Louise Tillin
University of Cambridge, UK
Keywords: India; statehood; movements; political parties; federalism
DOI: 10.5509/201184167
As the world’s largest multi-ethnic democracy, India has a federal constitution that is well-equipped with administrative devices that offer apparent recognition and measures of self-governance to territorially concentrated ethnic groups. This article analyzes how demands for political autonomy—or statehood—within the federal system have been used as a frame for social movement mobilization. It focuses on the most recent states to have been created in India: Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, which came into being in 2000. These are the first states to have been created in India on a non-linguistic basis. Their creation has triggered questions about whether the creation of more, smaller states can improve political representation and help to make the state more responsive to diverse needs in India. This article draws attention to the processes which have brought borders into question, drawing social movements and political parties into alignment about the idea of creating new states. It ultimately looks at why the creation of states as a result of such processes may not lead to more substantive forms of political and economic citizenship on the part of marginalized communities. While the focus of the analysis will be on the processes that led up to statehood, the conclusions offer some insights into why pro-poor policy shifts at the national level in India have uneven regional effects. Despite the change in national political regime in India with the election of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance in 2004, marginalized groups in India continue to experience the state through the refractive lens of multiple regional political histories.
作為世界上最大的多種族民主制度,印度的聯邦憲法對聚居的民族群體有一套齊全的管理手段,明顯認可其自治並提供相應的措施。本文分析在聯邦體系之下對政治(或政權)自主的要求如何被用作進行社會運動動員的一種框架。本文集中探討了最近在印度創立的諸邦,包括在2000年創立的恰蒂斯加爾邦、賈坎德邦、和北安查爾邦。這些是印度最早的不以語言為基礎創立的諸邦。它們的創立引發了很多問題,如創建更多小型諸邦是否可以改進政治代表問題並使國家更好地回應印度的多樣需求。本文尤其關注邊界如何經受質疑、社會運動及政治黨派與創立新諸邦的想法如何被結合等過程。最後,本文探討為何這種過程所創立的諸邦不一定為邊緣化社區帶來更實質性的政治經濟公民權。雖然本文著重於分析創立諸邦的過程,其結論對思考印度國家層次的傾向貧民的政策轉移及其不平均的效果也有將所啟發。儘管2004年國大黨領導的聯合進步聯盟的當選導致了國家級政治體製的改變,印度被邊緣化群體對國家的體驗仍然不能脫離印度多樣的區域政治歷史。
置疑邊界:社會運動、政治黨派、和印度新諸邦的創建