Summary of The Politics of the Governed by Partha Chatterjee: Chapter Three

Summary of The Politics of the Governed by Partha Chatterjee (with Background and Author's Overview)

Partha Chatterjee, a renowned political theorist, historian, and member of the Subaltern Studies collective, is a professor at Columbia University and the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta. His work primarily interrogates postcolonial state formation, nationalism, and the realities of political life outside the institutional ideals of Western democracy. The Politics of the Governed (2004) is a groundbreaking intervention that reflects on how democratic politics functions in the majority of the world—specifically outside the narrow scope of liberal Western frameworks.

Get Here The Analysis of The Politics of the Governed  Chapter Three

The book emerges from the Leonard Hastings Schoff Memorial Lectures delivered by Chatterjee in 2001 and is divided into two parts. The first part, comprising the original lectures, explores theoretical and historical reflections on nationalism, political society, and democratic practices. The second part includes essays reflecting on the global context after the events of September 11, expanding on the implications for postcolonial societies.

Chatterjee begins by contesting the traditional dichotomy between the state and civil society. Drawing upon Foucault’s idea of governmentality, he distinguishes between "civil society," inhabited by the elite and shaped by rights-bearing citizens, and "political society," where the poor and marginal negotiate with the state through informal, tactical, and often illegal means. In most of the world, politics operates not through institutionalized citizenship but through this realm of negotiation, demand, and mediated governance.

He emphasizes that the majority of people in countries like India do not inhabit civil society as defined by liberal democratic norms. Instead, they engage in politics through collective identities—caste, religion, neighborhood—making claims to welfare and recognition from the state, not as abstract citizens but as members of specific groups. This politics is not irrational or regressive, as often portrayed, but rooted in everyday realities of exclusion and need.

Chatterjee also critically engages with Benedict Anderson’s concept of the nation as an “imagined community” situated in homogeneous, empty time. He introduces the idea of “heterogeneous time,” asserting that most people in postcolonial societies do not live in abstract civic temporality but in fragmented and layered experiences shaped by tradition, memory, and uneven development. His fictional and historical examples—from the writings of Ambedkar to the novel Dhorai Charitmanas—demonstrate how the aspirations for equality and citizenship confront the realpolitik of governmentality.

The book also explores how secularism, nationalism, and urban transformation intersect with these dynamics. It warns against romanticizing classical nationalism or cosmopolitanism, urging instead an engagement with the “messy” realities of governance, identity, and resistance in political society.

In essence, The Politics of the Governed is a profound rethinking of democratic practice in the postcolonial world. It challenges Western liberal assumptions, offers a nuanced account of state-society relations, and foregrounds the strategic agency of the marginalized. Chatterjee calls for recognizing the legitimacy of political society and the plural, contingent ways in which democracy is enacted beyond the West.

Summary of the Section: The Politics of the Governed (Chapter Three, Page:53-78) from The Politics of the Governed Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World by Partha Chatterjee

Summary (Simplified) Part I

In this section, Partha Chatterjee takes us on a journey to a squatter colony near railway tracks in South Calcutta, named Gobindapur Rail Colony Gate Number 1. This settlement, existing since the late 1940s, was formed by poor migrants and refugees, mainly those displaced by the Bengal famine of 1943 and the Partition of India in 1947. Although built illegally on public land, the authorities tolerated these settlements because the refugees had nowhere else to go.

Initially, local leaders like Adhir Mandal and Haren Manna ran the colony with links to the Communist Party. They were not political revolutionaries but rather local strongmen who acted as intermediaries between the settlers and government agencies. Over time, residents began facing threats of eviction from the railway authorities, especially during politically turbulent times like the Emergency in 1975. These threats were often overcome through protests or political connections.

In the 1980s, a new leader emerged—Anadi Bera, a self-taught teacher and theatre actor. He organized the residents into a formal group called than Jana Kalyan Samiti (People’s Welfare Association). This group not only resisted eviction attempts but also worked to bring government welfare programs like the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) to the colony, which provided child care, immunization, food, and health advice.

Through the association, residents also got water, electricity, and even toilets over time—despite technically being illegal settlers. These services were obtained through a mix of activism, negotiation, and informal (sometimes extra-legal) arrangements with officials and agencies.

Importantly, the settlers began to build a shared identity, not through caste or religion, but by their collective experience of living together, facing eviction threats, and struggling for rights. They described themselves as a "family," tied together not by blood but by their common occupation of land and shared history.

Partha Chatterjee further explores how people in squatter settlements organize themselves and how their claims for rights and recognition differ from those made by groups in formal or "civil" society.

1. Limits of the “Family” Community in the Rail Colony

Residents of the rail colony call themselves a “family,” but their sense of community is strictly based on territory—only people living within the settlement’s physical boundaries are considered part of this family. Those living just across the bridge are seen as outsiders. These territorial boundaries also decide:

* Who can join the residents’ association

* Who contributes to community festivals

* Who can ask for certain local jobs (like guards in nearby buildings)

Inside this family, people have very different lives. Most men work in construction or look for temporary work. Women are often the main earners, working as maids. Incomes vary widely—from very little to around Rs.2,000 per month. Some people even rent out huts, although no one legally owns land.

