

Maeve Lydon focused on community mapping and transformation. Community mapping
are collective representation of geography and landscape. It tells stories of what is
happening in lives of ordinary people and communities at large. She went on to say that
community mapping is more of a movement than a discipline. As a movement,
community mapping is making a significant impact in community learning, development
and planning in Canada and worldwide. They are distinct tools and vehicles for change.

Indigenous and community mapping poses a theoretical challenge to the discipline of
western cartography. Indigenous maps illustrate the power of maps for cultural, historical
and geographical expression and connectedness. At present, First Nations in Canada and
Aboriginal peoples worldwide are combining traditional methodologies with modern
technologies to create cultural, land-use and legal maps of their territories.

Community mapping is acknowledged as the best practice for local-based sustainable
planning and development. It has the potential to conceptualize, make and use images of
place. It provides an opportunity to citizens to think first what the community already
has, rather than what it needs and requires. As an ‘asset-building tool’, it focuses on what
people value and what they vision for the future. Thus, ‘community mapping is not
mapping for or of a community, it is mapping of their values, assets and visions for the
future by the community ’.

Community mapping sheds a lot of light on the social and cultural constructs. It brings to
focus what and whose spaces are acknowledged and marginalized. It reveals and links
knowledge, learning and power. Community mapping is about empowerment and
thereby facilitates the change in power equation. It is all about people being able to
participate in decision-making. It can assist and catalyze the transforming of power
relations from elitist to inclusive and community-based ways of knowing and learning. It
is a sustainable and community-based planning tool. It can be used as the basis for
visioning the future.

Dr. Tandon began by pointing that the community based research is not popular phrase.
Instead phrases like participatory/action research are in vogue. Whenever one undertakes
a community based research, the first difficulty that one comes across is what constitutes
a community. Community is something that is not homogenous. There exists unequal
distribution of power which results in unequal distribution of benefits. It is equally
difficult to identify the reference point of community.

Community based research brings together people from the world of academia and world
of practice. However this interface between world of practice and research evokes several
tensions. The first anxiety that it evokes can be called as one of ‘contested epistemology’.
The more trained researcher you are, the more rational you get in your understanding
and perception. It gets difficult for modern science to give modicum of rationality to
emotions. The second tension created by coming together of research fraternity with the
practitioners can be categorized as ‘competing purposes’, i.e. knowledge for what. The
purpose of undertaking research by world of practice is for implementing and putting
that knowledge for the betterment of the community. For the world of academia the
purpose of research involves analysis of finding, framing a theory and documentation.
The third tension evolved is one of ‘conflicting pedagogies’. For the world of academia,
theory is most important. So the academicians pick up only those themes that fit into their
theories. But for the practitioners it is not the case of following a rigid framework. They
cannot discard their findings. Their interest lies in building theory from experiences
without containing them. Another stress generated by coming together of researchers and
practitioners is ‘contradictory politics’. The world of practice has a particular model for a
particular problem and this model is particular to a specific socio-cultural and political
milieu. For the academicians acknowledging multiple worlds is difficult. The way of
mainstreaming particularity as oppose acceptance of particularity is the another cause of

At present there is discontent and disagreement between vision and transformatory
action. Visions that we acknowledge are visions of few, but the transformatory action is of
many and this in a way is extension as well as reflection of tension. The key lies in
acknowledging these differences, only then the path ahead will be smoother

Prof. Dayanand Doangaonkar emphasized the importance of role models and leaders in
one’s life. He said that different people influence us at different stages in life. The first
important role model in one’s life happens to be one’s family members. Next in line is the
place of learning i.e. school and college. It is here the interactions one has with one’s
teachers that play an important part in shaping ones personality and also ones worldview.
He stated that we are product of public education system. This system is undergoing
transformation. There is need to transform it in a way that it is useful for all.

He emphasized the value of knowledge. This knowledge comes to us because of our
everyday interactions. This knowledge gives us the ability to question and analyze things
that happen around us. He pleaded that we should not be conservative in producing
knowledge. We should not be skeptical in formulating policies. Instead we should
emphasize and stress knowledge generation. He highlighted the importance of leaders,
leaders who guide and direct us and help us to grow.

Issues raised:

    •   How are the communities created for the community engagement programme?
    •   What are the missing links in our present education system?
    •   Poverty has become a business. How can we through community based research
        make poverty less a business?

The conference concluded with Dr. Ranjita Mohanty highlighting the issues which the
conference missed upon and the ideas which needed reflection. She said that conference
discussed about the issues of mobilization and institutionalisation but missed on the
significant details like how the processes actually take place in field. One of the significant
outcomes of the conference deliberation is that the state has failed to perform its role
satisfactorily. The discussions have highlighted the need to build civil society, but the
conference does not tell us how to build a civil society. Dr. Ranjita Mohanty, thus,
concluded the conference with these reflective ideas, thanking the participants for their

Paper Presentation Sessions

Paper Session I- Demanding Accountability from the State

Dr. Rajesh Tandon, President PRIA, New Delhi

Ms. Deepta Chopra- Cambridge University, U.K
Dr. Rajesh Sinha- PRIA, New Delhi
Dr. John Williams- University of Western Cape, South Africa

Deepta Chopra: NREGA has been upheld as a form of a participatory and consultative
policy. The paper analyses how participatory and decentralized were the processes of
formulation of NREGA. Data for the same was collected through in-depth, unstructured
interviews and focused group discussion with academicians, government personnel,
politicians, students and NGO personnel. In order to unfold and analyze the nature of
participation, the paper focuses on the interaction between the state and non-state actors
involved in the four stages of policy making, i.e. the birth of idea, articulation of idea in
the form of draft policy, processes of negotiation and legalization of the bill and
notification for implementation. When analyzing participation, it is not only the breadth
and depth of participation but also the channels and spaces through which participatory
processes flow, that are important.

