For publication in Ajay Gudavarthy (ed), 2011,

Re-framing Democracy and Agency in India: Interrogating Political Society, London: Anthem Press

Political Society as a Critiquei

Swagato Sarkar1

Partha Chatterjee is one of the very few scholars in India who have systematically

tried to theorize the specificity of Indian democratic politics. His conceptualization of

political society can be seen as an approach to explicate the latter‘s logics. This

conceptualization has been modified and refined over the years by mediating on the

concrete historical experience and through a critical engagement with the received

Western normative political theory. In this paper, first, I will provide a sketch of

Chatterjee‘s criticism of the concept of civil society, and then present a critical review

of his concept of political society. I will argue, against Chatterjee, that the concept of

political society does not denote a positive political development; rather it should be

used to provide a critical insight into Indian politics, particularly in relation to the

process of capitalist expansion and differentiation.

CHATTERJEE’S CRITIQUE OF CIVIL SOCIETY

It is well known that the discussion on political society is embedded in the debate on

civil society and the critique of the conceptual infrastructure of Western normative

theory. In this debate, normatively, civil society has been identified as a domain for

the expansion and realization of rights and freedom (Cohen and Arato 1992), and

instrumentally, it is seen as a domain where the distribution, exercise and control of

power are (democratically) contested (Nonan-Ferrell 2004). Taken together, civil

society is an integral part of democracy and a placeholder of institutions.

1 Dr. Swagato Sarkar obtained his DPhil [PhD] from the University of Oxford, U.K. in 2009. He is an

Associate Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society in Bangalore, India. Email:

swagato.sarkar@gmail.com

2

I will argue that Partha Chatterjee‘s critique of Western normative theory and civil

society is primarily a critique of the subject (i.e. citizen) that this theory supposes. His

critique draws attention to the interpellative structure and the criteria of membership

of the institutions proposed/assumed by this theory, namely, the erasure of difference

in favour of formal equality and freedom (Chatterjee 2004). The effect of this formal

interpellation is that the state in its conduct can recognize or favour citizens only as

unencumbered individuals, severed of any primordial ties – a product of Western

humanism and secularism. Since the primordial identities of the citizens are not

invoked or referred to, hence, they are rendered homogeneous before the state,

namely, as a nation. It is the will of the citizens, expressed as their generalized

political aspiration and popular sovereignty, which gives legitimacy to the state and

forms the basis of democracy.

Here, Chatterjee posits the concrete postcolonial conditions against the conceptual and

normative space of civil society, and argues that only a handful of the ‗elites‘ in post-

colonial countries can meet such a criterion of citizenship. These elites are the product

of the inherited modernity (from colonialism), who can meet the demand of being

unencumbered either because they are cultured/socialized into such a being, or can

simply afford to ignore/avoid their primordial identities. Hence, the scope of the

concept of civil society is restrictive. This theoretical position is also problematic

because the concept of ‗community‘, which provides meaning to most of the people in

these countries, is suppressed and relegated to the pre-modern historical time

(Chatterjee 1998 and 2004). Therefore, civil society is a limited concept and an

undifferentiated space.

Put differently, Western normative theory finds only a section of the postcolonial

society as the true bearer of modernity. One can note that, by foregrounding

communal being (and identity), Chatterjee differentiates ‗community‘ from civil

society in an ontological way. He suggests that the political space be split, and a

domain, separate and distinct from civil society – i.e. political society – be

conceptualized to understand the democratic urge in India (and other postcolonial

countries).

3

CHATTERJEE ON POLITICAL SOCIETY

Chatterjee‘s advocacy for the identification of a different political space beyond civil

society rests on three moves. First, he focuses attention on the sphere of governmental

interventions where, he claims, a different kind of political engagement between the

legal-bureaucratic apparatus and the people who are excluded from civil society can

be witnessed.

The post-colonial Indian state inherited the legal-bureaucratic apparatus, which was

able ―to reach as the target of many of its activities virtually all of the population that

inhabits its territory, [whereas] the domain of civil social institutions, [….] is still

restricted to a fairly small section of ‗citizens‘‖ (Chatterjee 2001, 172). According to

