Public Policy Process in India

Suranjita
Ray
Public Policy Process is a dynamic and complex process which has
evolved over the years with the change in the time periods, contexts and
political systems. It is important to understand the complexities of the
process as multiple variables influence the process of policy
formulation, implementation, and evaluation. The agencies that
participate in the process not only shape the content of the policy but
also impact the processes itself. How policies are formulated? Which are
the agencies involved? Why certain policies are made? What are their
consequential effects? How the feedback enables to either continue with
an existing policy, or revise it, or terminate it? These are some of the
pertinent questions that policy analyst often address. Contemporary
India has experienced major changes in these processes. Some of these
changes are not only frequent but they are also uncertain and
unpredictable and need to be analysed in the context of the changing
global world order.
The changing nature of the Indian State has increased the role of the
stakeholders in the policy process. The role of the private agencies (both
national and international)1 have increased in a market economy.

1
Non-State Actors: Interest Groups, Social Movements, Social Action Groups, Activists, Mass Media, CSOs,
NGOs, VOs, New Social Movements, Protest Movements, Solidarity Movements, Peoples Rights Movements,

1
Citizens today are more informed, interrogative, involved and
participant than they were in the past, which has contributed in making
the public policy process more decentralized, participatory, responsive,
accountable, transparent, flexible, and democratic. The democratic
political culture to a large extent determines the relationship between the
government and citizens. The former is shaped by the widely held
values, beliefs, and attitudes of the citizens towards the governments and
the state. Variations amongst regions, groups, caste, class, gender and
communities may result in distinctive subcultures - Mass/Popular, Elite,
Plural, Multi-Cultural, Fragmented Political Culture/ Sub-Cultures,
National and Global Culture. These subcultures can at times be divisive
in nature. Political institutions can intervene to overcome divisiveness
and hostility in political culture (Consociational Democracy). Many a
times, cultural values are accommodated by the state, or they are
mediated, but at times they are altered.
Different cultures connect individual attitudes with the overall political
system and thus influences the policy process differently in different
cultures. G. Almond and S. Verba in The Civic Culture: Political
Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, (1963) explain three different
political cultures such as parochial, subjective and participant, that
determine the nature of peoples participation and their influence on the
policy making process. In parochial culture, citizens have no cognitive
Campaigns, Public Hearing, Public Opinion, Social Auditing, Review /Appraisal Committees, Advisory
Committees, Think Tanks/Research Organisations,

2
orientation towards the political system. They have little awareness and
there is no participation such as in the traditional societies. In subjective
political culture, citizens have cognitive orientation towards the output
aspects of the political system. They have little awareness of the input
process as in the authoritarian systems. Such culture was prevalent
during the colonial period, and at present it exists in many parts of the
rural and tribal areas of India. The citizens are passive and subjective
and believe that they can do little to influence the public policy process
and the content of policies. Participant political culture are societies with
cognitive orientation towards both input and output aspects of the
system. It is in democratic societies where citizens have high political
awareness and information and have explicit orientation towards the
political system. Participation of the citizens either individually or
collectively through groups, communities, organizations, and
movements influence the decision/policy making process. More
demands are made in a participant political culture than either in
parochial or subjective culture. Thus political culture shapes the political
behavior of people and is related to the frequency and probability of
various kinds of behavior towards the political system. Political culture
is conditioned by the socio-economic context, and conflicts and change
become critical in understanding the complexities of inter-relations
between state and citizens. Karl Deutsch in Politics and Government:
How People Decide Their Fate? (1970) suggests time orientation of

3
people, and the relative impact of past, present and future on the policy
making process/ policy formulation.
In democracy, political capital is important, and citizen’s participation
has to be seen beyond their participation in the elections. Thomas Dye in
Understanding Public Policy (1972; 2002) argues that the social and
economic development (variables such as levels of education,
industrialization, employment, per capita income, and urbanization)
have a dominant influence and shape both the political systems and
policy outcomes. Though the political parties - their strengths and
weaknesses, political ideologies, objectives and goals influence the
policy process and content, He argues that the political developments
(voter’s participation, strength of the political parties, and competition
amongst them) have a lesser or weak relationship with the public policy
outcomes. The process of policy making is rational when the social
values achieved are more than the values sacrificed. It is not that
political variables have no impact but they are clearly subordinated to
the socio-economic factors and most policy outcomes can be attributed
to the influence of economic development (Dye, 1972). The Value
Achievement Curve explains the relevance of social values as important
variable in influencing public policy content (Pareto’s point of
optimality). The plural/multicultural and diversified society in India
based on class, caste, gender, and ethnicity, influence the policy content
and policy processes to a large extent.

4
In the context of liberalization, globalization, privatization, and de-
regularization, the Public Private Partnership (PPP), Market Economy,
and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) influence the processes of
public policy. The participants in the policy processes and the factors
that influence their policy behavior are important in understanding why
a policy is what it is (Dye, 1972). Thomas Dye, James Anderson,
Yehezkel Dror argue that the political culture and socio-economic
variables are important factors/variables in understanding how policy
decisions are made and why some decisions are made rather than others.
The several steps/stages analysed by Harold Lasswell (7 stages),
Thomas Dye (6 stages), Yehezkel Dror (18 stages), Thomas Anderson (4
stages), and others explain policy making process as a dynamic process
(The stages explained by Lasswell, Dye and Dror are analysed in the
previous unit of this Chapter). Anderson argues that the starting point for
public policy formulations is identifying the public problems. The next
stages are -putting them on the policy agenda, formulation of policy
proposals to deal with the problem, and making policy decisions.
Problem articulation is the first step which includes both procedural and
substantive problems which are concerned with actual consequences.
Policy agenda addresses the priorities of needs and demands which is
followed by the action agenda. Policy formulation is directed towards
winning approval of a preferred policy alternative. He argues that the
environment is important in shaping the content of the policy. It places