The paper discusses the process of formulation the Act in order to analyze the nature and
degree of participation. Analysis of data illustrates that the process of formulation of
NREGA was not as participatory as it claimed. In reality it was laced with power and

Rajesh Sinha: NREGA provides for hundred days of guaranteed employment in one
financial year to all rural household, members of which are willing to do manual labour.
The Act also promotes community monitoring through social audit. The paper discusses
that the mere provision of social audit is not sufficient to promote community
participation and monitoring. Several steps need to be taken to effectively implement the
process of social audit. The first and foremost step is to build a conducive environment in
the gram panchayat. Honest and active citizens need to be identified to form a committee
for conducting the social audit. Orientation courses for the committee members to
successfully conduct social audit need to be identified. The information gathered during
the social audit needs to be shared with people timely for successful use of information.
Finally constant pressure needs to be maintained on the administration for timely action
on the negligence identified during social audit. A social audit needs a lot of facilitation
and mobilization and hence the involvement of civil society organization becomes more
or less imperative to make it more effective and successful.

In Sabarkantha District, Unnati (a civil society organization) adopted certain principles for
social audit in five gram panchayat for enabling panchayat to effectively implement the
NREGS. It provided orientation to the citizens’ leaders and build upon the capacity of the
elected representatives. Taluka Nirikshan Samiti was created where the concept of social

audit was introduced. On the day of the gram sabha motivational songs about the NREGS
and social audit were sung.

John J. Williams: John in his paper argues that one could track and understand the merits
and demerits of social change in the democratic South Africa by focusing on the everyday
lived experiences of ordinary people since 1994. This paper provides some examples,
where ordinary people are drawn in participatory planning exercises, and in the process
emphasize the practical inadequacies of this statutory requirement. The South African
State, especially at local level, routinely fails to endorse the constitutional rights of
ordinary citizens within the control of a particular local authority. The paper provides
some examples where communities are reverting to anti-apartheid style street protests to
dramatize the shortcomings of post-apartheid planning practices as well as to claim their
constitutionally-entrenched rights to basic services such as housing, sanitation and related
services. Here it has to be pointed out that exclusionary planning practices did not end
with the birth of democratic South Africa in 1994, on the contrary, the affluent members of
society, still mostly so-called ‘white’ often raise the provisions made for public
participation in the affairs of local government to maintain their privileges.

Cape Town exemplifies the triad of spaces, especially ‘perceived space’ of exclusive
identities and rights; hence the notion that historically, Cape Town is the abode of so-
called ‘coloureds’ and ‘whites’ where African Black People [ABP] are mere ‘sojourners’. In
terms of their lived experiences, ABP apparently continue to live in this “conceived space”
as provided for by Apartheid planning practices of exclusion/ alienation.

Paper Session II: Building Inclusive Democracy

Dr. Krishna Banerjee- Former Director, CINI- Chetna Resource Centre, Kolkata

Ms. Michelle V. Esau- University of Western Cape, South Africa
Mr. Shyam Singh- Institute of Social and Economic Change, Bangalore
Ms. Tulika Saxena- PRIA, New Delhi

Michelle V. Esau: The paper presented by Michelle talked about the South African
women’s understanding of citizenship, rights and duties. Women from Polokwane and
Saldanha Bay were selected for the study. In South Africa, women are missing from senior
positions, which continue to be male dominated. Women are still under-represented in
politics. In rural areas the gender inequality is even more pronounced. Findings of the
study brought out certain reasons that inhibited them from actively participating in the
policy making process. Women’s constitutional right to equal treatment and quality of life
is shrouded by patriarchal ideologies. Their family responsibilities preclude them from
taking up their roles of citizenship. Women perceive politics as something disintegrated
from their everyday life. Women are less hopeful about politicians who they thought were
primarily driven by egoistic goals. The issue of unemployment and poverty was
identified as another factor (though not the primary one) that impeded women from
participating in community issues. She suggested that the state and civil society should
collaborate and hold a series of workshop with the objective of educating and informing
these women on legislative and policy framework so that they can play an active role in
policy framing.

Scholars have highlighted the importance of education for better understanding of
governance and citizenship. However Michelle’s data analysis did not support this. In
Saldanha Bay 23.5% women were matriculate, while in Polokwane it was 28.6%. Yet the
former group had more articulate ideas on citizenship and governance than the latter. The
responses from women interviewed brought out the significance of political literacy
which may be acquired through variety of means other than the formal learning.

Shyam Singh: The paper presented by Shyam Singh deals with factors which hinder
women in rural Indian context to be effective leaders. In rural context the position of
women in all spheres i.e. economic, political and socio-cultural, is quite weak. In village
setting, the decision making ability rests with the men folk. Women have no access to the
material and financial resources. Women in rural areas have restricted social mobility.
They do not access to formal education. They do not have structured communication
network that provide easy access to information or provide space for information and
knowledge exchange. All this contributes to low level of political participation and
representation by women. Lack of leadership capacity among the women in rural areas is
one of the causes that make representative democracy patchy and male dominated.

Tulika Saxena: Violence against women is an extension of the patriarchal system. It is
identified as the mechanism to keep them subjugated and dependent. Several studies
have shown the patriarchal nature of the state where the state has promoted the
subordination of women and has taken up interests of men to the detriment of women.
Women’s organisations and movements have played a crucial role in checking and
correcting this, and articulating the interest of women. Women’s organizations have
drawn attention of the state to the issue of violence against women and what role the state
should be playing in this aspect. One important point highlighted throughout the paper is
that though legal reforms improve and advance women’s coping mechanism regarding
violence, it fails to uproot the main cause of violence which is embedded deep in the
patriarchal nature of the society.

