NGOs and Colonisation of the South

The Story of Continuing Conquest for over a Century

1 Of late, NGOs have been intruding more and more into the social sphere of our country. This is ensued as part of global expansion of their activities after the World Bank has began promoting the concept of social capital for globalisations sake. The social base of the left politics in the country is being uprooted with the advent of NGOs on the scene. Their programmes include social welfare measures and helping victims of calamities, and in some cases as social actions targeting social evils to uplift dalits, tribals and women and other vulnerable sections of the society. Some NGOs champion the cause of political democracy. In all cases, they employ jargon of human rights. Their actions, in all cases, are directed against nation-state as nation is considered as an obsolete concept of conventional unit of development1 by neo-liberalism, the force behind globalisation. They run after the WB, state agencies, the corporate companies, and individual philanthropists for funds. By the time the causes and the consequences of the NGOs have become problematic, their activities augmented. People are perplexed whether to have camaraderie with them or to contest them and whether they are good or bad. However, the luxurious life of the executives of NGOs makes people suspect their intentions. By the time the society could ponder over mushroom growth of NGO sector, engrossed in it is a mass of left and liberal intellectuals. It made most of the talented academics serving its agendas in the name of projects, conferences, workshops, seminars etc. Under the guise of academic activities varieties of intellectual cuisine is primed by the university academics catering the needs of the voluntary organisations. No sooner the concept of social capital entered the Western agenda, the study of civil society has become a commodity adding dollars to the money-purses of academics with pulse of our social life mailed to the North particularly USA. Though not directly part of the NGOs, some of the intellectuals who have commodifiable social perception find it attractive air travel, star hotel accommodation and remuneration offered to their oral and written presentations in NGO conferences. Of late, NGOs have been targeting artists and men/women of letters. As the discourse of NGOs has been passing off as an activity to achieve progress and development, and eradication of evils for common good of the people, left/liberal intellectuals felt it convenient to associate themselves with NGOs as social service and personal

enrichment that were hitherto viewed as mutually exclusive, are coalesced into a single one. NGOs are setting a harmful trend by commodifying social service and gradually obliterating voluntaryness whatever left in it. They established high-tech human rights shops a la corporate offices branding their managers as leaders of social movements. NGO sector brought in a tendency of paid social movements. It is now showing up its gauche face with gluttonous and dishonest managers masquerading in the name of social activists. According to the information available in the files of the Union Home Ministry: 1. 22,924 associations stood registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 as on 31st March 2001. 2. 638 associations were granted prior permission to receive foreign contribution during 2000-2001. 3. 14,598 associations filed returns for 2000-2001. 4. The receipt of foreign contribution during 2000-2001 amounted to Rs. 4535.23 crores. This represents a 15.56% increase over the amount received in the previous year (Rs. 3924.63 crores). 5. Among the states and union territories, Delhi reported the largest amount (Rs. 763.05 crores) followed by Tamil Nadu (Rs. 649.45 crores) and Andhra Pradesh (Rs. 589.52 crores). 6. The United States of America (Rs. 1492.62 crores) heads the list of donor countries, followed by the United Kingdom (Rs. 677.59 crores), and Germany (Rs. 664.51 crores). 7. The leading donor agency was World Vision International, USA (Rs. 80.43 crores), followed by Foster Parents Plan International, USA (Rs. 76.37 crores), and Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, USA (Rs. 68.11 crores). 8. The largest recipient of foreign contribution was Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Andhra Pradesh (Rs. 88.18 crores), followed by World Vision of India, Tamil Nadu (Rs. 85.42 crores) and Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society India, Maharashtra (Rs. 74.88 crores). 9. Among the purposes, the largest amount was received for Rural Development (Rs. 547.74 crores) followed by Health care & Family Welfare (Rs. 432.98 crores), and Relief for natural calamities (Rs. 339.77 crores).2 The funds received by the NGOs from UNO and its various organs, and the World Bank group organisations such as IBRD, IDA, IMF, and IFC and some other organisations related to them, and ADB, IADB, ADB, CDB are not included in the definition of Foreign Contribution under Sec.2 (1)(e)(ii) of The FC (Regulation) Act.