5
limits and constraints upon what can be done by policy makers.
Anderson focuses on the geographical factors (topography, climate,
population size, age distribution, spatial location, natural resources),
alongside the political culture based on values (democracy, freedom,
equality, liberty, humanism and individualism), and the social structure
and economic system as variables that influence the policy content and
process.
While the official policy makers have the legal authority to resolve the
public problems, the unofficial agencies are also part of the process of
engaging in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of public
policy.
Legislature has the central task of policy formation and law making in
India. It lays down the broad objectives which the administration is to
pursue/achieve. All policies must be approved by the Cabinet and
Ministers of the Government. Policies are deliberated, scrutinized,
criticized and publicized along with their consequences on the floor of
the house. There are times when the legislators pass ‘skeletal’ acts and
the details are filled by the bureaucrats/administrators which is called
‘delegated legislation’. The administrators are involved in the policy
formulation in more than one way. The technicalities and complexities
of many policy matters has given discretionary authority to the
administrative agencies. The public officials have discretionary authority
to supply facts, data and analysis as they have grassroots experiences of

6
policy implementation and are in close touch with the citizens. Many
proposals are developed by the bureaucrats through the special study
groups and advisory committees. The legislature through hearings and
investigations receive suggestions for actions on problems and
formulates the proposed course of action. Both the ruling party as well
as opposition are actively involved in the process of policy formation.
Political parties through interest aggregation convert the demands of
people and pressure groups into general policy in case they form the
government. Their election manifestoes influence the policy agenda and
proposals to a large extent. The Prime Minister along with his/her
council of ministers plays a vital role in the policy making. The
President can promulgate Ordinances when either of the two Houses of
Parliament is not in session.
The Judiciary and its power of judicial review play an important role in
policy process. The last two decades has experienced ‘judicial activism’
and the courts uses its power to not only declare the actions of the
legislature and the executive as null and void if it violates the
constitutional provisions or prohibits them from passing or executing a
policy that is unconstitutional, but also intervenes positively by stating
what should be done to achieve the goals of socio-economic justice
enshrined in the constitution. Unlike the past where the courts’
preoccupation was regulation and enforcement of law, and judicial
review was about the statutory interpretations in cases brought before

7
them, the courts have ventured into social and political activity and are
playing a more positive role in policy formation by specifying not only
what the government cannot do but also what it must do to meet the
legal and constitutional obligations.
Judicial Activism also depends on the innovative interpretation of judges
who have actively intervened in redefining justice in specific cases and
contexts. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lacked precise
definition and became subject of varied judicial interpretations over the
years. Various social activists and civil society organisations in
particular the Naz Foundation have played an active role in raising
issues that concern rights of citizens with separate identities. The
‘Judicial Waver System’ was introduced in the Juvenile Justice Act
(JJA) 2015, where juveniles in conflict with law in the age group of 16
to 18 years, who are involved in heinous offences can be tried as adults
in certain cases. This was in the context of the ‘Nirbhaya’ case 2012
which also led to Nirbhaya Act 2013 and Criminal Law Amendment Act
2013. In the context of the debates to protect of the rights of women in
particular rights of the sex workers, domestic workers, girl child,
deciding in favour of the entry of women in Haji Ali Shrine and
questioning the ban of entry of women in Sabarimala, rights of LGBT,
rights of other minority groups, ethnic communities, cultural traditions
and customs, deciding in favour of the ban of Jallikattu, and ban on
eating of beef, and so on, the role of judiciary has become critical.

8
 Therefore, the government involves in the development of pertinent
course of action and is a major source in the development of policy
proposals. However, alongside the official agencies, the unofficial
agencies also play a vital role in the public policy process and there role
has been increasing in the context of the global world order which
campaigns for liberalization and privatization.
Rajni Kothari in Non-Party Political Process (1984) explicates how the
grass roots social movements which are non-party political formations
and social action groups whose long term goal is to work towards
democratising development and transforming societies have played a
significant role during the 1980s. In ‘Decline of Parties and Rise of
Grassroots Movement’ in State Against Democracy: In search of
Humane Governance (1988), he argues that since the political parties
gave up the movement aspect of their activities soon after independence
and increasingly became electoral machines operating with the make
shift arrangements, the consequence of emergence of mobilization
politics by popular movements outside the institutional politics of
representation often having recourse to direct action politics in order to
register their demand with the government became important. The
decline in the institutional politics as the political discourse in the
legislature began to be dominated by the narrow legalistic positions held
by executive, legislatures, and law courts rather than being informed by

9
issues emerging from democratic politics. Thus decline in
institutionalised politics revitalised the social movements.
Social Movements represent an important force for social change and it
is important to understand the important role they play in influencing the
content and process of public policies. While they are at the margins of
the political system as they are less institutionalised unlike the interest
groups and have fewer routine ties with the government, they have
always raised several issues of concern to society and have adopted
different strategies to engage/negotiate with the state to address their
demands. Since the ideology, nature and issues raised by the movements
keep changing with the change in the contexts, we need to comprehend
Social Movements in specific contexts.
Pranab Bardhan in Political Economy of Development in India (1984),
argues that movements need to be understood in the context of
compromise and conflicts among different interests (such as industrial
capitalists, rich farmers, urban white collar elites and public sector
officials) which shape the political economy of development. While the
Social Reforms Movement during the colonial period voiced their
demands for abolition of the practice of social evils such as sati, child
marriage, untouchability, protection of linguistic and ethnic rights,
changing the colonial education system, social movements after
independence focused on protecting the rights of the citizens that were
enshrined in the constitution. Social movements demand the firm and

10
just execution of the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principle of
State Policy committed to provide rights, liberty, equality, social justice
and freedom.
In the last four decades we have seen the steady emergence of new types
of social movements and the democratic upsurge of people’s rights have
exposed the multi-dimensionality of domination and oppression in
society resulting in greater inequalities, alienation, disparities and
deprivations that add to the paradoxes of development. The people’s
struggle for land rights- protests/movements by small and marginal
farmers, landless, adivasis and dalits to protect the fertile land, water,
forest reserves and mineral resources from unprecedented land grab and
land acquisition in the name of development across the country, have
influenced the mainstream politics of India 1980s and 1990s as they
have raised fundamental issues of structural and cultural oppression that
were ignored earlier. Almost all the movements have conceptualised
change and carried out transformation but it is important to locate them
in particular contexts as the local power structure and power relations
play a vital role in influencing public policies. Contemporary social
movements’ critic the developmental state as the development policies
in the context of privatisation and globalisation has resulted in increased
inequalities, deprivations, oppressions and marginalisation.
The history of economic development of India in general and the big
development projects in particular has resulted in denying the local