Despite this hardship, the community organizes sports, watches TV together, and celebrates festivals. One major festival is for Sitala, a folk goddess believed to protect health. They celebrate this with music and open-air theatre. These festivals help keep the community united and mirror the way middle-class people celebrate more prominent festivals like Durga Puja.

2. Political Society, Not Civil Society

The People’s Welfare Association formed by the residents is not part of formal civil society—because their very existence is illegal. However, they still use their association to fight for their right to live there and receive services like water, electricity, and childcare.

They speak the language of government policy to justify their claims. In letters to the authorities, they identify as refugees, landless laborers, and people living below the poverty line—all terms the government uses for welfare programs. They ask for either the right to stay or to be relocated with dignity if eviction becomes necessary.

This shows how categories used by the government  (like "poor" or "underprivileged") are creatively turned into moral and political arguments by the community. They combine policy language with emotional appeals, saying they’re just families trying to live decent lives.

3. Political Claims in a Changing Landscape

These claims are not protected by law—they exist in the shifting world of politics. When the political balance supports them, they can stay and gain services. But if the balance shifts, they may be evicted.

This happened in 2002, when a court ordered eviction for polluting a nearby lake. The community resisted physically and hoped that a favorable politician (from the Trinamool Congress) would soon become Railway Minister and help them. This shows how fragile their position is—completely dependent on political strategy, not rights or laws.

4. Case Study Shift: From the Slums to Middle-Class Streets

Chatterjee then walks us to Gariahat, a middle-class area. For 30 years, street vendors had occupied sidewalks illegally, but they served a key economic function and made a living through political support. By the mid-1990s, however, political pressure grew to clean up the city and attract investors. In a clean-up drive called Operation Sunshine, all street vendors were evicted. Despite being well-organized, they couldn’t resist because political support had dried up. They waited, hoping to be relocated.

This example shows that even organized groups in political society can lose everything quickly when political interests change.

5. Another Contrast: The Bookbinders of Daftaripara

Finally, Chatterjee talks about a completely different group—bookbinding workers in an old neighborhood of North Calcutta called Daftaripara. Around 4,000 workers work here in over 500 tiny units. It’s a mix of small owners and laborers, many working in poor conditions with old tools and low wages.

Attempts to unionize and demand better pay happened in the 1970s–80s, but these efforts mostly failed. In one strike, workers demanded a small raise, but since most "owners" were also poor workers, it turned into a joint protest against publishers. The result was a minor wage increase, and union activity fizzled out again.

Unlike the rail colony, Daftaripara doesn’t have a sense of collective identity. The workers don’t organize together or make political demands. Their ties are more personal—between worker and owner—not political. Many workers are migrants who sleep at work and go home to rural villages on weekends.

Though they vote for Left parties, their political awareness comes from their villages, not from their lives as workers. In short, the bookbinders have not entered political society in the way the slum residents have.

This shows how difficult it is to build class-based solidarity in informal sectors where small-scale capitalism and labor are mixed, and where even dedicated Leftist activism has struggled to take root.

Summary (Simplified) Part II

In this section, Chatterjee shifts his focus from urban settlements to rural West Bengal, where the Left Front (particularly the Communist Party of India - Marxist) had successfully turned state governance into a lasting source of political support. He explains how marginal groups in the villages—people who are usually ignored or excluded—were brought into the political process not through formal rights, but through strategic mediation by trusted individuals, especially school teachers.

1. The School Teacher as Mediator

In rural areas, school teachers became key figures in expanding political society. One example is Anadi Bera, the teacher and theatre leader in the Calcutta rail colony. Similarly, in rural districts like Purulia, most primary school teachers were not only educators but also:

* Members of Communist teachers' associations

* Active in party politics and peasant organizations

* Representatives in local government bodies

They were seen as neutral and trustworthy by villagers. Since they had salaried jobs and did not rely on farming income, they were not part of the old landlord class and seemed sympathetic to the poor. Many had rural backgrounds, so they could speak both the language of the common people and that of administrators and party officials.

Their dual role made them effective mediators. They helped implement government programs (like land reform, welfare schemes), advised on who should receive benefits, and conveyed community concerns back to the government. Government officials often saw them as representing local consensus.

2. Political Society vs. Civil Society

Chatterjee warns readers not to confuse this with Robert Putnam’s idea of "social capital" or a liberal civil society. In civil society, citizens make claims based on equal rights and law. But the poor in rural India, lacking that legal standing or knowledge, instead function within political society—a space where:

* Rules are often bent or informally adjusted

* Power is used strategically, not always legally

* People mobilize as groups, not as individuals with formal rights

These political negotiations allow the poor to access resources that would otherwise be out of reach. Political society, therefore, creates freedoms and access that the formal structure of civil society cannot offer.