Therefore, the foreign contributions received by Indian NGOs may far exceed the figure given by the Home Ministry. In recent years, NGOs are getting more funds from our governmental sources than a decade ago. In the Seventh Five Year Plan, they were allotted Rs.380 crores. The Next one (1992-97) stressed on the need to use their services more and more in providing social services and in getting people involved in the preparation of micro level plan. In 1994 central Planning Commission held a 2-day conference to improve liaison between the state and NGO sectors. Some principles of co-operation and strategies were evolved out of the conference to guide programmes of action. There is no discussion worth mentioning on NGOs. 2 Nongovernmental organisations are also called as voluntary organisations. Some times private is suffixed to them and they called PVO. Until the first half of the last century in USA, it was called so. In Europe and Canada NGOs are in vogue from the beginning of the last century. In both the continents of Europe and in America they are commonly referred to as non-profit organisations (NPOs). Non-profit sector is also in usage. As NGOs work for development, they are also called as nongovernmental development organisations (NGDOs) or developmental NGOs (DNGOs). Those, which take up environmental issues, are called environmental NGOs. Of late, NGOs are also referred to as grassroots organisations (GROs), civil societal organisations (CSOs), community based organisations (CBOs), and social action groups (SAGs). Northern NGOs having activities beyond the country of their origin are called as International NGOs and also referred as funding agencies as in most of the cases they provide financial support to most of their southern counterparts. The sum total of the activities of the NGOs in the world is termed as global social movement (GSM) by the World Bank, IMF and the UNO in recent times. Global society, global civil society, international society, world citizen politics, Tran national Social Movement Organisations (TSMs) and Global Social Change Organisations (GSCOs) are also intended to describe the NGOs and their manifold activities. At least in the sense of World Bank it is so. NGO sector is also called as third sector. State and market are the other two.

Whatever may be taxonomy of these organisations and their activities, none of them suggest the total activity of the NGO sector. Moreover, sometimes those names sound different to the essence and the characteristics of NGOs. All the NGOs are not non-governmental organisations. There are government sponsored ones labelled as GNGOs which is a contradiction in its own terms. Almost all the western NGOs that act as funding agencies of the southern NGOs get state grants, subsidies, tax concessions, and act as surrogates of their home governments. The organisations and the individuals who finance them cannot be said to have no profit motives. There may not be immediate profits but there are long term and indirect profits. All the NGOs will not work for development. Some provide immediate relief to the victims of natural calamities or other circumstances. To describe only NGOs as civil societal organisations is also not recommendable as non- NGOs like caste organisations and trade unions also operate in civil society. Educational institutions are also considered part of the civil society in Gramscian sense of the term. However, NGOs claim themselves to be the sole representatives of the civil society at international forums. Such propaganda is convenient to the UNO and World Bank. We have been witnessing NGOs, claiming themselves the civil society, putting the nationstates in the dock before the international bodies. All NGOs will not work at the grassroots level nor have social action groups as their base, nor all social action groups are NGOs. That is why the different names given to the NGOs such as PVO, CSO, DNGO, NGDO, CBO, SAG, GRO and the name NGO itself create mystification in their own ways. Organisations affiliated to the political parties which do activity akin to that of NGOs, are not identified as NGOs, nor the commercial organisations or trade unions. Even some philanthropic organisations, unless they are run with or state funds are also not called so though their activities are identical with those of NGOs. NGOs are organisations that take up non-class issuesgender inequality, environmental problems, caste discrimination etc. They are different from working class and peasant movements. They depend for major part of their funds on corporate sector or governments. Northern NGOs and their home governments finance their Southern counterparts. There is a lot of difference between NGOs and organisations called as peoples organisations. Executives of the NGOs are paid employees belonging to the middle-class and upper middle-class. They have no connections or little connections with militant movements. Their leaders are not elected but selected and appointed. There is no or nominal internal