11
people access and control over the resources, which is vital for
sustenance of their livelihood. The development of few advantaged,
powerful and privileged has led to the underdevelopment of majority
who are disadvantaged, powerless and underprivileged. Increasing
deprivation and displacement of the latter has led to violation of human
rights and denial of justice. Over the years exploitation of natural
resources has affected the economy of the tribals adversely as they are
dependent on these resources for many of their needs (Sachchidananda
in ‘Patterns of Politico-Ecomomic Change Among Tribals in Middle
India’ in Francine R. Frankel and M.S. Rao (eds) Dominance and State
Power in Modern India Decline of a Social Order Vol-II, 1989).
Exploitation of tribals by non-tribals was an integral part of colonial
political economy and the whole gamut of exploitation in relation to
land, labour, forest, agriculture and mines has been enhanced rather than
reduced since independence. The process of introducing private property
rights in place of community property rights has caused hardship in the
economy and social life of the tribals. Manoranjan Mohanty in ‘Class,
caste and Dominance in Orissa’ in Francine R. Frankel and M.S. Rao
(eds) Dominance and State Power in Modern India Decline of a Social
Order
Vol-II, 1989, elucidates how the Steel Plant in Rourkela and NALCO
(National Aluminium Company) in Odisha with its French collaboration
have continued to exploit the mineral resources since 1956 and 1981

12
respectively, but the conditions of miners and local people of the region
remains miserable. Thus, while resources rich in mineral and forest have
attracted big development projects, the interior tribal areas in the past
have remained underdeveloped.
Emergence of newer identities resulted in new social movements and
there was a need to move beyond the Marxist ideology/ theory of surplus
value and class struggle to understand the unpaid labour (domestic
violence) and exploitation and oppression on the basis of caste,
ethnicity, community, gender etc. Thus the contemporary social
movements in India particularly women’s movement, anti-caste
movements, farmers’ movement, tribal movements, dalit movements,
movement of the displaced, environment movement and various
autonomous movements warrant a reconceptualization of exploitation
itself as they have exposed the multidimensionality of domination and
oppression in society (see also Gail Omvedt, Reinventing Revolution:
New Social Movements and the Socialist Tradition in India, 1993).
Therefore the struggle for liberation has to be multidimensional.
The new social movements influenced the mainstream politics of India
during 1980s and 1990s and demanded social transformation. They
integrated the decolonisation process with social revolution by
reconceptualising freedom and rights and therefore it is significant to
understand public policies from the vantage point of contemporary
social movements. They demand autonomy, self-determination and

13
emancipation of human kind. Therefore a dialectical view of macro-
micro is important.
D. L. Seth in ‘Micro-Movements in India: Towards a New Politics of
Parliamentary Democracy’ in Social Movements and Democratic
Aspirations (1990) argues that many small groups of social activists and
the struggle of the economically marginalised and socially excluded who
have been active in different parts of India have come together and
joined larger world wide alliances and forums protesting against the
hegemonic policies of institutions and organisations representing global
economic and political power. Micro- movements have begun to raise a
new discourse on democracy and invent political practices expanding the
arena of politics beyond the representational institutions of elections and
political parties. Though micro-movements have been fighting
politically on several issues concerning the poor they joined the debate
on globalisation. It is the challenge of globalisation that has brought
many of them together on a common platform at the provincial and
national levels making issue of ‘participatory democracy’ a part of their
ongoing struggles. Micro-movements play an important role in
reinventing democracy.
Raka Ray and M F Katzenstein in Social Movements in India: Poverty,
Power and Politics (2005), argue that the social movements play a dual
role. While they expose the class character of the state and demand a
democratic state that facilitates the multi-dimensional liberation, their

14
other role is simply reformative. Since public action is not only what the
states do for the public but also what people do for themselves, social
movements are important actors, which may buffer, ameliorate,
accelerate and challenge the shifting agendas of the state.
Neera Chandehoke in State and Civil Society: Explorations in Political
Theory (1995) argues that the concept of civil society was in response to
“legitimising ideology of a coercive state’. Partha Chatterjee in State and
Politics in India (1998), explains how the Indian state has arrogated too
many powers to itself. Sudipta Kaviraj in The Trajectories of the Indian
State: Politics and Ideas (2012) elucidates how the cultural
incompatibility has made movements more relevant in understanding the
interface between state and civil society. However, we see that the post-
colonial state is being pressurised by forces of global capitalism that
create civil society of their design. Thus the state-civil society
interaction is a constant contestation where various social forces are
engaged in creating an alternative configuration of state power.
We have seen that several movements in the past have influenced the
content of public policies by raising vital issues. The concern of Chipko
Movement for control over their sustenance resources was based on the
impact of deforestation on the specific ethnic community of Garhwal
and Kumaon regions and the human habitation of the entire Himalayan
range. The policy of mechanization in the fishery sector to exploit the
untapped exportable potentials in the deep sea led to the fishworkers

15
movement in the western coast covering Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,
Goa and Maharashtra. The Chilika Bachao Andolan against the Tata
Prawn Project (despite difference within the movement) was also a
protest for securing right to livelihood. The Narmada Valley Project to
harness water for irrigation, drinking water and electricity led to
resistance against big dams (Sardar Sarovar Project) which caused
displacement of people in Gujurat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and
Maharastra. The NBA is a struggle by adivasis, kisans and mazdoors. In
Tehri, Kaiga and Baliapal people have raised their voices against big
development projects which resulted in loss of productive resources and
large scale displacement.
The state’s new mantra to ensure development by handing over the
productive resources to the national, transnational and multinational
corporations is based on the underlying philosophy of economic
liberalisation and globalisation of trade. The state has handed over vast
areas of natural resources such as mining, fertile land, water and forest
reserves to the corporate sector and international finance capital to
secure industrial and economic growth. With the ideological shift from a
welfare state to the market economy which prioritised rolling back of the
state, reduction in state controls, decline in the public sector, and greater
imports, greater private investments, development policies have not only
failed to benefit the marginalised and deprived sections in rural areas,
but also have increasingly threatened their sources of livelihood.

