Annotated Bibliography

Sahoo, Sarbeswar. Civil Society and Democratization in India: Institutions, Ideologies, and Interests. New York: Routledge, 2013. -emphasis on/ uncritical engagement with democracy is unhelpful Analyzing how certain organizations are democratic or not, and how certain actors of civil society (NGOs) contribute to democratization. Analyzes relationships between the state, political society, and civil society. -neo-Marxist org radical claim-making approach emphasizing issue-based activism and welfare rights, as well as building the collective capabilities of these groups. Interested in how marginalized people gain the rights and entitlements, particularly through peoples participation. Radicalized every-day politics at the grassroots level. . This organization is involved with giving tribal/adviasi people knowledge of the laws of the nation and of their own rights. Challenge the arbitrary nature of power exercised at the local level (97), as well as challenge unjust and dominating laws. Emphasis on structural injustice/inequalities. NGOs that work on technocratic service delivery and development projects have created a culture of organized dependency on the part of Seva Mandir on the people it serves. Organization is supposed to be about empowerment and democratization. Ideology of the organization has important effects that determine the objectives, approaches, and leaderships of these organizations. Thinking of this in terms of different corporations. Ie, the demand group (NGO), the opposition (state, etc). Thinking of different types of NGOsno definitions, but useful to look at the different kinds of organizing that takes place. Constructive social work vs. radical mobilization of the public. Helpful in thinking how this has created a certain kind of public space.

Gangoli, Geetanjali. Indian Feminisms: Law, Patriarchies and Violence in India. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2007. Focuses on a genealogy of feminism and its effects on law, Indian society in general, and sexual violence. Looking at law in a critical way, analyzing the strengths and limits of feminist legal debates and reform, and whether these reforms are effective. Argues that feminists have intervened in law in at least three ways; 1) expose workings of patriarchal control within law (ie, civil marriage and divorce laws that give men more rights); 2) unpack how law operates, viewing it in a plural framework that gives some redress to survivors of sexual violence and has

worked to extend rights to women particularly in sexual assault and rape cases. 3) Challenged hegemonic notions of the family. Nominal equality for women but legal inequality. Debates on law have also politicized, and brought to the forefront, an understanding of violence against women, based on the perception that there is systematic and systematized aggression against women, naturalized through different forms of violence including rape, sexual harassment, pornography, trafficking, prostitution, and female infanticide/selective sex determination, child marriage, and domestic violence. Good overview on the effects feminists have had on Indian law. Also good overview of feminist legal critiquesie, critiques on using law as the main site at which feminist change happens. Good analysis of feminists who have doubts on the transformative capacity of law (9). Most feminists have little faith in legal solutions to sexual violence and to feminist demands (WHICH IS WHY THE IMPLOSION OF PUBLIC DEMANDS WAS AND IS SO DAMAGING) We need to think of alternatives. Basically how feminists have responded to globalization, critiques of westernization, and how they have perceived the law. Well-documented fact that many Indian feminists see the state as a primary site of gender-based violence, but continue to advocate for legal and legislative reforms. But, perhaps the IWM can confront this on multiple fronts (on the inside as well as the outside). Kamat, Sangeeta. Development Hegemony: NGOs and the State in India. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Basu, Amrita. Two Faces of Protest: Contrasting Forms of Womens Activism in India. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Compares two forms of leftist political activity: parliamentary communism and grass-roots activism Looks at ideologies of organizations and the way that these influence their strategies and their end effect, particularly on womenespecially looks at their organizational structures and their stance on electoral participation Using the lens of womens experience to analyze the CPI(M) and Sharmig Sangathana Uses these two cast studies to draw normative statements on Indian organization and politics because class and gender are complementary Engages peasant movements, womens resistance, and leftist political strategies

Organizational innovations responsible for the success of grass-roots movements are also a major source of their weakness (24). Useful in terms of looking at ideologies and organizational strategies, comparing and contrasting different organizations spatially dislocated, and different approaches at movement building which would be better to use than traditional NGO models, perhaps. Thinking of structural constrains vs strategic choices Absence of class and caste polarization in villages has led to diminished protest; perhaps the hyper polarization of Delhi makes it a brewing ground for this kind of mass movement, something like that. In other words, organizing and protest dont always happen because of NGO and institutions, but sometimes they dont happen because of broader structural constraints (class, caste, sexuality, etc). Particularly important to not leave out caste and class issues out of a discussion of gender. Caste, class, sexuality, gender, ability Also helpful in thinking of radical reformism, not just reform vs. revolution. Political organizations construct their strategies by selectively appropriating from a range of social and material conditions. Those instances in which the CPI(M) and Shramik Sangathana have confronted and reshaped social and economic conditions suggest a greater latitude for political invervention than is usually recognized. (230). Accepting current constraints as inevitable, organizations compromise more radical and ambitious social change and solidify structural inequalitiesm, making the mmore intractable. Trouble focusing on Objective constraints