Arild Engelsen Ruud

The Indian Hierarchy: Culture, Ideology and Consciousness in Bengali Village Politics

The Subaltern studies project has been a major contribution towards rethinking the role of groups such as peasants, lower castes, labourers or women in forming the course of Indian history. The project has also brought the issues of culture, ideology and consciousness to the forefront of Indian history writing. Although the importance of non-elite action on the historical developments of the Indian independence movement has already been noted by more mainstream historians, the concertedness of the project has created a whole new situation in which the subalternist perspective has become a new paradigm for Indian history writing, indeed, the subalternist perspective has increasingly come to dominate the formation of perspectives and concepts. As Masselos points out, the Subaltern studies has become the establishment.

Political Dynasty Formation in Bangladesh

ABSTRACT Political dynasticism in South Asia and elsewhere is extensive, but poorly understood. To investigate the phenomenon, we look at political competition at the regional level in Bangladesh. We argue that mechanisms and tools in the local political culture that give rise to other aspects of South Asian politics also give rise to dynasticism. Networks of political activists, enforcers, businessmen and bureaucrats are crucial to political success. We hypothesise that these networks depend on the heirs ability to embody a vital but informal trust. Political dynasticism is thus more a coincidental than a strategic outcome.

The Osman Dynasty: The Making and Unmaking of a Political Family:

The Osman Dynasty in Bangladesh is several generations deep and combines legitimate mobilization politics with money-making businesses and ‘godfather’ tactics. This article focuses on two aspects of dynasty formation: its relationship to the wider political context and the issue of dynastic succession. The brittle nature of the national sovereignty in a traumatized postcolonial and post-war society of 1970s and 1980s constituted an environment in which local powerfuls could establish themselves through a combination of legitimate political activism and muscle politics. And yet there were rivals and challenges and succession was not assured. The reasons for the dynasty now seemingly unable to able to pass the torch to a fourth generation, underscore the changed circumstances. This article will thus argue that local dynasty formation constitutes a historically specific phenomenon.

Political Dynasticism: Networks, Trust, Risk

Political dynasticism is a persuasive phenomenon in South Asia. Yet, while political dynasticism has received ample attention at the national level, it has been almost systematically overlooked at the regional and local levels. In this article, we argue that political dynasticism at the local level is driven by conditions that are in crucial ways different from those that animate national politics. We use case studies and insights from the available literature both within and beyond South Asia to argue that, in a comparative light, three main elements stand out: reciprocity, trust, and failure. By zooming in on these elements we seek to explain political dynasticism as a political phenomenon that is enabled by particular conditions in the polity, and especially the nature of the state. These, we argue, help foment a dynamic within which political dynasticism is an understandable outcome.

1: On the Diversity of India’s Democracies

When Selig Harrison wrote his book on India in 1960, he feared that Indian nationalists would experience democracy as a barrier to the country’s development.1 Any nationalist, he wrote, would wish for the rapid development of the country. But such a ‘nationalist in a hurry’, as Harrison calls him, would be faced with a difficult choice, and he might be tempted to drop the messy decision-making processes of democracy in favour of the rapid and clean decision-making processes, and clear priorities of a more autocratic government. Harrison’s fear was shared by many, and pessimism on behalf of democracy in this poor, mostly illiterate, and ethnically heterogeneous giant was widespread.2 Yet, fifty-odd years after Harrison’s book was published, democracy in India is still with us. And it seems to be flourishing. Atul Kohli writes that democracy ‘has taken root’, and Sumit Ganguly characterizes it as ‘the only game in town’.3 These characterizations are supported by the State of Democracy in South Asia (SDSA) report.4 The extensive surveys behind the report show that popular opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of democracy. This historically alien system of governance enjoys a very healthy 95 per cent support among those questioned. Although there are methodological issues to be raised with surveys covering this huge and complex country, it is safe to assert that almost all Indians today believe that the country should be governed by elected leaders. And these sentiments are translated into practice during elections. The voter turnout in the general elections in

Timepass and politicsJeffreyCraigTimepass: Youth, Class, and the Politics of Waiting in India. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010; 232 pp.: 9780804770736, US

With this, the likelihood of securing funding as well as institutional support for studies like Timepass becomes ever more scarce. Against this backdrop, Jeffrey’s account offers important testimony to the rigorous quality and depth of insight that come from extensive qualitative research over periods of time in an international research setting. At a time when support for research and scholarship that is cultivated over a generous – and, I would argue, vital – timespan is becoming increasingly hard to come by, not only is Craig Jeffrey’s Timepass a substantial contribution to globalization studies and human geography, it is also a reminder of the deep understanding and critically important possibilities for knowledge that attend with opportunities for in-depth, longitudinal research.

55 (hbk), 9780804770743, US

Abstract This review brings attention to four recent and major contributions to the study of Dalit politics in India. Dalit politics, the politics that concerns those groups formerly known as untouchables, is foremost expressed in the increased role of Dalit political parties in the populous North India, and indeed in Indian politics. But academic interest also emerges from the fact that these groups have come to display a visible new assertion on the part of the former untouchables. As a relatively recent phenomenon, Dalit politics is open to a number of questions: How did such a change take place? Is it class or religion? Are the untouchables breaking out of thousand-year-old shackles? Is it durable?