Chatterjee, this is a new paradigm, and there is a clear shift from the abstract

theoretical domain of citizenship to the actual domain of policy. Following Foucault,

he claims that the domain of policy is predicated upon a conception of the society as

one constituted by population, not citizens or ―elementary units of homogenous

families‖ (Chatterjee1998, 279; 2001, 173). ―The regime secures legitimacy not by

the participation of citizens in the matters of state, but by claiming to provide for the

well-being of the population‖ (Chatterjee 1998, 279). Thus, Chatterjee‘s second move

is to shift the focus from the normative category of ‗citizen‘ to the descriptive and

empirical category of ‗population.‘

The concept of population is predicated upon an enumerable, descriptive, empirical

mass of people, and does not rely on a normative theory or abstraction. The

population is ―assumed to contain, large elements of ‗naturalness‘ and ‗primordiality‘;

the internal principles of the constitution of particular population groups is not

expected to be rationally explicable since they are not the products of rational

contractual association, but are, as it were, pre-rational‖ (Chatterjee 2001, 173 and

passim). The concept of population offers the governmental functions and apparatus

an access to ―a set of rationally manipulable instruments for reaching [a] large section

of the inhabitants of a country as the targets of ‗policy‘.‖

Such interventions in the society-as-population, if we may call it, and the interaction

between these governmental apparatus and the population groups inaugurate a new

4

site for strategic manoeuvring, resistance and appropriation. Chatterjee calls this site

political society. The strategic manoeuvre and mobilization that take place in this

domain neither always conform, nor are consistent with, the principles of association

in civil society. Yet, Chatterjee identifies an ‗urge for democracy‘ in this mobilization

in political society, as it channels the demands on the developmental state.

Chatterjee makes the third move by translating the ‗subject of development‘ into a

‗political subject‘, by assigning an identity to it and finding a normative ground for it.

Chatterjee is interested in exploring how people use the space opened by the

intervention of governmental functions. As we have seen, such interventions perceive

the society as population and then categorize the latter into empirical groups which

become the ‗target‘ for policies. However, such categorization also infuses a new

identity within the group, and many a time, the constituents of the group emerge as

distinct political entities. These new groups have a territorial boundary, ―clearly

defined in time and space‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 58 and passim). Consistent with his

critique of civil society and the prominence of community, Chatterjee tries to

demonstrate how these groups become a ‗community‘ – and thus a collective, and

also finds a normative ground for the latter‘s demands. According to him, since the

livelihood and existence of many of the members of such groups are predicated upon

a (collective) violation of (property) laws, they appear as ‗illegal entities‘ before the

state. They are not recognized as proper civic bodies, pursing legitimate objectives.

Thus, to be recognized by the governmental functions, they must ―find ways of

investing their collective identity with a moral content‖ (ibid 57 and passim) and

thereby ―give to the empirical form of a population group the moral attributes of a

community‖ [emphasis in original]. Yet this community is about ―the shared interests

of the members of association... they describe the community in […] terms of a shared

kinship…the most common metaphor… is that of a family.‖

Chatterjee never spells out what he means by the ‗moral content‘ of an identity, but it

seems that these new groups appropriate the proposition of the ―government‘s

obligation to look after the poor and underprivileged population groups‖ (Chatterjee

2004, 60). The objective of their mobilization is to ―secure the benefits of

governmental program[me]s‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 66), which they claim as ―a matter of

rights and use their association as the principal collective instrument to pursue that

5

claim‖ (ibid 59). This, according to Chatterjee, is a clear break with the erstwhile

patron-client exchanges, and an indication of their political assertion.

Chatterjee explains that the mobilization which takes place on the terrain of political

society is ―necessarily temporary and contextual‖, and ―depends entirely on the ability

of particular population groups to mobilize support to influence the implementation of

government policy in their favour‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 60, emphasis added; note:

implementation, not policy formulation). Such strategic politics must operate within

the constellation of the (mainstream) political formations (i.e., parties, but also non-

governmental organizations?). The success of such strategic manoeuvring depends on

―applying the right pressure at the right places in the governmental machinery‖

(Chatterjee 2004, 66). However, they do not always have access to such ‗right places‘,

and therefore, ―(t)o produce a viable and persuasive politics of the governed, there has

to be considerable act of mediation‖ (ibid 64). Hence, there is a real need for finding

trustworthy mediators who can represent them.

It is through such political engagements that people are ―substantial[ly] redefin[ing]

property and law within the actually existing modern state‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 75) and

―are devising new ways in which they can choose how they should be governed...

people are learning, and forcing their governors to learn, how they would prefer to be

governed…[which itself is a] good justification for democracy‖ (ibid 77-78).