The paper focuses on two case studies of rape and domestic violence. Through them, it
highlighted that the role of state is not restricted to creating policies and legal reforms.
The role of the state extends to execution and implementation of these policies. State
needs to give up its role of compassionate patriarch and grow more gender sensitive.

Paper Session III: Appraising Democratic Performance: Acts and Regulations

Prof. Surya Narayan Mishra- Professor, Utkal University, Orissa

Mr. Anil Kumar Mohapatra- Government Women’s College, Koraput, Orissa
Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarangi- TERI University, New Delhi
Dr. Vikas Jha- PRIA, New Delhi

Anil Kumar Mohapatra: Orissa District Planning Committee (DPC) Act was constituted
with the aim to consolidate the plans prepared by the panchayat and Municipalities in the
district and prepare a draft plan for the district as a whole. Thus, it aims at balancing the
common interests of both the rural and urban areas in order to avoid dichotomy between
them. It was set up with the objective to set off a process of planning from below. By
reassigning the power to the local government institutions, the risk of misuse of resources
will be reduced and it would enable better execution and monitoring of the plan.
However, this Act has few pitfalls too. The biggest lacuna of the Act is that the devolution
of the power is incomplete. PRIs cannot really function as independent and autonomous
units; power still lies with the state. Notwithstanding the Act, it is still the opinion of the
elite that overrides the views of the common. Looking at the weaknesses of the Act, it can
be easily reached that the these deficiencies are too large to be ignored. However, the
solution lies not in ending but in mending. It has been to remembered that planning is a
long process and the DPC Act is still at its infancy and it should be given more time to
accomplish its goals.

One of the positive outcomes of the District Planning Committee system is that it has
brought down planning process to the lowest rung of the society. As per the schedule of
the Orissa District Planning Committees Act, Koraput District Planning Committee was
constituted. Because of the Act, tribals in the district have started discussing their own
problems in order to reach to a solution. They have started taking interest in schemes
launched for their upliftment.

Gopal Krishna Sarangi: Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is an approach of integrated
assessment of the economic, social, environmental, developmental costs and benefits of
the regulatory policy initiatives. It aims at highlighting the objective of the proposal, the
risk involved and the viable options for delivering the objectives. It accesses the strengths
and weaknesses of each regulatory proposal and in the process weeds out the
improvident regulations. It does so by engaging the pubic in a dialogue on the costs and
benefits that the proposed regulation would bring in. The first step towards setting up the
regulatory impact assessment procedure in India is to review all the existing
administrative procedures related to regulation. Codification of regulation should be
made mandatory to make the laws simple and accessible to greater mass of the
stakeholders. The mechanism should be designed in a way to involve the affected.
Information from the affected must be obtained and acknowledged. One should take into
account all available alternatives and opt for one which imposes less cost to business and
administration, and ensure better compliance and quicker regulatory response. Another
important consideration while developing these assessment procedures is that the process
has to take into the states which are responsible to promulgate many regulations.
The paper cites international examples where RIA has proved to be a successful tool and
has been able to attain its goals. The paper tries to examine the suitability of RIA in
sectoral regulatory context and how far are they able to meet the aspirations of Indian

Vikas Jha: Right to Information Act (RTI) 2005 gives power to the citizens to ensure
accountability from the state. The study discussed in the paper was undertaken to access
the implementation of the RTI in 21 districts of eight states of India. The study pointed out
that the citizens across the eight states were not able to access information from different
government departments under the RTI Act 2005. The citizens said that there existed no
directory of Public Information Officers (PIOs) and the people did not know whom to
submit the application. Moreover, the attitude of the PIOs to applicants was very hostile.
These authorities are reluctant to give information voluntarily to the citizens under the
RTI Act. Senior officer of the Public Authority and the State Information Commission are
the two Appellate bodies that envisage the RTI Act for the citizens. The study brings out
that the applicants feel that the First Appellate Authority is more concerned about the
interests of the PIOs than of the applicants. The attitude of the State Information
Commission has, however, been co-operative in soliciting information to the citizens
under the RTI Act.

The study highlights that despite enormous constraints that have come in the way of
implementation of the RTI Act, the Act has been immensely helpful to the poor and
marginalized, though in selected pockets. Examples from across the country go to prove
that RTI Act has been able to solve service delivery problems of citizens.

Paper Session IV- Debating Globalisation

Prof R. R. Singh- Former Director, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Dr. Mahesh V. Joshi- Saurashtra University, Gujarat
Ms. Julie Thekkudan- PRIA, New Delhi
Dr. Suresh Mayya- Mahatma Gandhi Memorial College, Karnataka

Mahesh Joshi: In the paper Mahesh Joshi said that India needs to adopt the concept of
indianisation instead of globalization for the overall development of the country. India is
witnessing quite contradictory situations. On one hand there is phenomenal economic
growth, alongside there is increasing poverty and unemployment. There is a need to re-
formulate our policies and strategies of development. There is a need to promote labour
intensive sectors, production method and system. India is basically agricultural and rural
oriented country. There is a need for rural entrepreneurship development. Emphasis
should be given to technological upgradation in rural industries. In order to make all this
effective, there is a need for reforms in political system and administrative machinery and
eliminating corruption from all level.

The World Bank- IMF formulated economic reforms are not compatible with our (Indian)
social, economical and political system. Indianisation instead of globalization is more apt
for Indian society. The economic thoughts and ideas of Mahatma Gandhi are best suited
for Indian economy. The present problems of unemployment and poverty can be solved
by promoting rural development.

Julie Thekkudan: Globalisation has led to integration of world economies. It is presumed
that globalisation would lead to greater economic participation, simultaneously leading to
enhancement in livelihood opportunities. However, livelihood is more than mere
employment; it is synonymous with social inclusion. Experiences from real life show that
globalization has not led to elimination of social exclusion. The underlying assumption
that engagement in economic activity would lead to economic empowerment and would
finally lead to gender equality is quite severely criticized by feminist thinkers.