democracy in the NGOs. They are not accountable to the people among/ for whom they claim they are working. Their report to their donors who are not in many cases within the boarders of the country they are operating. Thus, they have cross border accountability. Most of them working in the South are responsible to foreign forces on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. Those organisations, which are in common parlance called as peoples organisations, are kept out side the definition of NGO even by the UNO. UNDP sees the striking difference in their organisational form. Democratic organisations represent the interests of their members and are answerable to them. NGOs in most cases have bureaucratic hierarchies without the democratic characteristics or accountability of most peoples groups.3 They adopted unfair labour policies vis--vis their employees/activists and executives long before this trend has set in the country. While the government has so far not adopted over hire and fire policy even in the era of globalisation but many NGOs working for grass roots governance, gender equality, pro-peoples policy, empowerment, peoples power have adopted this principle since the beginning matching that with the corporate houses.4 NGOs are described as non-political organisations in two senses: frontal organisations of political parties are not called as NGOs; NGOs involve in no political activity. Nevertheless, both are incorrect as such an understanding conceals their actual praxis. In a wider sense, activity of NGO sector is a political activity. It is considered as welfare imperialism, philanthropic imperialism and is in tune with the foreign policies of Western states. In addition, there are NGOs who have direct and indirect link with political activities. We come across these types of Goss in Latin America and Central America and Philippines. In Germany, each mainstream political party has a foundation, which acts as a funding agency to NGOs in other countries. In Netherlands each big NGO has the blessings of either ruling or opposition parties. The association of Christianity with colonialism has resulted in its intimate ties with NGO sector. Last year newspapers brought into limelight the funding of Hindutva forces by some corporate giants of USA through an NGO based in Washington. 3 None of the strange developments in social and political arenas in our country are left untouched by intellectuals. However, they have not subjected the phenomenal expansion of the NGO sector to any real criticism. It is neither critiqued nor studied in depth nor analysed in a way to understand objectively the swift mushroom growth of the NGOs in our country or else where. Social critique has been hijacked by NGO sector and it is against their interest to have a critical analysis

of their origin and growth. Almost all the intellectuals who are known for their critical attitude and analytical skills, started cooperating with it uncritically to their monitory advantage, and some of them even started their own NGOs. This situation shut doors to the essential assessment of NGO phenomenon. There is little amount of comprehensive appraisal of the NGO activity worldwide. According to James Petras and Henry Welt Mayor, destruction of left movements by the NGOs after replacing them and co-opting left think tank into their ranks are two important reasons for this pathetic situation.5 We failed to comprehend the process of colonisation and its different shades. The political and intellectual forces that are influencing the social milieu have never taken up it as a special area of study. Furthermore, these forces have themselves been colonised to large extent. Due to that, there are no in-depth studies on NGO sector. Modernity and Westernisation are not identified as the other forms of colonisation that lead to globalisation whose components and logical predecessors they are. We are much influenced by colonial human rights perspective that perceives freedom only in Modernity and oppression in conditions of pre-modern social life. We left the swadesi to the monopoly of Hindu fundamentalist Sangh pariwar that are quite modernist. We, being victims of western intellectual tradition lost our selves as our intellect grew like concrete structure. We ceased to belong to our land, cultures, traditions, modes of existence, and philosophies of life. We, knowingly or unknowingly, search for and adopt the solutions shown by the foreign capital to the evils breathing in our tradition and culture. As we understand/identify problems with colonial perspective, there remained no scope for nativity in our thinking and praxis. NGOs structures their activities aiming at elimination of conventional values and make people partake in the mission of Modernity for the sake of being drawn into market relations. They contribute to the development of private sector and subject them to the influence of the market in the fields of healthcare, education, and production. Expansion of NGO sector is an outcome that is consciously sought by those who hold power as they respond to [their] growing popularity. At the level of local and national power structures, it can be argued that a strategy of service delivery expansion permits the alleviation of the symptoms of poverty without challenging the causes. From this radical perspective, NGOs are seen as eroding the power of progressive political formations by preaching change without clear analysis of how that change is to be achieved; by encouraging income generating projects that favour the advancement of a few poor individuals but not the poor as a class; and by competing with political groups for personal and popular action. 6 According to Toye, NGO expansion is seen as complementing the counter-revolution in the development theory that underpins the policies of liberalisation, state withdrawal, and structural adjustment favoured by official

donors.7 Wood and Palmer Jones who studied the role of NGOs in Bangladesh wrote that they help maintaining status quo and create false notions about development and democracy.8 Gerard Clarke considers them, as magic bullets against problems of development.9 For Rakia Omaar the dominance of Northern NGOs over Southern ones is philanthropic imperialism.10 James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer call leadership of NGOs as intellectual police.11 Michael Maron has described their activity as trading in humanitarianism and help industry.12 Three decades ago, Felix Greene rightly portrayed activity of NGOs as welfare imperialism.13 The relationship between Modernity, development, human rights, and the capitalist market and the globalisation define the relationship between NGOs Unless we understand these relationships we fail to we are being colonised, and we could perceive only agendas of NGOs. democracy, and other forces of and the people. understand how goodness in the

