World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 131

been characterized by long periods of peace, punctuated by occasional outbreaks of violence. How are we to account for such data? Why is violence so geographically restricted in India? Why is there violence in some cities and not other cities that are economically and demographically similar? And in one case studied by Varshney, why was there violence in the outer fringe of a city and not in its center?
Like other social scientists, Varshney understands civil society as social networks that function between the level of the immediate family and the state. Social networks such as these make interconnections between individuals possible in a way that neither the immediate family nor the state can provide. Civil society includes football leagues, bridge and film clubs, trade unions, NGOs, business associations, neighborhood groups organized around schools, political organizations, etc. Civil society is what connects people to their local communities beyond the family. Many sociologists argue that civil society, by definition, is voluntary and intentional, not ascriptive. Varshney also notes a distinction between "quotidian" civil society and "associational" civil society. Quotidian civil society involves informal interactions between neighbors, such as visiting homes, sharing meals, kids playing together, chatting at markets, etc. Associational civil society consists in the more formally structured social networks mentioned above. When Varshney uses the term "civil society" in his work, he generally means associational civil society. Since associational civil society is stronger because it is intentional, he concludes that associational, not quotidian civil society, is the decisive factor in preventing inter-communal violence. At least this is the case in urban centers. Quotidian civil society may be sufficient for villages, but not for cities which require social networks that are more intentional. These more formal social organizations allow for the management of conflict in times of tension. They help to facilitate communication and to kill rumors that would otherwise mobilize people for violence.
Varshney's first empirical study compares Aligarh and Calicut. These cities were selected because both have a significant Muslim population (35% in 2000) a significant portion of which is middle class. They differ, however, in terms of inter-communal civil society: Aligarh is weak in this respect while in Calicut, inter-communal civil society is plentiful. Calicut is integrated by neighborhoods, business associations, industry and professions. Aligarh is segregated along these same lines. This important difference can be accounted for, in part, by their different histories. Calicut was not part of the Mughal Empire. This has meant that conflict has tended to be between castes. Muslims were not singled out as the enemy of a unified Hindu community. Aligarh, on the other hand, was a Mughal city. Many of the Muslims there come from families that were members of the old Mughal oligarchy. This historical fact has helped to unify the Hindu community against the Muslim population. Trade and business associations tend to be segregated. Banking
82