Project Shakti, an initiative of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Hindustan Unilever
Limited, aimed at creating income-generation capabilities for the disadvantaged rural
women, by making her an entrepreneur. It promotes livelihoods by providing access to
women as local agents for marketing global products in the country. The assumption was
that economic independence would lead to empowerment. However, in reality it turned
out that women entrepreneurs, who were the primary stakeholders in the project, became
the secondary stakeholders. Empowerment as freedom of choice and action, decision
making authority and control over resources is not an evident result of the project.

Suresh Mayya: Little is known about the effect of globalization on the higher education
policy reform. Post-independence, higher education in India has received special attention
and has contributed significantly to the country’s knowledge and economic growth.
However, in the last decade the higher education sector has not been able to adequately
contribute to the country’s demand and supply requirement and economy. This
insufficiency of higher education overlaps with the new development of ‘globalisation’.
Globalization has created new opportunities for learning. This learning leads to new
forms of knowledge. This knowledge becomes the technical capital that governs the
dynamics of the global market. ‘Finance-driven reforms’ are the direct effect of
globalization on education. The predominant catalysts of these reforms have been the
World Bank and local ministries of Finance of national states. Education is becoming
another marketable commodity.

Indian education policy is being determined by a grouping of political and financial
interests rather than those of the middle class. The bigger hindrance to a successful system
of higher education is lack of resources and lack of public participation in educational

Paper Session V: Civil Society: Plurality and Potential

Prof. Anup Dash- Department of Sociology, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar

Ms. Rajashree Padhi- University of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Ms. Samanta Sahu- University of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Dr. K. Mohana Kumar- DB College, Kerala
Dr. C.S. Singhal- CHRD, NIRD, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

Rajashree Padhi and Samanta Sahu: Right to development asks for the intervention of the
state and its institutions in providing for the basic rights of people. Among these, the right
to food and safe drinking water got impetus due to the vulnerability of people in
accessing it. Yet millions of people in India continued to suffer from water and food
shortages, especially the women and people from lower caste and class. It was found that
this happened not because of lack of resources but because of the failure of the state
institutional structure to perform its duties. Civil Society in India emerged due to the
failure of the state in delivering a minimum standard of life to its people. It argued that
the well-being and security of people could be strengthened by encouraging the civil
society. In the context where high incidences of hunger and starvation deaths are reported
because of the negligence of the state in performing its duties, the role of civil society
grows significant. The pressure from the active civil society is a motivating factor for the
government to initiate policy necessary for protecting the public access to food and water
and the potential to achieve it. It enables people to involve oneself through a democratic
process. The very existence of an active civil society has brought awareness and
strengthened the movement for a right based approach to drinking water as well as food
security in India.

K. Mohana Kumar: Social capital is an important analytical concept and policy tool in
development discourses. Social capital works like a socio-cultural adhesive which
connects communities together and guarantee both political and economic advancement.
The role of social capital in shaping the economic prosperity of a local area cannot be
undervalued. Kerala’s social development can be attributed to the mutually strengthening
relations between social capital and state. There definitely exists a close relationship
between vibrancy of democracy and social capital formation.

People’s Plan Campaign in Kerala aims at building on additional social capital through
the decentralization experiment. This paper focuses on how far this project has been able
to attain its objective. People’s Plan Campaign was a state sponsored programme. It
provided opportunity for participation to the marginalized section of the society. The
study shows that People’s Plan Campaign was instrumental in creating new social capital.
People were actively involved in newly established social institutions. It created an
atmosphere of trust and strengthened the relational ties among people. It has increased
political awareness of the target community. Community projects are carried out by
community beneficiaries.

C. S. Singhal: The paper brings forth a study that was carried to evaluate the performance
of Youth Development Centres in terms of youth empowerment. It may be noted that
Youth Development Centres have been established by Nehru Yuvak Kendra Sangathan to
facilitate the process of youth empowerment. The study was carried out in three states
namely Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. The empowerment was assessed in
terms of awareness, access to opportunity structure, interface of youth with officials,
social mobility of youth, social capital, enhancement of knowledge, skill development,
economic aspects, political influence, gender equality, internal and external locus of
control and self efficiency. These respondents were asked to rate on five point scale on all
these factors before and after joining the youth development centres. Based on the
aggregate score on each of these empowerment dimension mean score were calculated.
On an average the level of empowerment were medium on each of these dimensions
before joining the YDC. However, after joining the YDC the mean score on each of these
empowerment dimensions improved and was between 3.5 to 5. Variables like sex, caste
level of education, age and position of member did not have any effect on the level of
empowerment of rural youth.

Paper Session VI: Building Citizenship at the Grassroots

Prof. V. Narayan Reddy- Professor, Department of Anthropology, Sri Venkateswara
College, Andhra Pradesh

Ms. Bhumika Jhamb- Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, New Delhi
Dr. Mandakini Pant- PRIA, New Delhi
Mr. Tapas Satpathy- Unnati, Gujarat
Mr. Andre Ling- Seva Mandir, Rajathan

Bhumika Jhamb: Grassroots collectives, especially the women’s collectives have emerged
as a consequence of the erosion of the state and state authority. The study pointed out that
these women’s collective provided platform to the women to discourse about their
individual families and communities issues. This helped them reflect the commonality of
issues affecting their lives. The collective dialoguing led them to define their protest
agenda. Methods to carry out protests varied from acting as role models, negotiating with
oppressing agents, to organizing dharnas and rallies. All this helped women to
reformulate their self-identity and provided women the much needed courage. Few pro-
active women took the lead and directed and organised the activities in these groups.
These leaders exhibited a transformational style of leadership. It is important to
emphasize the role of NGOs or community based organization in ushering the process of
formation of women collectives and the process of women’s leadership. These
organization played a catalytic role by providing them an enabling environment and
encouraging them to come together.