3. Unequal Access and Informal Power

Even in developed Western countries, Chatterjee says, better-off people can use public systems (like health or education) more effectively than the poor. In India, this inequality is sharper. So, when poor communities mobilize politically—even by stretching laws or making informal deals—they are expanding their real freedom and power, even if not formally recognized.

4. The Decline of Trust in Teachers

But the story doesn’t end well. Over time, the school teachers, who were once the voice of the poor, gained power and wealth. Their salaries increased significantly. Many became involved more in party politics than education. Complaints began to rise in the 1990s that teachers were no longer teaching properly and were only focused on their own political careers. Accusations of corruption and favoritism in teacher hiring also surfaced.

As a result, these once-trusted figures lost credibility. Even the Communist Party began to see them as a liability instead of assets. This raises a pressing question: If the mediators become part of the power system, who will represent the poor next?

Summary (Simplified) Part III

In this final section, Chatterjee looks at how global development policies—particularly around displacement and resettlement—interact with political society in India. He uses three real cases to show how different approaches to resettlement have worked, and how political society affects, resists, or reshapes the way government policies are implemented.

---

1.  Development Displacement and the Idea of “Entitlements”

Many development projects—like dams, ports, or new cities—displace thousands of people. While global institutions like the World Bank have started including resettlement and rehabilitation plans in their projects, these are often based on economic logic (cost-benefit analysis), not human realities.

People who have no legal land titles, like squatters, may not have rights, but they are given entitlements—a lesser form of recognition that deserves some help (but not compensation). However, identifying and validating these entitlements is difficult and often unclear.

To fix these gaps, governments now talk about “participation”—letting affected people be part of the planning process. But Chatterjee points out that "participation" means very different things to governors (officials) and the governed (people).

---

2. Case Studies of Resettlement

a. Raniganj (Coal Mining Town)

Raniganj is an area suffering from underground coal fires and unstable land. Though the government plans to resettle people from dangerous zones, residents are used to the risk and don’t seem motivated to move. There is no strong local political mobilization show. Despite a clear danger, political society hasn’t activated, and resettlement is slow and invisible.

b. Haldia (Port and Industrial Town)

This area shows two phases of land acquisition:

* The first phase (1963–84) was slow and messy. Many displaced people weren't interested in resettlement at the time because the new plots were far from their jobs.

* The second phase (1988–91) during industrial expansion had better results due to a Rehabilitation Advisory Committee, which included representatives from both government and opposition parties.

This political inclusion created a local consensus that made implementation smoother. Decisions were fairer—using transparent methods like lotteries—and even flexible (e.g., making exceptions for humanitarian reasons). This was a good example of political society working successfully within government processes.

c. Rajarhat (New Urban Town)

Here, a Land Procurement Committee negotiated with locals to avoid forced land acquisition. Since land prices were high, and the legal system undervalued them, the committee offered “negotiated prices.” This approach avoided conflict and delivered quick compensation.

Though not part of legal procedure, this solution worked because political society—with formal political representatives involved—helped negotiate between market logic and community needs. Yet, some agreements (like sharing money with laborers or tenants) happened outside official records—a reminder that actual deals in political society often bypass legal norms.

---

3. Insights on Political Society and Democracy

Chatterjee emphasizes that political society involves paralegal, flexible, negotiated arrangements. It exists in tension with civil society, which is based on legal equality, property rights, and citizenship.

* Property remains the central issue where conflicts between civil society and political society unfold.

* Community, as recognized by the state, is mostly valid only in the form of nation. Other forms of community (based on religion, caste, class) often face suspicion.

However, people in political society give moral meaning to these communities—transforming a group of slum dwellers or street vendors into a family or shared cause. This moral imagination becomes a tool to claim rights and entitlements.

---

4. The “Dark Side” of Political Society

Chatterjee acknowledges he hasn’t explored much of the criminality or violence linked with political society. But he suggests that crime and illegality are often strategic, not purely negative. For instance, many caste or tribal uprisings are violent at first but later result in the groups being brought into the state's care.

Thus, democracy in India is messy—sometimes violent, sometimes illegal—but deeply participatory. As one writer put it, Indian democracy is like “a million mutinies now.”

---

5. Final Thoughts on Modernity and Democracy

Chatterjee argues that paralegal actions and moral community-building are not signs of backwardness. They are part of how modern political life actually functions in most of the world. The conflict between the abstract ideal of equal citizenship and the real inequalities of daily life creates space for political society.

He concludes with a reflection on Aristotle's idea that not everyone is fit to govern. While modern democracy rejects this view in theory, in practice, governments still assume that the poor cannot govern themselves. But in places like India, the poor are proving otherwise—they are learning to shape how they want to be governed. 

Click Here for The Analysis of The Politics of the Governed Chapter Three