16
In the recent years the big development projects have mounted protests
on questions of survival, displacement, alienation and right to life and
livelihood. Similarly protests by marginal and small farmers, landless,
dalits and adivasis, pastoralists, fisher folks and diary workers against
Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and Big Industrial
Companies/Corporate Sectors to protect right to livelihood and prevent
ecological degradation across rural India have raised vital issues which
need to be debated further in the development agenda. More than a
thousand SEZs have been approved across the country under the SEZ
Act 2005 and Rules 2006 and the forcible land acquisition has caused
widespread displacement, loss of livelihood and exclusion in these
zones.
While the 1970s witnessed Naxalites built up pockets of agrarian
struggle in the tribal areas which were suppressed by the para-military
forces, the last decade has seen the Maoist/Naxal rebels gradually
expanding their influence in around 170 districts forming a ‘red
corridor’ (stretching from the southern tip of India to the eastern half and
up to Nepal). Today Maoists hold sway over vast tracts of the
countryside in the east, south and centre. The merger of People’s War
Group (PWG) and Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in September 2004
led to the formation of a new united outfit called the Communist Party of
India (Maoist). The CPI (Maoist) believes in Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism as its ideology and aim to consolidate power in these

17
revolutionary zones. The CPI (Maoist) is regarded as a terrorist outfit
and since 22 June 2009 it is banned under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention Act) (UAPA) 1967. Several state governments (Orissa,
Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh among others) have officially banned it.
The Maoists denounce globalisation as ‘a war on the people by market
fundamentalists’ and the ‘caste system’ as a form of social oppression.
They claim to fight for the rights of poor peasants and landless
agricultural labourers against the big development projects. They aim at
establishing a "people’s government" through the new Democratic
Revolution which is the people's war. However, their ideology is also
committed to "protracted armed struggle" to undermine and to seize
power from the state. It also ‘supports the struggle of the sub-
nationalities for self-determination, including the right to secession’. It is
precisely because of the strategy of violence that Naxalites are referred
by the Government as "the single biggest internal security challenge ever
faced by our country."
While the adivasis feel strongly about objecting the development
projects which will lead to dispossession and losing their sources of
livelihood, displacement, ecological degradation and result in further
deprivation, they oppose the strategy of violence adopted by the
Maoists/ Naxals. Therefore to label every adivasi who critiques the
‘development state’ as a Naxalite/Maoist or a Naxal/Maoist sympathiser

18
and defending violence against them as a counter measure is not only
undemocratic but also demeaning democracy.
Thus, “in many ways, the history of ‘development’ projects in many
parts of the Indian Republic are illustrative of the ways in which the
doctrine of ‘eminent domain’ which empowers the state to use common
property for the benefit of larger society and public interest/public
purpose has, in practice, enabled the state to protect the interest of the
dominant class that create conditions of deprivation and impoverishment
for the large majority who remain disadvantaged and disempowered.
Industries, mining, dams, Special Economic Zones (SEZs), have
displaced large masses of people who have lost access to resources of
livelihood. The shift from the welfare state to the developmental state
has also seen the dismantling of their traditional production systems that
has disintegrated their livelihood systems resulting in dispossession,
deprivation, landlessness and distress migration. Physical uprooting of
the villagers from their habitat is a traumatic experience and results in a
sense of isolation and alienation from the community, culture, and loss
of ones’ identity. The loss of productive resources, right to livelihood
and the ecological threats have brought people directly in confrontation
with the state. There has been a persistent clash between the local
interest as well as the national interest on the issue of exploitation of
natural resources (Sachchidananda, 1989).

19
The protest against land acquisition in Raigad, Nagpur and Pune in
Maharastra, against Posco in Jagatshingpur in Orissa, Dadri and Jhajjar
in UP and Haryana, Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh and struggle at
Nandigram and Singur caused great political turmoil in the country and
could be the reason for escalation in Maoist activity. Many of the social
movements have come to be known as are anti-global, anti-nuclear, anti-
consumerism, anti-development projects as they opposed SEZs, Dams,
IT Parks, Mining Corporates, Land Acquisitions/encroachments,
disinvestment policies, privatisation of basic social services, FDI in
retail, etc.
Some of the movements that have played a critical role in demanding
policy changes are the women’s /feminist movements (demand policies
to protect the rights of women, equality and gender justice,
empowerment, and are against oppression, atrocities and violence
against women), eco-feminist movements (demand protection of
environment as women depend the most on nature), movement by
LGBT (against discrimination and liberation from social bondage, for
separate identities, rights, freedom, dignity and justice), Libertarian
movements, anti-caste movements such as dalit movements, tribal
movements, Jat movements, Gujjar movements, movement for
reservation of the Patidar community in the OBC quota by the Patidar
Anamat Andolan Samiti (PAAS), other backward caste movements (for
equality and special measures to protect their rights), farmers

20
movements, peasant movements (raise issues such as
subsidies/remunerative prices, debt relief for farmers, land development
and land rights), landless peoples’ movements (for land rights and
against land grab by the developmental state – the Dalit assertions in
recent years), some of the major movements which have played a
significant role in influencing the state policies are the workers
movements, human rights movements, indigenous people’s rights
movements, disability rights movements, child rights movements,
students movements, civil rights movements (PUDR and PUCL),
counter-terrorism movements (demand protection of their respective
freedom, rights, socio-economic justice, emancipation of human kind,
democratic socialist vision of empowerment etc). People's Union for
Civil Liberties (PUCL) has also endorsed the inability of the state to
contain indiscriminate repression and exploitation by police and civil
administrative authorities, and its failure to ensure human rights of the
people. It appeals to the people to oppose all kinds of violence either
perpetrated by any political group in the name of ideology by staging a
war against state or sponsored in the name of operation green hunt.
People should protest through democratic and peaceful means against
the inequitable policies of the state, corruption, police repression and for
protection and promotion of their human rights.
It is because of the increasing pressure by both the social movements
and interest groups that the rights-based approach of the state in the

21
recent years has guaranteed a series of rights through a wide range of
Acts such as - the Right to Information Act 2005, due to the active
struggle by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Right to
Protection against Domestic Violence 2005, due to the active protests by
the women’s movement, Right to Work, 2005 through Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Reservations
for the SC, ST, OBC and Women in the PRI (the proposed bill for 33%
reservation for women in the Parliament), the Scheduled Tribes and
Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act
2006, due to protests by campaign for survival and dignity, a national
platform for tribal and forest dwellers, the Right to Free and Compulsory
Education Act 2008, New Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition)
Act 2012, due to the protests by child rights activists, the National Food
Security Bill (NFSB) 2013, due to the struggle by right to campaign for
food, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) 2013, the Juvenile
Justice Act 2015, and so on.
While the importance of social and political transformation has been
reduced and instead agencies of hegemonic globalisation have
reduced/depoliticised development and undermined democratic
movements by co-opting financially and politically some protest
movements in developing countries in the global arena, the social
movements against the global hegemony – military and economic power