Modernity, development, democracy, and human rights are all the four prime things that colonise our societies. They contribute to Westernisation/Americanisation and thus to globalisation. All are entwined socio-economic and politico-cultural categories. Modernization and Westernisation were virtually synonyms.14 In political sense of the term, development means simulating Western political institutions i.e. democratisation in the Western sense; having regime based on rule of law, human rights, and constitutional supremacy. The capacity of the third world people to purchase goods and services offered by the West is the index of development. The development as freedom concept of Amartya Sen15 is not a different one. We should try to improve our purchasing capacity. Level of consumption defines the level of individual freedom. One is human and free only to the extent s/he consumes commodities and it indicates his/her humanness and liberty. That is development. Right to development has its own history. Until the collapse of Soviet block, there were two brands of development capitalist and socialist. USA was declining to vote in favour of making development as an inalienable right of the peoples of the world until the time it was certain the collapse of socialist states. Thereafter it espoused the same right, as it was certain that there was only one possible definition for development. Today the right to development is in practice and in theory only a right to dependent capitalist development. UNO has conferred on us that right to be Westernised and colonised. The division of developed and developing nations shows a relationship of dominance. Development is also a neocolonial discourse, says Nedervene Pieterse, and quoting this Rajni Kothari adds that development replaced colonialism but it is performing the same function:16 Where colonialism left off, development took over.17

The economic and technological resources developed in the wake of Industrial Revolution resulted in their export to the South. The capital thus invaded the South developed a sense of inferiority in the subjugated nations and established Western cultural dominance to which we are still victims. In the same process, the same resources and culture had become symbols of development. A sense of universal human development and unilinear human development has occupied our minds. A ladder of development had been created which graduated us to believe that the West is developed more than the non-West and we have to attain that. The attainment had become, and continues to be, the ultimate goal of the non-west. Non-west had thus become the other and made to remain so. The UNDP Human Development Reports of successive years are ploys to make the other to aspire entry into the Western we. The West has been disseminating ideology that Western values are products of progress of humanity and panacea to all the evils of nonWestern pre-Modern societies. In the name of social reforms, they tried to develop capitalist social relations. This does not mean to say that this was intended cent percent and they fully succeeded in their mission and could achieve their objective to the fullest possible. Thus they gave us not only a frame of development and implanted in us self pity, cultural inferiority and accepted wisdom which informs us that there is nothing to be preserved out of our cultures and traditions. They could create Westernised social reformists, who often endorsed the righteousness of colonial domination, fighting against cruel native traditions, evils and superstitions, Brahminical domination, caste oppression, untouchability, and gender subjugation. K. N. Panikkers Culture, Ideology, Hegemony brilliantly exposed this process.18 Communists who accused the capital of not accomplishing the tasks of French Revolution in the wake of Russian Revolution have not only failed to understand the colonial aims of the reforms but also praised reformers as harbingers of a new society and felt that they contributed to the success of New Democratic Revolution. Because of philosophical rootless ness in the Eastern societies, they thought in some contexts that the process was healthy. They appreciated social reformers with colonial frame of mind. Thus, they lent a hand to that process. They had not focused on the colonisation of mind the way they did about the economic facets of colonisation and analysed its wickedness. From below Modernity entered in the downtrodden sections in Indian subcontinent in the form of Christianity, from above it was structured in the form of Hindu. Hindu religion is a colonial construct. Colonialists gave legal entity to all non-Muslims, non-Parsees, and non-Christians as Hindus and gave birth to the concept of pan Hindu.19 They made Hindus those by then had not considered [and still has not been considering] themselves as such. (The Sangh Pariwar forces that are on one side massacring people in Gujarat in the name of Hindutwa, and on the other side selling the country to the West in complete cooperation to the process of globalisation have more in common with