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF POLITICAL SOCIETY

As mentioned earlier, Chatterjee‘s critique of civil society is predicated on the critique

of the subject that Western normative theory supposes. Furthermore, his

conceptualization of political society is predicated on the difference in the modes of

―transacting business with the constitutional state‖ (Chatterjee 1998, 282). The

modality of realization of rights is what, then, separates political society from civil

society. The difference in ontology which Chatterjee introduced at the beginning of

his critique of civil society – by foregrounding the lived experience of a ‗communal‘

being, as opposed to the unencumbered modern individual – is replaced with a critical

appraisal of the procedural dimension of Indian democracy (involved in ‗transacting

6

business‘, as quoted above). While trying to explore the ontology of this late position,

we do not find any elaboration of the concept of the social. Rather, Chatterjee reads

social relationships and practices ―in relation to the legal-political forms of the

modern state‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 74). He neither engages with the immanent

antagonisms in the social, nor with the quasi-transcendental conditions of possibility

and impossibility of political actions/interventions. To modify my last observation, I

can say that, at the ontological level, Chatterjee posits the difference between political

society and civil society in terms of the difference in the legal status of the entities

that the state encounters. It is therefore no surprise to see that the procedural

dimension unfolds in terms of judging the legal status of the means of the chosen

economic activity by, and amenities for physical living of, the members of political

society. Political action is seen in terms of establishing the legal, or transgressing the

illegal, status within the black letter (property) law (which becomes a referent point).

Political space, then, is strictly the space of interaction between the state and the

‗population‘. Obviously, Chatterjee sees this in a positive light.

Chatterjee argues that as the new political entities wrangle over property and benefits,

they also strike at the foundation of property relations. Property, Chatterjee reminds

us, is ―the conceptual name of regulations by law of relations between individuals in

civil society‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 74 and passim). But as these ―social relations‖ are yet

to be ―mo[u]lded into proper forms of civil society, the state must maintain a fiction

that in the constitution of its sovereignty, all citizens belong to civil society and are,

by virtue of that legally constructed fact, equal subjects of the law.‖ This ‗fictional‘

element must be addressed in the actual administrative processes.

The postcolonial (Indian) state not only finds a different legal entity/subject, but also

negotiates with it, instead of liquidating or banishing it. According to Chatterjee, this

negotiation does not take place because of the state‘s benevolence; rather these

subjects force the state to do so. Therefore, a positive appraisal of political society is

pivoted on demonstrating the agency of the people in forcing the state to recognize

them. The normative dimension of political society becomes visible in terms of

delineating alternative (even if contingent) criteria for the recognition by the state.

The governmental functions and non-governmental agencies are forced to recognize

the ‗demands‘ of the members of political society in a different way. Since, these

7

agencies do not recognize these members or groups as part of civil society, so they

cannot negotiate with them according to the formal and strict procedures and law of

the land. Hence, there is a proliferation of layered mediations and para-legal

arrangements to resolve various contentious issues, and to meet the demands of these

groups. The governmental bodies and political representatives deliberate and

negotiate to identify the valid claims (Chatterjee 2004, 69). However, such

negotiations must be hidden and not formally recorded, as ―(i)t is entirely possible

that the negotiations on the ground did not respect the principles of bureaucratic

rationality or even the provisions of law‖ (ibid 73 and passim). Chatterjee appreciates

this ‗para-legal arrangement‘ and the actions in political society as an act of ―actual

expansion of the freedoms of the people‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 66). Chatterjee argues that

it is through manoeuvring in political society that certain groups participate in

political process, which is otherwise not possible within the liberal space of the

associations of civil society. He claims that the working of political society opens up

the possibility to ―effectively work against the [existing] distribution of power in

society as a whole‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 66, emphasis in original). This possibility,

according to him, is realized in the case of distribution of property rights. He briefly

refers to Amartya Sen‘s capability approach, which ―embod[ies] a set of substantive

freedoms rather than utilities or income or primary goods‖ (ibid 68) to support his

claim.

However, there is a limit to this ‗agency argument‘, which also indicates the limit of

political society. Chatterjee observes that the leverage in political society is linked

with the ―inherent majoritarian bias of electoral democracy‖ (Chatterjee 2008b, 90

and passim). Because of this bias, certain sections of the population are excluded

from political society, producing newly marginalized groups, comprising of low-caste

and adivasi people. ―Political society and electoral democracy have not given these

groups the means to make effective claims on governmentality. In this sense, these

marginalized groups represent an outside beyond the boundaries of political societyii.‖

This third space (after civil and political societies) is a new category in Chatterjee‘s

writing, which John and Deshpande (2008, 85) call the ―liminal zone.‖

8

POLITICAL SOCIETY AS A CRITIQUE

Now, it is pertinent to ask why Chatterjee theorizes political society in a statist/state-

centric and legalistic way. It might be helpful to refer to the original concept of

governmentality to understand that impulse. In developing the concept of political

society, particularly in terms of ‗the politics of the governed‘, Chatterjee selectively

draws from the Foucauldian concept of governmentality. Governmentality, as we

know, denotes the generalized governmental rationality, beyond that of the state.

Methodologically, it studies the strategic field of application of power, whose

problematic is: ―[H]ow best to govern[?]‖ (O‘Malley et al 1997, 502).