22
have formed Convention on Bio-diversity Agenda 21, World
Commission on Dams, Alliance for Comprehensive Democracy, The
Living Democracy, National Alliance for People’s Movements (NAPM),
campaign for peoples control over natural resources (There is an
Alternative), Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace and so on.
Thus the challenges of globalisation has politically revitalised social
movements and interest groups across the world.
Pressure Groups express their demands by articulating the interests of
their members. They protect the interest of their members through
publicity campaigns, lobbying, mobilizing, and personal meetings with
officials and legislators. They present alternatives for policy action
which influence the policies of the government. The consensus arrived at
through the debates generated by the pressure groups influences the
content of public policy. The competing proposals and adoption of a
compromised course of action by the pressure groups based on these
proposals become important.
As part of civil society organisation pressure groups are not aligned with
any political party and work as indirect yet powerful groups to influence
the decision. Myron Weiner in The Wounded Tiger: Maintaining
India’s Democratic Institutions (1983) argues that a strong civil society
is important to check the authoritarian tendencies of state which curtail
democracy. He explains that pressure groups are outside the government

23
which influence appointment of government officials, making and
implementation of public policies, and election process.
G. A Almond, G. B Powell in Comparative Politics: A Developmental
Approach (1972) have divided pressure groups into four parts:
Institutional Pressure Groups that are formally organised and constitute
professionally employed persons such as Bureaucracy, Army, etc;
Anomic Groups: may be constitutional/unconstitutional, self-
representation – perpetuate infiltration such a riots, demonstrations –
ULFA, Naxalites, Kashmir Liberation Front etc; Associations Pressure
Groups are organised specialised groups for interest articulation but
pursue limited goal such as Trade Unions, Student Union, Teachers
Association etc; Non-Associations Pressure Groups are informal groups
which include caste groups, language groups etc .
Proponents of the group theory argue that individuals are important in
politics only when they act on behalf of group interests and groups
become the essential bridge between individual and the government
(Refer to the Interest Groups Model on Policy Analysis, in particular the
explanations by Carl Friedrich in Constitutional Government and
Democracy (1941); Arthur F. Bentley in The Process of Government
(1949); David Truman in The Governmental Process (1951); and Earl
Latham in The Group Basis of Politics: Notes on Group Theory (1952)).
Latham argues that ‘Public policy is actually the equilibrium reached by
group struggle at any given moment and it represent a balance which

24
contending factions/groups constantly strive to tip in their favour’.
Groups engage in bargaining, consent, deliberation, accommodating
conflicts, coalition, compromise, and Thomas Dye argues that the
political system has the task to manage group struggle by establishing
rules of the game in group struggle, arranging compromise and
balancing interests, enacting compromise in the form of public policies
and enforcing them.
Llyod Rudolph and Sussane H. Rudolph in In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The
Political Economy of The Indian State (1987) explains the reasons for a
strong state which prevailed against weaker parties in the context of
divided Trade Unions and unorganised groups in Indian politics which
lacked the ability to influence national policies. In the context of
divided, fragmented and competitive interests represented by different
social groups, the state becomes stronger as it has the legitimacy and
responsibility for nation building and economic development. The state
becomes strong when the pressure groups become weak. The neo-liberal
state has been successful in undermining the power of the Trade Unions
which were powerful in protecting the rights of the workers. This has
left the working class without a bargaining power.
Today, the national interest itself has been redefined to privilege
privatisation, promote global trade, and boost economic ties with the
corporate sector. One is made to believe that any deviation from this will
result in losing out the benefits of globalisation and market economy and

25
there will be a genuine threat to the economic growth and development.
Any deviation from what the corporate world wants us to believe is seen
as anti-development thereby giving the corporate world an upper hand.
The only answer to persisting predicaments of poverty, hunger,
unemployment, and underdevelopment in the developing countries is to
implement the pro-capitalist global market model that will ensure
economic growth as a pre-condition for development. Indian democracy
and development are expected to adjust to the international norms of the
free competitive global market economy. Though the significance of
economic growth is indisputable, by itself economic growth is neither
sufficient nor does it lead to development. Therefore it is pertinent to
engage with the debates by pressure groups and social movements on the
development strategies that have failed to address the systemic
deprivations which not only persist but also continue to increase.
Major pressure groups in India that are institutionalised such as big
business houses have a big powerful lobby in parliament. FICCI
(Federation of Chamber of Commerce and Industries), ASSOCHAM
(Association Chamber of Commerce and Industry) CII (Confederation
of Indian Industries) influence the major policy issues that are of
economical and commercial in nature. They play a major important role
in advising/suggesting government on policies related to trade, tariff,
tax, industrial-financial policy matters/laws, investments, export-import
policy matters and so on.

26
Professional pressure groups include Indian Bar Association (for
lawyers), All India Medical Association/Council (for Doctors), Civil
Services Association, Police Welfare Organisation, Defence Personnel
Association, Army Officers Organisation, Red Cross Society etc
influence policies related to specific professions; Peasant Organisations
include All India Kisan Congress (AIKC), Akhil Bharatiya Kisan Sangh
(ABKS), Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) in many states of North and
south India influence decisions of government in the agrarian policies to
protect interest of the farmers and peasants such as getting higher prices
for agricultural products, subsidies for fertilizers/manures, minimum
support price, availability of loans, land development policies and land
rights etc.
Workers pressure groups such as Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Mazdoor
Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), All India Postal and Telegraph
Workers Union, Trade Unions such as All India Trade Union Congress
(AITUC), Hind Mazdoor Sangh, Centre for India Trade Union (CITU)
Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) etc which demand
protection of the interest of workers; Students Union such as All India
Students Federation (AISF), National Students Union of India (NSUI),
Akil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), Students Federation of India
(SFI), All India Students Association (AISA), Janata Yuva Morcha
(JYM) work for rights of students; Community Associations such as
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) Scheduled Caste Federation, Backward

