COMMENTARY
To put it briefly, civil society herein is
From Bhagidari to Mohalla
Sabhas in Delhi
When Participation Trumps Governance
Aditya Mohanty
A look at the implications of
mohalla sabhas, the institution
proposed by the Aam Aadmi
Party, for participatory urban
governance, tracing and
analysing the twists and
turns that different models of
participatory governance have
undergone in Delhi over the past
two decades.
Aditya Mohanty (mail.adityamohanty@gmail.
com) teaches Development Studies at Central
University of Bihar and is doctoral fellow at the
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and the
University College London, London.
16
C
ities in India, as elsewhere, act as
circuits through which both eco-
nomic restructuring and neo-
bourgeois mobilisation is systemically
executed. The amphitheatre of electoral
democracy in urban India, therefore,
does put an incredible premium on the
net inertia that civil society exerts on the
sociopolitical calculus. In fact, this article
attempts to squint at the quotidian politics
of civil society in the Indian megalopolis
of Delhi. More specifically, it looks into
the limits and potential that the recently
proposed concept of the Aam Aadmi
Party (AAP), viz, mohalla sabha (MS),
offers through a critical analysis of the
twists and turns that different models of
participatory governance have under-
gone in Delhi in the past two decades.
However, in so doing, it situates the
analysis within the wider firmament of
the neo-Gramscian civil versus political
society theoretical framework, which
has often been employed to make sense
of participatory governance models in
postcolonial settings.
To begin with, recent studies by scholars
like Lama-Rewal (2007), Ghertner (2011)
and Kundu (2011) on the state of electoral
democracy in the Delhi National Capital
Region (NCR) have documented well the
subtle webbings that civil society has
entrenched themselves in neo-liberal
urban spaces. These writings indicate to
the elitist hegemony or pro-middle-class
dimension of Resident Welfare Associa-
tions (RWAs) in influencing modes of col-
lective bargaining. On a larger theoretical
level, however, scholars like Chatterjee
(2004) and Harriss (2007) have gone
on to essentialise such a rupture in
representational democracy through a
neat mapping of modes of negotiation
with the state as ones that fall within
the ambit of either “civil society” or
“political society”.
APRIL 5, 2014
presumed to be a legalist appendage
that unfolds itself through the praxis
of civic governance, in contrast to the
political society that is deemed to be the
preserve of a populist state apparatus. In
other words, civil society is one which is
seen to be the realm of voluntary associ-
ations and advocacy groups, which
would, say, for example, use law courts,
civil suits and the right to information
(RTI) to move their agendas ahead. On
the other hand, political society, in con-
trast, envelops the efforts made by the
relatively poor, like agitating protestors,
workers on strike, and social movement
activists, who try to work their way out
through the rubric of patronage politics.
Such a formulation, hence, compels us
to presume a porosity of representational
democracy. An analysis of three recent
avatars of participatory governance in
Delhi, viz, RWAs, Resident Ward Com-
mittees (RWCs), and MSs, however, does
indicate to the ways in which such a con-
ceptualisation ignores the numerous
ways in which both the civil and the
political bleed into each other.
Tracing Participatory Governance
First, RWAs had been roped into processes
of urban governance through Bhagidari,
the flagship programme of the Congress-
ruled state government of Delhi, which
was launched in 2000. Under this
scheme, RWA s were invited to district-
level meetings presided by the divisional
commissioner(s) where they could inter-
act with civic agencies and put forth
their concerns related to electricity,
water, roads, etc. Sometimes, the chief
minister, Sheila Dixit, herself presided
over such meetings. It is believed that
the Bhagidari scheme catapulted the
chief minister’s popularity and was an
important reason for the Congress Party’s
repeated return to power in Delhi’s
state legislature.
Since 2001, however, one has wit-
nessed a spatial growth of RWAs, from
being discrete civic associations that
sprang up in middle-class and posh col-
onies, to the forming of large federa-
tions of RWA s. The sociopolitical meta-
morphosis, however, was witnessed in
the form of two large formations – the
vol xlIX no 14 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

Delhi Resident Welfare Associations
Joint Front (DRWAJF), which is per-
ceived as pro-Congress, and the United
Resident & RWA s Joint Action (URJA),
a partner of People’s Action, a non-
governmental organisation headed by
Sanjay Kaul, a member of the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP).