Governmentality is about the organization of resources and institutions, establishment

of norms and practices, etc., and justifying this constellation. Thereby, as we know,

power assumes a productive dimension, rather than a negative and repressive one.

Thomas Lemke argues that the salient feature of Foucault‘s conceptualization is that

governmentality ―links technologies of the self with technologies of domination, the

constitution of the subject to the formation of the state; and finally, it helps to

differentiate between power and domination‖ (Lemke 2002, 51).

Government refers to more or less systematized, regulated and reflected modes

of power (a ―technology‖) that go beyond the spontaneous exercise of power

over others, following a specific form of reasoning (a ―rationality‖) which

defines the telos of action or the adequate means to achieve it‖ (Lemke 2002,

53).

And thereby, ―structuring and shaping the field of possible action of subjects‖ (ibid

52).

In Chatterjee‘s conceptualization of political society and the case-studies that he

engages with, we never see the inter-linkage between the ‗technologies of the self‘

and ‗technologies of domination‘. What comes out, as mentioned earlier, is that the

process of surveying and categorization (which are not exactly the ‗technologies of

domination‘) of the population are politicized, i.e. people use the very categories,

which are generated or used in surveys and censuses (which again are not exactly the

‗technologies of the self‘), to stake claims on the state. Read this way, Chatterjee‘s

9

notion of ‗governed‘ as a subject of political society is nominal, and the process of

‗subjection to power‘ in the domain of governmental policy – which is the premise of

Chatterjee‘s argument – does not end up in producing/constructing any subjectivity as

such. And this happens, because governmentality is played out in India exclusively

within the body politic of the state, not beyond the latter. This statement of mine

might seem to be contradictory to Chatterjee‘s (2008b, 93) later claim that

―governmental power [..] is no longer restricted to the branches of the state[,] but

extends to a host of non-state and even non-governmental agencies.‖ Chatterjee does

not define ‗governmental power‘ explicitly; however, it is evident that he sees

‗governmental power‘ to be beyond the state from the stand point of the institutional

space of application of power, but not from the problematic of ‗subject‘ and

‗subjectivity‘iii

and also the concept of the social (the two problematics on which my

critique rests).

‗Governmentality‘ here is just an alternative way to understand the Indian state and its

interaction with the population, and does not refer to the generalized ‗governmental

rationality‘ or ‗logics‘ – perhaps, that itself points to the postcolonial predicament. A

lack of mediation on this predicament makes political society a theory of politicsiv –

describing the modes of transaction between the state and ‗governeds‘. A description

of the social conditions in which the ‗governeds‘ find themselves does not elucidate or

clarify the ontology of the social, from which the specificity of the postcolonial

condition (and the predicament therein) can be explained or elaborated.v Without such

a critical engagement, Chatterjee remains within the liberal strand of political theory,

where the expansion of liberal institutional order is presented as an unlimited, albeit a

hindered or interrupted, process. Since Chatterjee does not read the practices of

governmentality as political logics, governmentality almost becomes a shorthand for

such a liberal political order, always already in a position to accommodate and

subsume various negativities – which is an evolutionist view of political order.

Chatterjee does not deconstruct the metaphysics (of presence) of such political

practices which could point to the impossibility of constituting an order and thereby

also demonstrate the limit of naming a political space as civil or political society.

If the theory of political society has to be statist, then it might be more helpful to

conduct a thorough investigation of the ways in which the postcolonial state ‗transacts

10

business with the population‘ from various perspectives/stand points. What comes out

of Chatterjee‘s description in various cases (and many scholars would also attest the

factual basis of those) is that the postcolonial state is contradictory and indecisive in

its conductvi

: on the one hand, it is marked by hesitancy and weakness in obtaining

compliance to the existing codified norms, and in enforcing certain legal and

executive orders, and on the other hand, it can be extraordinarily violent (i.e. in using

violent means and in violating the constitutional rights, legal provisions, and

procedures) – all of which cannot be solely seen as a response to the manoeuvring in

political society. It is also possible to provide alternative explanations for the

postcolonial state‘s tolerance of violation of (public) property rights, particularly in

the context of informal economy. Barbara Harriss-White (forthcoming, n.p.) provides

such an alternative argument:

The state may also have an interest in sustaining petty commodity production

[the economic domain where the members of political society predominate].