Critical to the women’s collective was the emergence of leadership. A few charismatic
women took the initiative to motivate and lead the endeavor. Their local knowledge and
understanding of the issues helped them seek the change they desired.

Mandakini Pant: In Gujarat, the varied citizen collectives and networks have taken up
social accountability initiatives. The social accountability processes include monitoring
and evaluation of public service delivery and discussion with government officials. The
success of these social accountability initiatives of citizen collective depend on their skill
and capabilities. Intermediary civil society organization can play a facilitative role in this
aspect. The role of civil society organization lies in building the capacity of these citizen
collectives. Evidences suggest that social accountability mechanisms by citizen collectives
have proved to be quite successful. It has lead to improved governance, better public
service delivery and empowerment of citizens.

In Gujarat citizens collectives such as Panchayat Vikas Samiti, Kshetriya Vikas Samiti and
Mahila Vikas samiti are engaged in social accountability initiatives. It included
monitoring the public service delivery, conducting social audit and consultation with the
government functionaries. Unnati, a civil society organization, played a facilitative role

Andre Ling: The paper talks about Seva Mandir’s experiences of working in Delwara, a
semi-urban township in sourthern Rajathan. The organization has been actively involved
in mobilizing the people of Delwara to make them responsible citizens. They are helping
them improve the quality of life by strengthening local governance. In line with the
organization’s approach has been the formation of Nagrik Vikas Mannch (NVM), a
federated structure with over four hundred members. Further spaces of participation
have been created through the formation of a series of mohalla groups and committees,
Youth Resource Centre and organizing workshops and training camps.

The NVM complements the formal body of local governance by providing space for
citizens to exercise responsible citizenship and leadership. NVM has enabled citizens of
diverse background to enact new ways of relating to each other, link with other
stakeholders, contribute towards decision-making affecting their lives

Paper Session VIII: Participatory Methodologies

Dr. Catherine Mc.Gregor, Educational Psychology & Leadership Studies, University of
Victoria, Canada

Dr. Darlene E. Clover- University of Victoria, Canada
Dr. P.N. Sankaran – School of Communication and Management Studies, Cochin, Kerala
Ms. Madhu Sharma- PRIA, New Delhi
Dr. Rosaline R. Canessa- University of Victoria, Canada
Dr. D. Nandakumar- University of Victoria, Canada

Darlene E. Clover: The art-based adult education and knowledge mobilization project
came from the homeless/street-involved women themselves. The project provided space
for the women to explore collectively their own issues, experiences and develop artworks
based on these for public display. The paper talks about the impact of this project on
women participants and people who attended these exhibitions. The project helped the
women to develop stronger collaborative relationships. It filled them with hope and
inspiration. It helped build trust. It helped build their voices and mobilized them to
become social and political agents

The project was carried out using feminist participatory approach. Data was collected
from multiple sources. One important source was the focus group discussion and
interviews with the women participants and the audience was carried out. This study
contributes to discourses of feminist adult education by focusing on the aesthetic
dimension and revealing the power of art’s exhibition as dynamic communication
mechanism for the exchange of social information

P. N. Sankaran: Participatory research methods are gaining popularity and acceptance
widely. However the traditional artisans continue to be excluded from the interventions
designed for them. These interventions are not participatory in characteristic. Academic
research has also rarely taken up the issues of traditional artisans. Artisan sector across
the country is characterized by sad state of affairs. Artisans are custodian of traditional
knowledge. However, they have been reduced to the status of casual workers on urban
fringes because of the modern technology and globalization process. The need of the hour
is to acknowledge the traditional knowledge of the artisans and develop an Artisan Plan
pooling the knowledge, insight and wisdom of academicians and artisans.

The model of community engagement in academic research for the formulation of an
Artisan plan is presumed to be an ideal vehicle to empower these groups, economically
and socially. The key lies in recognizing them as partners in development schemes and
empowering them using their own resources, institutions and skills.

Madhu Sharma: Urban poverty is a multidimensional phenomenon. There is a
deprivation of resources, means and opportunities, alongside denial of rights and access.
For assessment of poverty, participatory research has contributed heavily to the
understanding. A participatory poverty assessment is the application of participatory
techniques to assess poverty. The process of PPA values the insight of primary
stakeholders (the poor), believe in their intrinsic capacity to de-contextualise the situation
and have aspirations to change for better. Focused group discussion with the residents,
consultations with the service providers and people’s representative was the main
approach to identify the causes of poverty and addressing the situation in an acceptable

The outcome of poverty assessment and understanding in a well endowed city of
Chandigarh pointed that mere availability of infrastructure for basic services does not
ensure does not ensure equitable access to all sections of the society. The Participatory
Poverty Assessment study brought out the role of intermediaries who can act as catalyst
to bring about the civic participation.

Rosaline R. Canessa and D. Nandakumar: Rosaline and Nandakumar highlighted that the
in past the planning undertaken by the government did not incorporate local
participation. In recent times, the planners have come to realize the importance of
community consultation and community participation for the successful planning
process. Their paper highlighted that the concept of participation and empowerment are
interlinked .They drew on experiences in participatory community planning in Canada
and India, and discussed the key issues that assist or hamper community empowerment.
They discussed issues like various models of engagement, different levels of participation,
technology to facilitate participatory planning, government accountability and the impact
and efficacy of empowered communities.