27
Caste Federation, Rastriya Swayamak Sangh (RSS), Brahmin Sabha,
Nair Society; Linguistic Groups such as Tamil Sangh, Hindi Protection
Prishad; Socio-Cultural pressure groups for promotion of language and
religion such as Arya Samaj, Ram Krishna Mission, Jan Seva Sangh,
Bajrang Dal, Young Men of Christian Association (YMCA); Tribal
Groups such as United Mizo Federal Organisation, The Tribal Sangh of
Assam, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM which was successful in
creating a separate state); Women Groups such as All India Women’s
Conference (AIWC), National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), All
India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Self-Employment
Women’s Association (SEWA) are active and influence policies to
protect the rights of women; Peoples’ Protest Groups People’s Union for
Democratic Rights (PUDR), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL),
Right to Food Campaign (brought the National Food security Bill 2013);
protests such as India Against Corruption (resulted in the passing of Lok
Pal Bill), Protest against violence against women (brought the Nirvaya
Act), Protests for human causes like peace (Campaigns against
Terrorism, Nuclear Bomb, Groups for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace,
North-Eastern State (Manipur) Just Peace, Apunba Lup (Students
Union) Meira Paibis (Women’s Groups) support Irom Sharmila –the
Iron Lady of Manipur who is on a hunger strike since 2000 demanding
repeal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA); Campaigns
against forcible land acquisition and displacement (brought the Land

28
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR, 2013); protests to
protect environment, (Campaigns for people’s control over natural
resources, Convention on Bio-Diversity Agenda 21, World Convention
on Dams,) protection of human rights, consumer rights, national
campaign and international solidarity activities/campaigns against AIDS,
Adhoc Associations such as Odisha Relief Organisation, Gujrat Relief
Association, Kaveri Water Distribution Association, Bhoodan,
Annayojna, Campaign Against AIDS; Think Tanks and Research
Centres Mass-Media (Social Media) Print and Electronic, etc. have all
played an important role in influencing public policies. National
Alliance of People’s Movement (NAPM) National Alliance of Women’s
Organisation (NAWO) pressurise the government for changing policies
on important issues such as corruption, human rights, livelihood,
environmental protection, women empowerment, education and health
issues. India’s enormous opposition to shift in Patent Laws according to
WHO (Industry and Civil Society had a strong interest in blocking
reforms on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Agreement). Pressure
groups and NGOs played an important role in directing policy towards
protecting the traditional knowledge. IPR reveals the complex dynamics
of interest groups behaviour in shaping policy. Patent Rights, Copy
Right, Trade Market over inventions, Minimum Support Prices (MSP) to
farmers are issues which have been influenced by pressure groups in the
WHO and WTO meetings.

29
The influence of the pressure groups depends upon its organisational
strength, financial strength, discipline and commitment of its members,
leadership, and access to decision making process. Pressure Groups
lobby to work as a link between political parties and the masses/citizens.
They sensitise the public on socio-economic issues and educate them
politically. The leaders influence public opinion, and at times they
influence judiciary, which is an integral part of the democratic system.
Interest groups are organised groups which seek to promote their
specific interest as well as organised common interest through appeals,
petitions, lobbying, procession, organise/hold rallies, dharnas,
demonstrations, hunger strikes, public hearings, present memorandums
to the legislative committees and promote their cause through the use of
media and creation of public opinion. G.A Almond, G.B Powell and K.
Strom in Comparative Politics Today: A World View (2008) argue that
the pressure groups through political education, campaigns, litigation,
lobbying, protests, demonstrations, and strikes, strengthen the
democratic system of government and they set the agenda of
development through collective action.
NGOs have become more relevant in the contemporary times due to
their changing role from relief, charity, to welfare to development and
empowerment. A massive growth in funding and support to the NGO
formation in the mid-1980s saw the attempt of the new groups to reach
out both to the grassroots and the policy makers and were successful in

30
shaping the development and political discourse which was
acknowledged by both the policy-makers and the public. Harsh Sethi in
‘Micro-struggles, NGOs and the State’ in Manoranjan Mohanty, Partha
Nath Mukherji and Olle Tornquist (eds) Peoples’ Rights Social
Movements and the State in the Third World (1998) argues that NGOs
face pressures from two diverse sources and they have to simultaneously
satisfy several demands from the ground, the government and the
donors. Since NGOs were locally rooted and environmentally sensitive,
flexible, had low cost and were honest, the policy-makers laid great
emphasis on NGOs to involve voluntary agencies in the development
programmes. Though at times they raise uncomfortable questions about
the development process, the complex characteristics of NGOs made it
essential for the external agencies to welcome them. Despite their
drawbacks they remain a source of hope and a possibility of expanding
the processes of democracy from state to society and culture (Mohanty,
1998).
B.N. Jha and S.D. Mishra in ‘Development through NGO: Prospects and
Retrospect’s’ in Kamta Prasad (ed) NGOs and Socio-Economic
Development Opportunities (2001) explains the major role that NGOs
play in development. NGOs are planners, implementers, monitors, and
evaluators of development programmes. They mobilise the local and
outside resources and take initiatives in mobilising and motivating
people. They organise public hearings (jan sunwais) and help

31
communicate people’s verdict and public opinion to the government on
many issues of development that concerns majority of the people. Thus
as catalysts they mediate between the people and the government and
work as enabler and facilitators of development.
NGOs also collaborate, support and partner the government programmes
in the delivery of rural development programmes. They raise
consciousness and generate awareness through education, training
programmes, workshops, and dissemination of information. They
articulate and priorities needs and play an important role as advocates of
poverty alleviation and community development programmes. As Social
Action Groups they have an increasing role to play in strengthening the
civil society.
Julie Fisher in NGOs and the Political Development of the Third World
(1998) explains the multi-dimensional role of NGOs in development.
NGOs strengthen the institutions of civil society that mediate between
the individual and the state, both on their own and in conjunction with
governments. Thus it promotes increased governments responsibility
and accountability. There is a lot of international networking among the
national NGOs and proliferation of international NGOs (INGOs). The
horizontal networking has widened their operations as NGOs collaborate
with the regional and community organisations (such as Association of
Voluntary Agencies for Rural Development (AVARD) and Voluntary
Associations Network India (VANI). As non-profit organisations they