Its infrastructural responsibilities to employers may be avoided if production is

outsourced to petty producers, and it often does not enforce laws through

which the super-exploitative advantage of petty production would be

abolished, or enforce fiscal measures that would threaten through taxation the

nutrient-bed of petty production. So small-scale production and trade also

thrive because the capital involved does not accumulate sufficiently for the

revenue from tax to outweigh the costs of its collection. The state also

‗inadvertently‘ subsidizes and promotes production by small enterprises

through condoning and not policing the onward lending of ‗formal‘ credit on

terms and conditions which prevent the borrowers from accumulating (and of

late through permitting a mass of more or less experimental micro finance

arrangements). It subsidizes and promotes the reproduction of small

enterprises through whatever infrastructural and welfare interventions are

aimed at the households involved in it. To prevent mass unemployment,

widespread malnutrition, etc, for several decades it has had to transfer

resources – more or less exiguously – for politically stabilising policies that

prevent the destruction of small scale production, trade and services. In doing

[so,] it creates small enterprises it cannot regulate[,] and incidentally also

restricts accumulation.

11

The root cause behind such a contradictory and indecisive – and perhaps pragmatic –

state is the predicament faced by the postcolonial bourgeoisie: the condition of

‗dominance without hegemony‘, as Ranajit Guha had conceptualized. Guha defines

hegemony, within a field of power, i.e. a ―series of inequalities‖ or ―unequal

relationships‖ (Guha 1998, 20), as ―a condition of Dominance (D) such that, in the

organic composition of D, Persuasion (P) outweighs Coercion (C)‖ and ―hegemony

operates as a dynamic concept and keeps even the most persuasive structure of

Dominance always and necessary open to Resistance‖ (ibid 23, emphases in original).

‗Dominance without hegemony‘ is the condition where persuasion never manages to

outweigh coercion, i.e. coercion becomes explicit in the formation and operation of

power relationships. It is this condition that propels the development of strategies of

co-optation and negotiations, in an attempt to defer or modify the (often inevitable)

application of force.

In our given context, the bourgeoisie never loses sight of its interest in accumulating

capital, yet adopts various strategies to dispel the antagonisms faced in that process

and negotiates with certain impediments. Does the Indian bourgeoisie manage to

persuade ‗the people‘ to facilitate the process of accumulation or does it ultimately

depend on the application of force, or a mix of both? This question returns in the

context of the recent economic transformation in India, on which Chatterjee has

published two articles in 2008.

In the first article, Chatterjee (2008a) engages with the political economy of the recent

economic transformation in India. Here, the central problematic is the sole ascendancy

of private industrial-corporate capital in India to the position of hegemonic

domination which is accomplished with the ‗connivance‘ [in my words] of the ‗urban

middle classes‘—―the sphere that seeks to be congruent with the normative models of

bourgeois civil society‖ (Chatterjee 2008a, 57) – and the parallel decline of the

‗agrarian bourgeoisie‘ (ibid 56). Such ascendancy of industrial-corporate capital is

rendered possible through ‗primitive accumulation‘, namely, ―the dissociation of the

labourer from the means of labour [i.e. production]‖ (ibid 54) and the attendant

transfer of those means of production to the capitalists. Chatterjee thinks that political

society again becomes a significant field of contestation and interventions in this new

12

context: the need to reverse the effects of the primitive accumulation necessitates that

the governmental agencies engage with political society to distribute the benefits,

following the modality described above. But this contestation has been part of

‗passive revolution of capital‘ right from the beginning of the postcolonial state‘s

carrier, as can be gleaned from Sudipta Kaviraj‘s critique (which is seen from the

stand point of the state).

Kaviraj‘s critique of ‗passive revolution‘ is predicated on the proposition that ―the

state in India is a bourgeois state in at least three, mutually supportive, senses‖

(Kaviraj 1997, 48 and passim). First, the bourgeoisie and ruling bloc enjoys a state of

dominance; second, ―the state form [i.e. the parliamentary democratic form] is

bourgeois‖; and thirdly, ―[t]he state expresses and ensures the domination of the

bourgeoisie and helps in capitalist reproduction‖ (ibid 49 and passim). As the ―capital

cannot perform‖ the ―directive functions…through the market‖, therefore ―the

bourgeois state performs through the legitimized directive mechanisms of the state.‖

Kaviraj wants to problematize and concentrate on the first aspect, namely, the ―state

of bourgeois dominance over society‖ (ibid 50). But ―capital is not independently

dominant in Indian society and [the] state‖ (ibid 52), nor are the other propertied

classes. Kaviraj observes, ―the Indian capitalist class exercises its control over society

neither through a moral-cultural hegemony of the Gramscian type, nor a simple

coercive strategy on the lines of satellite states of the Third World‖ (ibid 51). Such a

control is achieved through a ―coalitional strategy carried out partly through the state-

directed process of economic growth, partly through the allocational necessities

indicated by the bourgeois democratic political system‖ (ibid 51, emphasis added).