Paper Session IX: Pedagogies for Change

Prof. Surinder Shukla- Reader, Political Science Department, Punjabi University,

Ms. Heather Mc. Rae, Program Director, Arts and Science, Division of Continuing Studies
University of Victoria, Canada

Heather Mc. Rae: Community-based research stresses the involvement of all stakeholders
leading to the development of partnership and shared knowledge. Community-based
research is gaining momentum in Canadian universities and is evolving as a popular new
research paradigm. The paper discusses how community based research and university
continuing education can collaborate to advance the objectives of civil society. The
exchange of ideas and information between the community and university could facilitate
trust and establish the networks necessary for the kinds of discussion and actions that can
help solve issues within society. It may help in finding answer to solving problems of the
community and promoting desirable social change.

                                Programme Schedule

                           Vth International Conference
                           Citizenship and Governance
             Re-visioning Social Transformation in the 21st Century

Date: 27 - 29 February 2008 Venue: YMCA, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi
Organised by: PRIA, New Delhi, in collaboration with Citizenship DRC, UK

Wednesday, 27 February 2008

 09.00a.m-09.30a.m     Registration
 09.30a.m-11.00a.m     Welcome and Overview
                       Dr. Ranjita Mohanty
                       Research Fellow
                       PRIA, New Delhi

                       Keynote Address
                       Padmabhusan Prof. T. K. Oommen, Professor Emeritus, Centre for
                       the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal
                       Nehru University, New Delhi

 11.00a.m-11.30a.m     Tea Break
 11.30a.m-01.00p.m.    PLENARY SESSION – 1
                       Civil Society, Participation and Citizenship

                       Dr. Rajesh Tandon, President, PRIA, New Delhi

 01.00p.m-02.00p.m     Lunch

 02.00p.m-03.30p.m     Paper Session – I

                       Demanding Accountability from the State

                       Dr. Rajesh Tandon, President, PRIA, New Delhi

                       National Rural Employment Guarantee Ms. Deepta Chopra, Cambridge
                       Act: Accountability and Responsiveness University, UK
                       from the State

                    Accountability in Rural Wage             Dr. Rajesh Sinha, PRIA, New
                    Employment Programmes in India:          Delhi
                    Case of Social Audit in NREGA

                    Governance through Transformation in     Dr. John J. Williams, University
                    Post-Apartheid South Africa              of the Western Cape, South

                    Paper Session – II

                    Building Inclusive Democracy

                    Dr. Krishna Banerjee, Former Director, CINI-Chetna Resource Centre,

                    The Voices of Women: An Exploratory      Ms. Michelle V. Esau,
                    Study on Women’s Understanding of        University of the Western Cape,
                    Issues of Governance, Citizenship,       South Africa
                    Rights and Duties

                    Representative Democracy, Leadership     Mr. Shyam Singh, Institute for
                    and Women: Insights from Rural India     Social and Economic Change
                                                             (ISEC), Bangalore

                    Violence against Women and Response      Ms. Tulika Saxena, PRIA, Delhi
                    of State: Two Cases from India

                    Paper Session – III

                    Appraising Democratic Performance: Acts and Regulations

                    Prof. Surya Narayan Mishra, Department of Political Science, Utkal
                    University, Orissa

                    District Planning Committees Act         Mr. Anil Kumar Mohapatra,
                    (1988) of Orissa: Performance and        Government Women‘s College,
                    Pitfalls – A Case Study                  Jeypore, Koraput, Orissa

                    Assessing the Impact of Regulations in   Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarangi,
                    India: Challenges and Prospects          TERI University, New Delhi

                    Making the State Accountable through     Dr. Vikas Jha, PRIA, New Delhi
                    Right to Information Act

03.30p.m-04.00p.m   Tea Break

 04.00p.m-05.30p.m     PLENARY SESSION – 2

                       Democracy: Challenges for Participation and Accountability

                       Chair Speaker:
                       Prof. John Gaventa, Fellow, The Institute of Development Studies (IDS),
                       Sussex, UK

                       Prof. Yogendra Yadav, Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of
                       Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi

Thursday, 28 February 2008

 09.30a.m-11.00a.m     Paper Session-IV

                       Debating Globalization


                       Prof. R.R.Singh, Former Director, TISS, Mumbai

                       Re-visioning Social Transformation       Dr. Mahesh V. Joshi, Saurashtra
                       through Economic Development in          University, Gujarat
                       21st Century

                       Globalisation and Women’s Livelihoods: Ms. Julie Thekkudan, PRIA,
                       A Case Study of Project Shakti         New Delhi

                                                                Dr. Rajesh Tandon, PRIA, New

                       Reflecting on Local Responses to         Dr. Suresh Mayya, Mahatma
                       Globalisation: The Case of India’s       Gandhi Memorial College,
                       Higher Education Policy Reforms          Karnataka

                       Paper Session-V

                       Civil Society: Plurality and Potential

                       Prof. Anup Dash, Department of Sociology, Utkal University,

                    Necessity of Civil Society for a Right-   Ms. Rajashree Padhi
                    Based Approach to Development in          Mr. Samanta Sahu, University
                    India                                     of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

                    Extent of Social Capital Formation        Dr. K. Mohana Kumar, D B
                    through Decentralization Policies in      College, Kerala

                    Empowerment of Rural Youth through        Dr. C. S. Singhal, CHRD, NIRD,
                    Youth Development Centres                 Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

11.00a.m-11.30a.m   Tea Break

11.30a.m-01.00p.m   Paper Session – VI

                    Building Citizenship at the Grassroots

                    Prof. V. Narayana Reddy, Dept. of Anthropology, Sri
                    Venkateswara University, Andhra Pradesh

                    Women Community Leaders Protest           Ms. Bhumika Jhamb, Centre for
                    and Change – Unraveling the Power of      Budget and Governance
                    Women Collectives                         Accountability, New Delhi

                    Exacting Responsiveness of the Local      Dr. Mandakini Pant, PRIA,
                    Governance Institutions: Social           New Delhi
                    Accountability Mechanisms of Citizen      Mr. Tapas Satpathy, UNNATI,
                    Collectives/Networks in Gujarat           Gujarat