Second, expanding the gourmet of
participatory governance, the BJP-led
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)
introduced the idea of RWCs in 2011. The
key thrust of such an initiative was that
repeated complaints were being received
from the citizens that Bhagidari did
offer a platform for RWAs to participate
in processes of urban governance, but
the basic design of such a programme,
which attempted to connect civil society
forums like RWAs to the bureaucracy, but
sans any involvement of the political
society representatives, i e, the municipal
councillors, offset all gains thus made.
Not only did Bhagidari breed animosi-
ties between the RWAs and councillors of
the MCD, which has historically been a
BJP-led entity, but it also often derailed
numerous developmental programmes
in a certain area, for the MCD was indif-
ferent now to seek the opinion of RWAs
about the ways in which they proposed
to spend their local area development
funds.1 Therefore, these newly consti-
tuted RWCs were proposed to consist of
the councillor, a junior engineer, a sani-
tary inspector, a section officer (horti-
culture), and one member of each regis-
tered RWA in the ward.
These parastatal entities, hence, pro-
mise to catalyse the efficacy of civil
society by plugging in the gaps that it
had with its political society counter-
part, viz, the classic RWA versus councillor
fiasco. It needs to be reiterated here that
URJA-People’s Action did sign a memo-
randum of understanding (MoU) with
the BJP-ruled MCD in 2011 to pedal the
RWC scheme, which has its own logo,
website, and a slogan called “Citizens
make a city”. To get it off the ground, an
RWC Management Cell was set up under
the mayor’s office. The MCD has even
approved an allocation of Rs 12,000 per
year in its budget for every RWA regis-
tered with the RWC scheme, as has been
asserted by the mayor.2 People’s Action
Economic & Political Weekly EPW APRIL 5, 2014
has been entrusted with the task of
getting the registered RWAs to coordinate
between the councillors.
Hence, third, what comes out now, as
old wine in a new bottle, is the AAP genie
of MS as the new leitmotif of participa-
tory governance. It is pertinent to men-
tion here that the rise of AAP in Delhi’s
political circles is quite interesting for it
exemplifies the ways in which a hitherto
neo-civil society entity that rallied for
reforms in governance (i e, Jan Lokpal
Bill) crystallised itself into a political
party, which now wrestles for power
within the state framework. However,
be as it may, hailed as a neo-Gandhian
enterprise, the MS promises to rejuve-
nate the empowering potentials of a
public sphere, whereby private indi-
viduals assemble to form a public body
(Habermas 1989).
The MSs in Delhi have been constitut-
ed on a territorial basis.3 A municipal
ward shall be divided into 10 parts.
Each part shall be called a mohalla.
Roughly, there are 40,000 voters in a
ward. So, there would be about 4,000
voters, i e, around 1,500 families in a
mohalla. Each voter of a mohalla shall
be a member of an MS. Every household
of the mohalla shall be sent a written
notice of the meeting in advance,
informing them about the date, time
and venue of the meeting. It is an open
meeting. Outsiders can also attend as
observers. However, only the eligible
voters shall have a right to participate.
The legislator/councillor shall try to
ensure the presence of MCD officials in
the meeting, who will be required to
respond to citizens’ queries and com-
plaints. To prevent several participants
from speaking simultaneously, blank
paper slips shall be distributed in the
beginning of the meeting. A person has
to write his/her name and subject on
which he/she wishes to speak. On the
basis of these slips, people would be
invited one by one on the stage to speak.