As neither the bourgeoisie nor the other propertied classes can exclusively dominate

the state and the society, hence a ‗ruling bloc‘ is formed between the bourgeoisie,

(―particularly its aggressive and expanding monopoly stratum‖ (ibid 52)), the landed

elites and the bureaucratic managerial elites (―high bureaucratic elite and industrial

management groups‖ (ibid 54n)), which ―ensures their joint dominance over the state‖

(ibid 52 and passim). The bourgeoisie ―exercises the directive function in the

coalition‖ and ―is the only truly universalizing element in the ruling bloc[;] among the

ruling groups, the bourgeoisie alone can develop a coherent, internally flexible

13

development doctrine‖. The landed elites (or ―the precapitalist elements‖) do not have

―alternative coherent programme‖ and ―have been restricted mainly to slowing down

capitalist transition.‖ The bureaucratic managerial elites perform certain distinct

function in the governmental apparatus and ―also mediate crucially between the

classes within the ruling coalition itself‖ (ibid 54, emphasis in original).

The ruling bloc wields its dominance over the society by working in the terrain of

governance, which according to Kaviraj, ―refers to the process of actual policy

decisions within the apparatuses of the state‖ (ibid 54 and passim). The dominance is

created by establishing sets of ―vertical clientilist benefit coalitionvii

‖ [emphasis in

original] with subordinate classes through certain policies. Such an approach is

concerned with the ―calculations of short-term political advantages accruing from

policies.‖ The objectiveviii

of establishing benefit coalitions is to ―ensure that actual

political configurations do not become symmetrical to class divisions in society.‖

Though one can argue, after Kaviraj, that creating vertical clientilist benefit coalitions

is the logics of political society, a necessity that the bourgeoisie faces, yet it will be

difficult to normatively evaluate it as a positive development (in terms of expansion of

rights). An ‗agency argument‘ix

is not enough to salvage such an evaluation. This is

because the very condition of capital accumulation depends on creating such vertical

benefit coalitions, which is a ‗social cost‘ to accumulation, and such a cost does not

alter or threaten the course of capitalist transformation and expansion (in an

ontological sense, not a historicist sense, and thereby not a question of teleological

transition). I will argue that such vertical benefit coalitions and para-legal negotiations

are simply a factual and descriptive state of affairs in the domain of power

relationships, bereft of any immediate normative problematizationx. Since

interventionist and transformational politics requires a normative evaluation, so it is

also difficult to see any transformational potential of the development of political

society. However, all is not lost.

Political society can be a useful concept and an analytical tool to study the condition

through which antagonisms are deflected, deferred or nullified in the postcolonial

society. Political society can be a critique of the postcolonial condition. Yet, we must

be careful to not treat political society as a successful strategic field, structured to

14

overcome the problematic of ‗dominance without hegemony‘, i.e. the development of

non-coercive and persuasive political condition for capitalist transformation. Violence

is embedded in this process. Amita Baviskar and Nandini Sundar (2008) draw

attention to such an application of force and infliction of violence in contemporary

India. They argue that such an application of force makes civil society ―not a domain

of hegemony‖, ―but of domination‖ (ibid 89), implying that the division and

distinction of civil and political societies along the axes of civility and legality is

misleading.

If political society is to be treated as a critique, and no ready transformational politics

can be found within it, then the obvious question is: How does one think about the

political and transformational politics? Chatterjee‘s critics see politics in terms of

contingency and the empirical specificity of a struggle, and fall back on the ‗agency

argument‘. They suggest that in order to appreciate contemporary subaltern politics,

one needs to study the cases of resistance (John and Deshpande 2008, 86), to see the

success in getting the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), the

Forest Act and the Right to Information Act as an outcome of people‘s ―own degree

of organization and their increased ability to speak in terms of the very law that is

used to dispossess them‖ (Baviskar and Sundar 2008, 88), and to look out for ―spaces,

which the ruling classes are compelled to open up in an attempt to legitimize their

positions of power‖ so as to ―(utilize) [those spaces] with a renewed creativity by

those fighting for a more equal, less exploitative social order‖ (Shah 2008, 81).

In reply to his critics, Chatterjee re-calibrates political society by introducing two

more concepts ―moral passion‖ and ―populism‖ (populism is definitely a new turn in

his theorization). He explains:

…it is mistaken to claim that the dominant and propertied classes any longer

set the standards of morality for society; rather, in a democratic age, the moral

passion of entitlement and outrage is on the side of those who have little…

(Chatterjee 2008b, 92 and passim).