32
collaborate with the Grassroots Organisations (GROs) based on local
communities and Grassroots Support Organisations (GRSOs) which are
nationally or regionally based support organisations. NGOs collaborate
formally as well as informally in major development projects and
activities. Some of the formal Umbrella Organisations of NGOs and
GROs have their written constitution and laws and hold their annual
meetings and represent the GRSOs as a group in negotiations with the
government and the international donors. At times the foreign financial
support can lead to competition instead of collaboration among GRSOs.
Many NGOs have targeted roles to promote political rights, civil
liberties, human rights, right to sustainable development, and natural
resources management. They follow the bottom-up approach to establish
the community outreach activities. They uphold the democratic values of
society (equality, justice, rights, freedom and liberty) and also work on
problem solving strategies. The three approaches or strategies that
NGOs follow are isolation, advocacy and cooperation (Fisher, 1998).
Both GROs and GRSOs at times consciously decide to steer clear of the
state and in isolation build a mass base and strengthen independent
sector networks and develop alternative approaches to development that
can influence policy over the long run. Thus the autonomy of civil
society is strengthened and such strategies promote political
participation and democratization at the local level. Political advocacy is
also based on a refusal to be co-opted or controlled but involves direct

33
communication with government about policy. At times NGOs use the
techniques of friendly persuasion, negotiations, and lobbying, and at
times they organise mass protests on major issues for mass advocacy and
suggestions. Cooperation strategy is adopted by many NGOs which
collaborate with the government in planning and implementation. Thus
the relationships of NGOs and government can be complimentary and
collaborative at times, and confrontational at times.
Some of the NGOs which are active are ASPBAE (Asian South Pacific
Bureau of Adult Education) that made notable impact on education in
India and other countries of Asia-Pacific. SISSO (Sulabh International
Social Services Organisation) has done pioneering works in the field of
sanitation improvement and rehabilitation of scavengers, VHAI
(Voluntary Health Association of India) promotes primary health
programmes in rural and urban India. There are several NGOs operating
in the micro-credit/ financial sectors which help the Self Help Groups
(SHGs) to become economically empowered and help them in credit
management skills and prompt repayment. As capability building
agencies they help in the non-farm income generating activities (SEWA,
MYRADA, ACTIONAID, URMUL, IEA and so on). NGOs are also
active in the policy reforms to protect environment and co-ordinate with
the social movements such as JAGORI, AIWC, PRIA, CSE, and so on.
To prevent ecological degradation they campaign in favour of
conservation of energy, solar energy, water conservation, bio-diversity,

34
disaster management, reforestation, sustainable development, animal
rights, anti-nuclear programmes, and peace movements. They protest the
big development projects which deprive people of their livelihood
resources such as mining, land acquisitions, SEZs, big Dams,
deforestation. There are many NGOs which work against child labour
and promote child rights, girl child programmes, literacy and health care
programmes. They work for rights of women such as missing women,
sex workers, and victims of domestic violence, rape, migrants, and
refugees. They organise community marriages, inter-caste marriages,
and counselling centres. They create, store and disseminate information
or data through research studies, and partner with the state social
services and rights-based programmes. Several NGOs work for human
rights, build human capital and develop human resource, and work for
empowering the deprived, marginalised and underprivileged. Thus the
NGOs have a vanguard role in strengthening civil society.
It is significant to empower civil society to participate in the decision
making processes of development policies that impact the lives and
livelihood of large mass of people. The political initiatives should be
located in the hands of the deprived, oppressed, impoverished,
marginalised and the excluded. Though the political context conditions
the initial NGO-government relationship, the latter can evolve and
reshape the political context. Therefore there is a need to reinvent

35
society by building social capital which is the key to making democracy
work.
Media plays an active role in raising awareness and thus alters the
dynamics of policy making process. The role of media (print and
electronic) in the context of development in the global world order is
important; as democratic institutions they channelize public action that
can generate public accountability for the state; democratic culture is
relevant as it enables the functioning of the democratic institutions; it
questions the failure of the constitutional responsibilities of the state.
Hugh Mackay in ‘The Globalisation of Culture’ in David Held (Ed) A
Globalising World? Culture, Economics, Politics (2004) argues that the
plethora of complex networks (satellite and digital) and IT revolution
enables dissemination of information world-wide. It is critical to
understand the debate on technological determinism – whether
technologies are embedded in society, and the counter argument that
they are not shaped by social forces, as the debates are important to
analyse the role of media in policy process. Despite coexistence of
greater diversities in a multicultural society, the campaign for global
culture and its dissemination worldwide through a plethora of complex
networks to reduce cultural differences has led to imposition of the
dominant western culture. Thus the practice of neoliberal ideas has
transformed how global capitalism has been working over the last three
decades.

36
David Harvey in A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005) argues how the
intense interest of neoliberalism in pursuit of ‘Information Technology’
by creating techniques of information and capabilities to accumulate,
store, transfer, analyse and use massive data base has made
neoliberalism hegemonic as a mode of discourse and has become
incorporated into the common sense way that many of us interpret, live
in, and understand the world. As media helps to shape public
perceptions, all major news agencies of the West collect, select, and
control 80 per cent of the world’s news through the broadcasting
networks, publishing institutions, satellite and digital services.
Technology has undoubtedly become an important driving force of
history, often independent of the social forces and political culture,
resulting in accelerating the processes of integration with the global
market economy. However, the underlying philosophy of economic
liberalisation and globalisation which compels integration with the
capitalist world is certainly not to equalise but to create a peripheral
status for the majority. The global world campaigns for an ‘information
society’ or ‘knowledge economy’ based on information technology,
individual skills, and flexibility in labour and business laws. People were
made to believe that ‘what is good for Wall Street is good for the rest of
the world’ (Harvey, 2005). With the ascendancy of capital and
technology, a free competitive market economy as the precondition for
development has resulted in large scale asymmetries across the world.