Citizens shall narrate their problem,
collectively discuss and debate over
possible solutions, and decide what
facilities/public works they want. The
legislator/councillor and the officials, on
their part, shall respond to complaints
and questions; they may also offer
vol xlIX no 14
COMMENTARY
clarifications and solutions. The legislator/
councillor shall also make a commit-
ment that contractors will be paid only
after the local people have expressed
satisfaction with the public work in
question. Copies of the minutes of the
meeting, including the decisions taken,
shall be sent to each household of
the area. The participants shall also
decide the time and place of the next MS
meeting in which the legislator/councillor
will present a report of the progress
on implementation of the decisions
taken earlier.
Such an initiative, improves upon the
previous initiatives in terms of having
a wider basis of enfranchisement. While
in the RWA and RWC schema, only
houseowners, not tenants, could be
members of RWAs, under the MS umbrella
eligible voters have been brought into
the framework. But before we pass judg-
ment about the promised efficacy of the
MS, it is imperative to have a quick recap
of the ways in which its earlier avatars
have been catapulted as conduits of elec-
toral democracy.
Electoral Democracy through
Geist of Participation
Since the very inception of Bhagidari in
2001, and the institutionalisation of
RWAs therein, the Congress Party had
been successful in wielding power in the
MCD elections. Anti-incumbency could
well be considered as a reason for this
change of guard from the BJP in 1997 to
that of the Congress in 2002. In the 2007
elections to an undivided MCD, however,
the BJP had won 144 wards against the
Congress’s 59. But in 2012, the BJP won
138 of the 272 wards and the Congress
won 78. It, thus, raises many an eyebrow
that the BJP’s return to power in the
2007 MCD elections could not be nulli-
fied by a second string of anti-
incumbency, induced revival of the Con-
gress’s fortunes in the 2012 MCD elec-
tions. In this context, it is not to be con-
tested that in the wake of the 2011 Com-
monwealth Games scam, things indeed
seem to have fallen apart for the Con-
gress, but the fact that the Congress
Party’s seat share has increased from 67
to 78 in a 272-ward MCD is but a silver
lining. However, at the same time, it
17
COMMENTARY
would be relevant to mention that there
was a 55% voter turnout, the highest
recorded in all the three municipal elec-
tions of the last decade, i e, 2002, 2007
and 2012.
To elaborate, it was observed that RWAs,
which were envisaged to act as forums
of participatory governance through the
Congress Party-dominated state govern-
ment of Delhi-pioneered Bhagidari pro-
gramme, were now being transformed
into breeding grounds for political sociali-
sation. The BJP-dominated MCD that
created the RWC platform did neverthe-
less provide such an entrepreneurial fillip
to the political activism of RWA s. The
latter has been reported to be enthusi-
astically involved in both, (a) appealing
to the citizens of Delhi for better
electoral participation, and (b) insisting
upon councillors to publicly sign pledge
forms (Pandey 2012). The exposure of
the role played by the Delhi Develop-
ment Authority (DDA) in granting provi-
sional regularisation certificates to peti-
tions made by RWA s of non-existent
colonies (Bhatnagar 2012) further exac-
erbated the matter.
While the orchestra of micro-politics
was on, the state government of Delhi
was frantically trying to materialise a
hasty trifurcation of an already cash-
strapped MCD. In an attempt to offset the
presumed territorial gains that the crea-
tion of RWCs might have inflicted on the
political fortunes of the Congress, the
state government of Delhi fought tooth
and nail with all its detractors and hast-
ily negotiated with the central govern-
ment to get its nod for a trifurcation of
the MCD into three zones. Consequently,
the plurality of three MCDs and the con-
sequent overlapping of civic functions
coupled with the financial inequity be-
tween the north, south and east zones of
the MCD are inevitable impediments to
“good governance”. An additional burden
has been levied on the central govern-
ment owing to the MCD trifurcation. The
former had to dispense off two special
packages – the first of Rs 1,000 crore
allocated to the existing undivided MCD
to pay to contractors and for loan instal-
ments, and the second of Rs 100 crore
for the creation of new posts and office
paraphernalia – so as to ensure a hassle
18
free transition.4 However, the central
government in its bid to concede to the
demands of the state government of
Delhi, did fork in a rider that the coordi-
nating agency of the three municipal
zones shall rest with the Ministry of
Home Affairs of the central government
(Bhatnagar 2011)!