Modernity than pre-modern past. They are the creations of Modernity. That is why it seems inaccurate to compare the Gujarat carnage with medieval bloodshed). The Modernity appeared to the society as vital, ideal and the ultimate, and heralded new professions. It affirmed that there is right to existence to those who had not entered into Modernity and declared death knell to Eastern, for that matter Southern, knowledge systems, and professions. Anglican linguistic domination through the terrain of education ensued. To eliminate traditional education, caste professions, artisans, native medical practices it pressed into service all the sciences. Initially Brahmins and later other upper caste people grabbed the fruits of Modernity and preserved their supremacy in the frame of Western dominance. Modernity had been regarded as bliss and Premodernity as a curse. Dalits and adivasis are those who were the worst casualty in this process. They were marginalized as the caste professions had been shattered, and traditional sources of employment were being blocked one by one. Exactly at this moment philanthropic imperialism emerged in the form of Christianity. It consoled the destitute. It destroyed the religions of thieves. It thus modernised, and bestowed new identities on them and received them as part of itself.20 These phenomena have become in the later period more apparent even after the exit of direct colonialism. In the place of Christianity, Christian and secular NGOs grew as forces of philanthropic imperialism. 4 After World War-II the Phase of direct rule of imperialism came to a halt. Independent countries came into being. The destiny of those countries was handed down to modern political leaders who joined hands with feudal forces. At least in the case of India it happened so. The consciousness against the colonial rule had not transformed into one of decolonisation but into one of allowing more intervention that is Western in tune with indirect colonialism/neo-colonialism and predestined towards Modernity following Western conceptions. Simultaneously, in the guise of development cooperation the West had lent money to the post-colonial countries, exported grants, and made them its indirect colonies. Precisely in the same period, Western countries recognised the need and employed NGOs more than before as their surrogates, and the NGOs had become close to the ruling classes yearning for more funds. In no country, the Left had come up with the slogan of decolonisation after the end of direct colonialism.

Including political democracy based on universal franchise, judiciary, and executive that were introduced by the colonialists, the various Western methods and structures of governance allowed to exist unabatedly. Colonisation of mind and body, and in cultural terrains continued without any organised resistance. Not only governments with colonial mind set, similar opposition parties and left political formations having no different praxis, and Marxist-Leninist outfits engaging all their energies in fighting against feudal forces have emerged on the scene. Colonial human rights perspectives without any indigenous flavour flourished. Not only state activity but also antistate activity has been Westernising and colonising the people. Those who could not enter into modernity through the activity of the state, market forces and modern education have been gaining entrance into it via such anti-state political activities. Today, Swadeshi is the delirious out cry of the Hindu fundamentalist forces that joined hands with the globalising capital. In the name of Development and cooperation, continuation of neo-colonial policies, and as part of it the activities of NGOs, continued. Development, democracy are the politico-economic expressions of the capital. They develop with inter dependence. NGOs talk about democratisation and development for the growth of economic relations supportive of the forces of the western capital in third world countries. They contribute to the destruction of the communitarian being, and facilitate production of homo oeconomicus those who could participate in the production and consumption independently, freely (Marx was agonised about the so-called freedom in capitalism. He found pain in the process of ionisation of human beings and negation of communitarianism by the capital. His tried to solve the problem by proposing communism21). Western democracy is one such instrument of individualisation. Its ideas about the exercise of right to vote praises to the skies the distancing of the voter from all the premodern social identities like caste, religious group, village community, and family. The process of modern political democracy was imposed on the Third world countries to create the sovereign individual who could come up alone with the power of independent decision-making ripping off all his relations with pre-modern social formations. (Human rights activists talk about the colonial legal system and the colonial legacy in police administration but never talks about colonial political democracy). Those individuals are the homo oeconomicus, the modern humans, the secular persons, and the consumers of goods and services of the capital. In this context, one should understand the goodness, developmental activities of the NGOs, and their clamour democracy, and the prop up of the World Bank to the rule of democracy, and human rights. Only in this context, one appreciate that NGO praxis would prompt the colonial education and for law, will that

looks down the knowledges of the pre-modern societies as ignorance, illiteracy, and no breadwinner type; the modern medical care systems, and the health awareness that make people to become consumers of the western pharmaceuticals that would colonise their bodies; the democracy that will destroy the communitarian beingness; the development that make the human relations as economic ones. Development aid or development cooperation is not such a lovely concept that would be experienced by the employees and scientists in that field.