The political dimension in seen in terms of ‗struggle‘ (clash and conflict) – not by

clarifying the negativity or antagonism at the ontological level (i.e. that what leads to

15

the conflict): ―Since the intentions emerge from the arena of politics, it goes without

saying that they are shaped by the struggles between rival groups and classes in that

arena.‖

The character of the politics which emerges in this field — a ―field created by

governmentality‖— is populist, and ―populismxi

is the only morally legitimate form of

democratic politics today.‖ Thus, it seems that Chatterjee stands by his earlier claim

that the ‗politics of the governed‘ is ―shifting the historical horizon of political

modernity in most of the world‖ (Chatterjee 2004, 75).

This insistence on seeing political society as an innovative and promising political

development ignores the other possibilities of (progressive) political interventions.

The analysis of governmentality studies a very specify domain, namely the mode of

application and transformation in governmental rationality and power, and resistances

to it. This does not exhaust the possibilities of analysing other domains of power

relationships, the dislocating events within those, or anticipating other forms of

progressive political interventions. These limitations are also inherited by the analysis

of political society as such. Thus, political society as a critique of Indian politics is a

much stronger position to defend. If one has to understand the political and the

transformational politics, then that should begin with the conceptualization of the

social, explication of its ontology, and then proceed from there to apprehend the

quasi-transcendental conditions of possibility and impossibility of political

interventions, i.e. the struggle itself.

CONCLUSION

I have argued in this paper that political society can be more useful as a critique,

rather than an alternative ‗normative theory‘, which can only offer the criteria of

recognition by the state. What the concept of political society warns us is that a

certain section of the society is marginalized and that their demands do not become

part of mainstream political articulations in civil society. Political society alerts us

about various strategies that are being developed, how different sorts of demands are

allowed to be raised, and how those are dealt in a piecemeal way to mitigate

16

antagonism and in facilitating the ‗passive revolution of capital‘. Yet, such strategies

cannot fully hegemonise ‗the people‘, and force the bourgeoisie to resort to violent

means. Political society as a critique marks out the problematic of perseverance of the

condition of ‗dominance without hegemony‘ and the return or the spectre of ‗the

people‘xii

.

Chatterjee reminds us, ―governmentality always operates on a heterogeneous social

field, on multiple population groups, and with multiple strategies‖ (Chatterjee 2004,

60 and passim). And we have seen that the politics in political society is ―necessarily

temporary and contextual.‖ Thus, any political intervention that wants to overcome

this fragmentary and temporary politics would necessarily require an engagement in

hegemonic politics, a process of constructing a broader political movement beyond

the fragmentary ones. There are programmatic issues involved in such a

transformational politics; but any mediation on such political programmes cannot

begin without understanding the specificity of the postcolonial condition and

predicament, which in turn, requires an ontological analysis. The outcome of such an

analysis will not necessarily initiate transformation, but will at least provide a far

more critical insight about the political processes.

Post-script: Partha Chatterjee is now considered to be a prominent figure within the

postcolonial studies movement, which wants to challenge the hegemony of Western

liberal theory and knowledge/power complex. So, after engaging with his

conceptualization of political society, we may ask the following questions: Should

(postcolonial) political theory always start with (a reflection on) the state and civil

society, while trying to understand/question the postcolonial political modernity?

Should normative discussion be always statist/state-centric?

17

REFERENCES

Baviskar, Amita and Nandini Sundar. 2008. ―Democracy versus Economic

Transformation?‖, Economic and Political Weekly, 43(46), 87-89.

Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Post-colonial

Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———1998. ―Community in the East‖, Economic and Political Weekly, 33 (6), 277-

282.

——— 2001. ―On Civil and Political Society in Post-colonial Democracies‖, in

Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani, ed. Civil Society: History and Possibilities

(Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press), 165-178.

———2004. The Politics of the Governed, New York: Columbia University Press.

——— 2008a. ―Democracy and Economic Transformation in India‖, Economic and

Political Weekly, 43(16), 53-62.

——— 2008b. ―Classes, Capital and Indian Democracy‖, Economic and Political

Weekly, 43(46), 89-93.

Cohen, J. and A. Arato. 1992. Political Theory and Civil Society. Cambridge: MIT

Press.

Derrida, Jacques, 1972. ‗Interview: Jacques Derrida‘. (with G. Scarpetta. J. L.

Houdebine). Diacritics, 2 (4), 35-43.

———1973. ‗Interview: Jacques Derrida‘ (with J.-L. Houdebine). Diacritics, 3 (1),

33-46.

Foucault, Michel.1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings

1972-1977. Colin Gordon, ed. New York: Pantheon, 78-108.

18

Guha, Ranajit. 1998. Dominance with Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial

India. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Harriss-White, Barbara (forthcoming) ‗Globalisation, the Financial Crisis and Petty

Production in India‘s Socially Regulated Informal Economy‘, Global Labour Journal.

John, Mary and Satish Deshpande. 2008. ―Theorizing the Present: Problems and

Possibilities‖, Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (46), 83-86.