In Conclusion
The present discussion, attempted to
explore the ways in which the jugger-
naut of electoral politics subverts the
resurgence of civil society. In so doing, it
somehow or the other misses the train of
progressive power devolution. In other
words, what Delhi requires now is not
a slew of MSs wherein the rhetoric of
welfarist developmentalism is endlessly
played out. The city already has multiple
agencies like MCD, New Delhi Municipal
Council (NDMC), Cantonment Board,
Delhi Urban Arts Commission (DUAC),
and the DDA. It takes three departments
of the MCD to sanitise a drain or con-
struct a footpath. Since basic infra-
structure like roads, drains, water pipes,
and sewage facilities do not pay any
heed to jurisdiction and run through
several colonies, having three councils
shall now merely exacerbate problems
of red-tapism.
To make matters worse, a three-way
MCD led by the BJP, one that was nestled
within an AAP/Congress-led legislative
assembly, shall indeed add to woes.
What the MCD, for instance, requires is a
functional re-engineering and not a
structural makeover. Departments like
education and hospitals need to be taken
out of the corporation’s purview. The
MSs should not turn into participatory
facades wherein citizens are made to
deal with more officials, councillors and
mayors. What needs to be contemplated
is as to what is the optimal scale of
localisation that can guarantee effective
representational democracy, for it can
hardly be denied that state sovereignty
and democratic citizenship are but
coterminous in contouring urban political
ecology within the regimes of neo-liberal
urbanism. The sooner we learn the lesson,
the better.
Thus, it is in this context that one may
well conclude with the idea that within
APRIL 5, 2014
the contested spaces of postcolonial
settings like Delhi, avatars of civil society,
like that of RWA s/RWCs/MSs, can be
optimistically expected to act as a
torque through which both the state
and the citizenry bargain their respective
axial positions.
Notes
1 Personal communication, anonymous office-
bearer of the RWA in an upper middle-class
colony, viz, Malviya Nagar RWA (interviewed
in October 2011).
2 Personal communication, ex-mayor of Delhi
(interviewed in December 2010 and February
2011).
3 Personal communication, anonymous party
worker of AAP (interviewed in December 2013).
4 Personal communication, anonymous official
of the MCD (interviewed in February 2012).
References
Bhatnagar, G Vivek (2011): “Delhi Gets MCD
Trifurcation Deal with a Rider”, The Hindu,
9 November, viewed on 10 December, http://
www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/article
2611211.ece
– (2012): “Lokayukta Notice to Government Over
Provisional Certificates for Illegal Colonies”,
The Hindu, 20 March, viewed on 12 April 2013,
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/
article3015770.ece
Chatterjee, Partha (2004): The Politics of the
Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in
Most of the World (New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press).
Ghertner, A (2011): “Gentrifying the State, Gentri-
fying Participation: Elite Governance Programs
in Delhi”, International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 35(3): 504-32.
Habermas, J (1989): The Structural Transformation
of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category
of Bourgeois Society (Cambridge: MIT Press).
Harriss, J (2007): “Antinomies of Empowerment:
Observations on Civil Society, Politics and
Urban Governance in India”, Economic & Political
Weekly, 42(26): 2716-24.
Kundu, D (2011): “Elite Capture in Participatory
Urban Governance”, Economic & Political Weekly,
46(10): 23-25.
Lama-Rewal, S T (2007): “Neighbourhood Associa-
tions and Local Democracy: Delhi Municipal
Elections 2007”, Economic & Political Weekly,
42(47): 51-60.
Pandey, N (2012): “Sign the Pledge Form, Get Our
Votes: RWAs”, Hindustan Times, 17 March, viewed
on 10 March 2013, http://www.hindustantimes.
com/India-news/NewDelhi/Sign-the-pledge-
form-get-our-votes-RWAs/Article1-827039.aspx
available at
Khan News Agency
Residency Road
Opp Shakti Sweets
Srinagar 190 001, Jammu and Kashmir
Ph: 9906787325
vol xlIX no 14 EPW Economic & Political Weekly