Civil society and human security in Meghalaya: identity, power and inequalities

Abstract

This thesis examines the role of civil society in addressing human security in the Indian state of Meghalaya. Civil society has been revived over the last two decades and is now one of the key concepts in the study of politics. Yet there are few detailed empirical studies of civil society at a local level examining the constraints on participation and the ways this affects what is contested. Human security has also gained prominence in the past decade as both a challenge to state-centric conceptions of security and as an alternative approach to development by focussing on the security and insecurity of groups and individuals. In order for those experiencing insecurity to identify and contest the causes of insecurity, participation in civil society is necessary. Yet there is very limited analysis on the ability of civil society actors to contest the causes of insecurity in particular local contexts. Meghalaya is part of the region know as Northeast India, one of the least researched regions in South Asia. Identity politics dominate civil society in Meghalaya, empowering particular actors and particular causes of insecurity and marginalising others. Furthermore the construction of Meghalaya in the Indian national context leaves it isolated from civil society actors in other parts of India, intensifying the impact of local circumstances. This thesis examines the responses of civil society actors to environmental insecurity and gender-based insecurity in Meghalaya and finds that participation is constrained by the dominance of identity politics, the power differentials between civil society actors, and existing inequalities within the local context. This thesis reaches three conclusions. First, civil society is constrained by both the state and the power of particular actors and ideas in civil society itself. Secondly, the relationship between civil society and human security is constitutive. Constraints on civil society affect which insecurities can be contested and the prevalence of particular forms of insecurity, especially identity insecurity, empower particular civil society actors and marginalise others. Thirdly, context is vital for understanding the constraints on civil society and the conditions under which these constraints may be transcended. This requires a deeper understanding of Meghalaya that goes beyond the reproduction of homogenous and unchanging ethnic categories.