Kaviraj, Sudipta.1997. ―A Critique of Passive Revolution‖, in Partha Chatterjee, ed.

State and Politics in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), 45-87.

Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London:

Verso.

——— 2005. ‗Populism: what‘s in a name?‘ in Francisco Panizza, ed. Populism and

the Mirror of Democracy. London: Verso. 32-49.

——— .2007. On Populist Reason. London: Verso.

Lemke, Thomas. 2002. ‘Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique‘ Rethinking

Marxism, 14 (3), 49 – 64.

Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political, Abingdon and New York: Routledge

Nonan-Ferrell, C. 2004. ―The State, Civil Society and Revolutions: Building Political

Legitimacy in Twentieth Century Latin America‖, Latin American Research Review,

39(3), 294–304.

O‘Malley, Pat, Lorna Weir and Clifford Shearing.1997. ‗Governmentality, criticism,

politics‘ Economy and Society, 26 (4), 501-517.

19

Patnaik, Arun. 1988. ‗The local state and rural policies: a study of Digapahandi Block

1957-1983‘ Occasional paper no. 100 (Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social

Sciences).

Rancière, Jacques. 1998. Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

——— (2004 ) ‗Introducing Disagreement‘ Angelaki, 9(3), 3-9.

Sarkar, Swagato. 2008. ‘Civil Society and Exclusion: Partha Chatterjee on ‗The

Politics of the Governed‘, Indian Journal of Human Development, 2(2), 449-458.

Shah, Mihir. 2008. ―Structures of Power in Indian Society: A Response‖, Economic

and Political Weekly, 43(46), 78-83.

ENDNOTES:

i This paper is a modified and expanded form of another paper published in 2008 (Sarkar

2008). ii Samir Kumar Das argues that there are sections of the population who escape the calculative

logic of enumeration and thereby they become the ‗ungoverneds‘. But it is not clear why this

should be the case, i.e. what kind of logical inconsistency or limit of governmentality is

involved here is not readily understood. iii This problematic is central in Foucault‘s conceptualization of governmentality. Refer to

‗Two Lectures‘ by Foucault (1980), particularly pp. 97-98. iv I borrow the term ‗politics‘ and ‗the political‘ from Chantal Mouffe, where ‗the political‘

refers to ―the dimension of antagonism which [is] constitutive of human societies‖, and

‗politics‘ refers to ―the set of practices and institutions through which an order is created,

organizing human coexistence in the context of conflictuality provided by the political‖

(Mouffe 2005, 9). v Also, without such a consideration, the emergence of political subjects cannot be

understood. The Foucauldian understanding of subject formation through subjection to power

has been thoroughly criticized by Derrida. Refer to Derrida (1972 and 1973) and Ernesto

Laclau (1990). vi Say the hesitancy of the Left Front Government of West Bengal in the case of the rotting

corpse of Balak Brahmachari of the Santan Dal (a religious sect) (Chatterjee 2004, 41-51),

and the same Government‘s use of police force, time and again, in suppressing and killing

(political) dissidents (in Marichhjhapi, Singur and Nandigram). vii I will argue that this can be seen as the institutionalized form of the colonial idiom of

‗Improvement‘, through which ―the colonial rulers [used] to relate nonantagonistically to the

ruled (Guha, 1998, 30, emphasis added). viii Arun Patnaik offered an alternative argument. Patnaik (1988, 30) found the poverty

alleviation programmes and targeting the poor in the 1970s as the ―state‘s paternalistic

attitude to the rural poor‖, through which the state ―diffused among the poor peasants its own

20

organizational contradictions and tried to wean them away from the social contradictions of

the real life.‖ ix I will argue that the question of agency in these discussions always arises ex post facto, at

the moment of attributing the credit (or autonomy) of the action to a particular subject. The

question of identification and recognition of that subject is very much part of the above

objective. Therefore, to consider the ‗agency‘ as a (starting) premise of an argument is limited

in explaining the case. x One can develop this argument further by engaging with Jacques Rancière‘s concept of

politic(al/)s as ‗disagreement‘ (1998 and 2004), which necessarily involves such a

problematization. xi In defence of ‗populism‘, Chatterjee quotes Ernesto Laclau. But, I think, it is a

misapplication. For Laclau (2007 and 2005), populism stands as a problematic of staging the

people within democracy, which is preceded by a Claude Lefort-inspired understanding of

power, which is empty (i.e. there is a lack) at the core, and hegemonic politics is practised in

an attempt to fill or occupy that emptiness or lack. ‗People‘ becomes the constituency

constructed or is the locus in this hegemonic political practice. xii The populist question, similar to Laclau and Rancière.