Bibliography
1. Baxi, Upendra. The Future of Human Rights. New Delhi: OUP, 2002. 2. Chase, Robert S. Supporting communities in transition: the impact of the Armenian Social Investment Fund. In The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 16, No. 2 (2002). 3. Chris, Dolan. British NGOs and advocacy in the 1990s. In Making a Difference: NGOs and Development in a Changing World, edited by Michael Edwards and David Hulme, London: Earth Scan, 1992. 4. Clarke, Gerard. Politics of NGOs in South-East Asia: Participation and protest in the Philippines. London: Routledge, 1998. 5. Edwards, Michael., and David Hulme. Scaling-up the developmental impact of NGOs: Concepts and experiences. In Making a Difference: NGOs and Development in a Changing World, edited by Michael Edwards and David Hulme, London: Earth Scan, 1992.

6. Estava, Gustavo and Madhu Suri Prakash. Grassroots PostModernism: Remaking of Soil of Cultures. New York: Zed Books, 1998. 8. Greene, Felix. The Enemy: Notes on Imperialism and Revolution. Calcutta: Prakash Publications, 1974. 9. Harriss, John. Depoliticizing Development: The World Bank and Social Capital. New Delhi: Left Word, 2001. 10. Levy, Reynold. Corporate philanthropy comes of age. In Philanthropy and the Nonprofit sector in a changing America, edited by Charles T. Clotfelter and Thomas Ehrlich, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. 11. Maren, Michel. The Road to Hell. New York: The Free Press, 1997. 12. Morgenthau, Hans J. Preface to a political theory of foreign aid. In Why Foreign Aid?. edited by Robert A. Goldwin Chicago: Rand MCnally & Co., 1965. 13. Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. New Delhi: Vistaar, 2001. 14. OBrien, Robert., anne Marie Goetz, Jan Aart Scholte, and Marc Williams. Contesting Global Governance: multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 2000. 15. Petras, James and Henry Veltmeyer. Globalisation Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. Delhi: Madhyam Books,2001. 16. RadhaKrishna, Meena. Dishonoured by History. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2001 17. Sen, Siddhardha. India. In Defending the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-National Analysis, edited by Helmut K Anheier, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. 18. Smith, Brian H. More than Altruism: The Politics of Private Foreign Aid. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1990. 19. Van der Velden, Fons., and Lau Schulpen. Private Development Aid in Transition. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 2002. 20. Zimmerman Robert F. Dollars, Diplomacy, and Dependency: Dilemmas of U.S. Economic Aid. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1993.

1 2

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. New Delhi: Vistaar, 2001. Page-15 Web cite of the Home ministry of India. 3 UNDP. Human Development Report 1993, Newyork/Oxford, Oxford University Press. Page-8 4 Sarangi, Deba Ranjan. State, NGOs and Tribals, EPW, January 4-10, 2003 Vol XXXVIII No 1. 5 Petras, James and Henry Veltmeyer. Globalisation Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. Delhi: Madhyam Books, 2001. Page6 Edwards, Michael., and David Hulme. Scaling-up the developmental impact of NGOs: Concepts and experiences. In Making a Difference: NGOs and Development in a Changing World, edited by Michael Edwards and David Hulme, London: Earth Scan, 1992. Page-20 7 ibid, at page-20 8 Wood and Palmer Jones, The Water Sellers, 9 Clarke, Gerard. Politics of NGOs in South-East Asia: Participation and protest in the Philippines. London: Routledge, 1998. 10 Van der Velden, Fons., and Lau Schulpen. Private Development Aid in Transition. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 2002. Page-10 11 Petras, James and Henry Veltmeyer. Ibid. Page12 Maren, Michel. The Road to Hell. New York: The Free Press, 1997 13 Greene, Felix. The Enemy: Notes on Imperialism and Revolution. Calcutta: Prakash Publications, 1974. 14 Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. New Delhi: Vistaar, 2001. Page-15 15 Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom, New Delhi, OUP,1999. 16 Ibid. Page-28 17 Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. New Delhi: Vistaar, 2001. Page-28.
18 19

Panikkar, K.N., Culture, Ideology, Hegemony, Tulika The Hindu Marriage Act does not define Hindu positively. 20 Here religion (either Christianity or earlier religions of the converts into it) shall not be understood in secular terms as faith concerning to praying god. However, what I by religion is not only a belief in God but also it involves a way of life, a worldview and a normative framework. This is more true in case of Eastern relions.Faith, xxxxx communitarian beingness, state, medicine, education, episteme all are part of it. Hence destroying those, religions is to be understood in the sense of destroying beliefs but also obliterating all aspects of society and life. 21 Karl Marx, On Jewish Question,