37
While the 21st century appears more democratic, inclusive, and pluralist,
the contemporary global world has witnessed resurgence of new forms
of discrimination, exclusion, polarisation and domination. While greater
liberalisation has increased liquidity for the world trade and the
multilateral trading system is important, the global inequalities pose
challenges to its sustainability.
The ‘Right to Information’ has made the government and administration
more accountable and responsible towards its citizens. Public hearing,
public opinion, debates and discussions by the citizens through different
platforms influence the policy process to a great extent in a participatory
democracy – India (see details in Chapter IV – “Citizen and
Administration Interface”). Thus media exposes the drawbacks in the
contents of policy, the processes of its formulation and implementation
and provides a forum to critique, analyse, debate, suggest, recommend
and participate in policy making, However, the evidences of ‘Paid
News’ in the recent years has raised serious concerns about the freedom
that media has in the contemporary times.
Policy Implementation involves translating the policy objectives and
goals into an operational framework. It is the process of delivery which
is an ongoing process that delivers benefits and is involved in
mobilizing, organizing and managing resources.
It involves accountability and responsibility in translating the general
policies and their objectives into operational targets. Clarity and lack of

38
ambiguity enable the implementing agencies to make a rational use of
the management techniques, a cost benefit analysis, and a comparative
analysis to produce better results. The post 73rd Amendment period has
also seen an increasing role for the PRIs in the implementation of public
policies at the grassroots level. The relevance of public private
partnership has increased the role of several stakeholders - CSOs,
NGOs, VOs, Social Action Groups, RWAs, and Mohalla Clinics in
Delhi, as the implementing agencies (see details in Unit-II –
Decentralisation).
There are various hurdles in implementation of policies such as absence
of financial resources, lack of cooperation from the bureaucrats, lack of
political will/support, lack of public involvement in the implementation
process, increasing political interference and poor co-ordination and co-
operation, hierarchical tendencies in the bureaucratic structure and
centralization of power.
Evaluation is the process to estimate, assess and appraise the efficiency
and effectiveness of policies implemented. It is to analyse if the goals
and purpose of the policies are achieved. Evaluation involves the process
to assess the impact of the policies- the consequential effect both the
intended and unintended consequences, manifest and latent
consequences, the qualitative and quantitative performance, and the
outputs and outcomes. Evaluation of the content of the policy and its
objectives, its implementation and impact on the society in general, and

39
specific target and non-target groups, communities and individuals in
particular, become important. Evaluation can restart the policy process,
continue, modify, or terminate the existing policies. It is significant to
measure the impact on the beneficiaries, the cost-benefit analysis, and
impact on the current situation and future. It ensures the accountability
of the administration to its citizens (see details in Unit IV – Citizen and
Administration Interface - Redressal of Public Grievances).
It has been argued that evaluation should be a systematic, an objective
and a comprehensive process. It should not be symbolic which looks at
the quantitative indices and ignores the ground realities and substantial
changes that take place at the grassroots. There are several types of
evaluation – monitoring the strategy, implementation and impact.
Methods of evaluation and agencies – the Planning Commission (which
is now The National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog),
Parliamentary process through question hours, debates, motions that
include the call attention and no confidence motion, hearings and
investigations by committee, through PAC, CAG, evaluative reports of
programmes and projects, internal reports, and annual reports, research
reports by university scholars, independent scholars, research
organisations, research centres, think tanks, and administrative agencies.
The debates on the merger of the merger of the Rail Budget and General
Budget also illustrate the evaluation of financial policies/decisions
(Please refer to Unit- III on Budget). (Also refer to Unit- V for the

40
evaluation of the policies based on the rights-based approach of the state
that aims at promoting an inclusive society, the poverty alleviation
programmes, and social welfare measures such as Sarva Siksha Abhiyan
(SSA), National Health Mission (NHM), Right to Food (NFSA) and
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA)). The recent debates on the Economic Survey, 2022-23
illustrates critical analysis of some of the policies. The policy analysts
argue that the Universal Basic Income (UBI) based on Philippe Van
Parjis’ book Real Freedom for All, 2005, which argues for ‘fair
distribution of Real Freedom to pursue the realization of one’s
conception of good life’ has been interpreted wrongly by the policy
makers. In fact, the proposal of UBI in the Economic Survey, 2016-2017
is an attack on the welfare schemes as UBI should be an add-on-to and
not a replacement of current anti-poverty and social programmes. Parjis
proposal is based on progressive taxation and the philosophy of
redistribution and is not to replace the existing benefits through cash
transfers. The UBI is not targeted but universal and unconditional and is
not tied to work/employment and should be in cash for basic needs such
as education, health, and food. Thus it is significant to get the basics of
welfare policies correct.
There are several hurdles in the process of evaluation when the objective
is ambiguous and uncertain, when there is no clarity and the goals are
diffused, lack of data, statistics, and information, and official resistance

41
to share information and findings of reports. In addition, subjective
interpretations, personal interests and party ideologies of public officials
many a times discourage the evaluation process as they refuse to provide
information or keep the records incomplete/ secret and are reluctant to
share/disclose the reports.

Readings
B.N. Jha and S.D. Mishra, (2001) in ‘Development through NGO: Prospects and
Retrospect’s’ in Kamta Prasad (eds) NGOs and Socio-Economic Development
Opportunities.
D. L. Seth, (1990) ‘Micro-Movements in India: Towards a New Politics of
Parliamentary Democracy’ in Social Movements and Democratic Aspirations.
David Harvey, (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism.
Gail Omvedt, (1993) Reinventing Revolution: New Social Movements and the
Socialist Tradition in India.
Harsh Sethi, (1998) ‘Micro-struggles, NGOs and the State’ in Peoples’ Rights
Social Movements and the State in the Third World by Manoranjan Mohanty,
Partha Nath Mukherji and Olle Tornquist.
Hugh Mackay, (2004) ‘The Globalisation of Culture’ in David Held (ed) A
Globalising World? Culture, Economics, Politics.
Liyod Rudolph and Sussane H. Rudolph, (1987) In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The
Political Economy of The Indian State.
Manoranjan Mohanty (1989) ‘Class, caste and Dominance in Orissa’ in Francine
R. Frankel and M. S. Rao (eds) Dominance and State Power in Modern India
Decline of a Social Order
Vol-II.
42
Myron Weiner, (1983) The Wounded Tiger: Maintaining India’s Democratic
Institutions.
Partha Chatterjee, (1998) State and Politics in India.
Rajni Kothari, (1988) State Against Democracy: In search of Humane
Governance.
Raka Ray and M. F. Katzenstein (2005) Social Movements in India: Poverty,
Power and Politics.
Sudipta Kaviraj (2012) The Trajectories of the Indian State: Politics and Ideas.
Thomas Dye (1972; 2002) Understanding Public Policy.

43