                    Improving the Quality of Life in a Semi- Andre Ling, Seva Mandir,
                    Urban Settlement through Responsible     Rajasthan
                    Citizenship and Good Governance: The
                    Delwara Experience

                    Paper Session-VII

                    The Urban Question

                    Prof. Prabhat Datta, Department of Political Science, Calcutta
                    University, Kolkata

                    Urban Governance-Regularisation of        Dr. Pradeep K. Saxena,
                    Commercial and Residential Activities     University of Rajasthan,
                    in the Jaipur City (Rajasthan, India)     Rajasthan

                    Municipal Solid Waste Management:         Mr. Manish Kumar, PRIA, New
                    An Urban Planning Issue                   Delhi

                    Opening up Public Spaces for              Ms. Christine Warmer, Shining
                    Community Participation in China’s        Stone Community Action, China

01.00p.m-02.00p.m   Lunch
                    Paper Session-VIII

                    Participatory Methodologies

                    Dr. Catherine McGregor, University of Victoria, Canada

                    Street-Life’s Creative Turn: The          Dr. Darlene E. Clover,
                    potential of the Arts-Based Education     University of Victoria, Canada
                    and Knowledge Mobilization

                    Developing a Participatory Artisan        Dr. P. N. Sankaran, School of
                    Plan: Framework for Community             Communication and
                    Engagement in Academic Research           Management Studies, Cochin

                    Participatory Poverty Assessment in       Ms. Madhu Sharma, PRIA, New
                    the Urban Context                         Delhi

                    Participatory Planning – Empowering       Dr. Rosaline R. Canessa
                    Communities                               Dr. D. Nandakumar, University
                                                              of Victoria, Canada

                    Paper Session- IX

                    Pedagogies for Change

                    Dr. Surinder Shukla, Reader, Political Science Department, Punjab
                    University, Punjab

                    In search of Common Space: Exploring      Ms. Heather McRae, University
                    the Relationship between the University   of Victoria, Canada
                    and the Community in Building a Civil

03.30p.m-04.00p.m   Tea Break

 04.00p.m-05.30p.m         PLENARY SESSION – 3

                           New Actors in Social Change

                           Chair Speaker:
                           Ms. Priya Viswanath, CEO, Charities Aid Foundation India, New Delhi

                           Mr. Don Mohanlal, President, The Nand & Jeet Khemka Foundation,
                           New Delhi

                           Mr. Pooran Pandey, Director, Times Foundation, New Delhi

 07.00p.m                  Dinner with invited guests at YMCA Lawns

Friday, 29 February 2008

 09.30a.m-11.00a.m         PLENARY SESSION – 4

                           Researching Participation and Empowerment

                           Chair Speaker:
                           Dr. Budd Hall, Director, Office of Community-Based Research
                           University of Victoria, Canada

                           Prof. B. Deviprasad, Department of Social Work, Andhra University,
                           Visakhapattnam, Andhra Pradesh

                           Dr. Ranjita Mohanty, Research Fellow, PRIA, New Delhi

 11.00a.m-11.30a.m         Tea Break
 11.30a.m-01.00p.m         PLENARY SESSION – 5

                           Community Based Research

                           Chair Speaker:
                           Prof. Dayanand Doangaonkar, Secretary General, Association of
                           Indian Universities, New Delhi

                    Ms. Maeve Lydon, Associate Director of the Office of Community-
                    Based Research, University of Victoria, Canada

                    Dr. Rajesh Tandon, President, PRIA, New Delhi

01.00p.m-01.30p.m   Closing Comments

                    Dr. Ranjita Mohanty, Research Fellow, PRIA, New Delhi

01.30p.m            Lunch and Departure

     Vth International Conference on Citizenship & Governance
            Re-visioning Social Transformation in the 21st Century
               27-29 February 2008, Venue: YMCA, New Delhi

                              List of Participants

S.No Name and Contact Details
1    Amit Sharma, Ganga Institute of Education, 20 k.m. Milestone, Jhajjar Bahadurgarh Road,
     Village Kablana, Distt. Jhajjar-124104, Haryana Email:
2    Andre Ling, Seva Mandir, Old Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan-313004
3    Anil Kumar Mohapatra, Government Women‘s College, Jeypore, Distt. Koraput, Orissa-
     764001 Email:
4    Anup Dash, Department of Sociology Vani- Vihar, Utkal University Bhubaneswar, Orissa
5    B. Deviprasad, Professor, Dept. of Social Work, Andhra University, Vishakapatnam-
     530003, A.P. Dir. Ph: 891-284 4457/891-2567263 ®/0891-2707743 (o) Fax: 0891-2784341
6    Bhumika Jhamb, Communications & Media Associate, Centre for Budget and Governance
     Accountability, A-11, Second Floor, Niti Bagh, New Delhi-110049 Email:
7    Budd Hall, Director, Office of Community-Based Research, University of Victoria PO Box
     3030 STN CSC Room 352 Continuing Studies Building, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3N6Tel:
     1 250 721 8474, Fax: 1 250 472 4358 E-mail:
8    C S Singhal, Associate Professor, CHRD, National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD)
     MORD, Govt. of India, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030, AP Email:,
9    Catherine McGregor, University of Victoria, Canada Email:
10   Christine Warmer, Shining Stone Community Action, Room No. 608, Jia 27, Hepingli
     Middle Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100013, P.R. China Email:,
11   Darlene E. Clover, Faculty of Education, University of Victoria, MacLaurin Building, Box
     3010 Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3N4 Email:

12   Dayanand Doangaonkar, Secretary General, Association of Indian Universities (AIU),
     House16, Comrade Indrajeet Gupta Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 Tel: 23236105/ 23232429/
     23232435 E-mail:
13   Deepta Chopra, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, Barton Road, Cambridge, CB3
     9BB Email:
14   Don Mohanlal, President and CEO, Nand & Jeet Khemka Foundation11, Community
     Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017Phone: 46034801 / 06, (Geeta, PA) Fax: 46034823 Email:,
15   Gopal Krishna Sarangi, Department of Policy Studies, Centre for Regulatory and Policy
     Research, TERI University, New Delhi-110003, Email:

16   Heather McRae, Programme Director Arts and Science Division of Continuing Studies
     University of Victoria Canada Email:
17   J K Kulkarni, Nagpur, Maharashtra
18   John Gaventa, Fellow, The Participation, Power and Social Change Team, The Institute of
     Development Studies (IDS) University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1GRE, London, U.K. Tel: 44-
     1273-606261 (44-1273-550653) ® Fax: 44-1273-621202/691647 Email:
19   John J. Williams, Chair of Research & Study Leave Committee: Faculty of Economic &
     Management Sciences, School of Government University of the Western Cape, Private Bag
     X17 Bellville, 7535, South Email:,
20   Julie T., PRIA, 42, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi Email:
21   K Mohana Kumar, D B College, Sasthamcotta, Kollam Distt., Kerala
22   K P Singh, University professor and Department Head., Prof. in charge of Department of
     Rural Studies, Patna University, Patna, Bihar
23   Krishna Banerjee, Flat 4C, 146, Rashbehani Avenue, Kolkata-700029 Tel.: 033-24651133,
     9831956304 Email:,
24   Lisa Mitchell, University of Victoria, Canada
25   Madhu Sharma, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
26   Maeve Lydon, University of Victoria, Canada Email:
27   Mahesh V. Joshi, Prof. & Head Dept. of Economics, Saurashtra University, Saurashtra
     University, Rajkot, C/o 123, Ajanta Park, University Road, B/h Akashvani Colony,
     Rajkot-360005, Gujarat Email:
28   Mandakini Pant, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
29   Manish Kumar, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
30   Martha Farrell, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
31   Michelle V. Esau, School of Government University of the Western Cape South Africa
32   Namrata Jaitli, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
33   Nandan Divakaran, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada

34   P N Sankaran, Independent Researcher, Apartment # 102, Lal Gulab Manor, K H Lakshmi
     Narayin Lane, 12th Cross, Oil Mill Road, St. Thomas Town Post, Bangalore-560084 Email:
35   Payal Sen, Research Scholar, Calcutta University
36   Poonam Kaur, Public Affair Centre, 15, Kiadb Industrial Area, Jigani Link Road, Hennagra
     Post, Bangalore,-562016 Email:
37   Pooran Pandey, Director, Times Foundation, Times of India Bldg., 4th Floor, Bahadur Shah
     Zafar Marg, New Delhi –110 002 Tel: 23492077, Mob: 9810329642 Email:
38   Prabhat Datta, Department of Pol. Science Calcutta University, Kolkata1 – A - 245, Sector
     3, Salt Lake City, Kolkatta–700 097 West Bengal Phone : 033-337 0262 ®, Fax : 033-358
     2920/5800, 033-335 1262 ® Email:,
39   Pradeep K. Saxena, Assistant Professor of Public Admn; University of Rajasthan, Jaipur-
     302002, Email:
40   Pradip Pradhan (SRC Orissa nominated), Secretary, The Humanity, Line Para, P.O.,
     Patnagarh, Dist. - Bolangir, Orissa, PIN – 767025, Mobile – 9937843482, Email:
41   Priti Sharma, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
42   Priya Viswanath, Charities Aid Foundation, A 85, First Floor, East of Kailash New Delhi –
     110 065 Tel: 41689100, 41689101, 41689102, Fax: 4168 9104, Email:
43   R R Singh, Uttaranchal Apartments, IP Extn. Delhi-110092
44   Rajashree Padhi, Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad, AP
45   Rajesh Sinha, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
46   Rajesh Tandon, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
47   Ranjita Mohanty, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
48   Rosaline R. Canessa, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada
49   S S Srivastava, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
50   Samanta Sahu, Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
51   Sarika Sharma, Principal, Ganga Institute of Education, 20 k.m. Milestone, Jhajjar
     Bahadurgarh Road, Village Kablana, Distt. Jhajjar-124104, Haryana
52   Satpal Singh, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
53   Shabeen Ara, PRIA, New Delhi Email:

54   Shailendra Dwivedi, PRIA, New Delhi, Email:
55   Shyam Singh, Doctoral Fellow, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC)
     Bangalore-560072, Email:
56   Shyamalendu Padhi, Shakti, Orissa, Email:
57   Sureshramana Mayya, Professor of Commerce, MGM College, UDUPI-576102, Karnataka,
58   Surinder Shukla, E-1/116, Sector-14, Punjab University Campus, Chandigarh – 160014.
     Ph: 0172-2542691 ® Email:
59   Surya Narayan Misra, JF- 10, Utkal University, Vani-Vihar Campus, Bhubaneswar –04,
     Orissa Ph:0674-3125629 (m) 09337125629/2588322 Email:
60   T. K. Oommen, Professor Emeritus, Centre for the Study of Social Systems, JNU, 85,
     National Media Campus, Gurgaon 122002, Haryana Phone: 95124-2358272 ®, Mobile:
     9818443710 Email:
61   Tulika Saxena, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
62   Twinkle Pal, PRIA, New Delhi Email:
63   V. Narayana Reddy, Dept. of Anthropology Sri Venkateswara University, Andhra Pradesh
64   Vikas Jha PRIA 42, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi Email:
65   Yogendra Yadav, Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)
     29 Rajpur Road, Delhi - 110 054 Tel: 23942199, 23981012 Extn.: 334 Email:


To top