Q.6 Women’s social capital complements in advancing empowerment and gender equity. Explain. (Answer in 150 words) – 10 marks

Introduction
Social capital refers to the networks, trust, and norms of reciprocity that enable collective action. For women, bonding and bridging capital—within families, self-help groups (SHGs), cooperatives, and community forums—acts as a lever of empowerment, helping overcome structural barriers of patriarchy, poverty, and exclusion.

How Women’s Social Capital Advances Empowerment

• Collective Bargaining Power: Women’s Self-Help Groups (e.g., SHG-Bank Linkage Programme under NABARD) enable pooled savings and credit access, reducing dependency on exploitative moneylenders.
• Voice & Representation: Platforms like Mahila Mandals and Gram Sabhas under PESA give women a collective voice in local governance.
• Skill & Knowledge Sharing: Peer networks help spread awareness on health, nutrition, legal rights, and technology adoption (e.g., Kudumbashree in Kerala).
• Entrepreneurship & Income Security: Social capital fosters micro-enterprises (e.g., Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana – National Rural Livelihoods Mission) creating livelihood security.
• Social Empowerment: Support networks help resist domestic violence, child marriage, and caste-based exclusion. Campaigns like SEWA (Self Employed Women’s Association) show the power of collective solidarity.
  

Link to Gender Equity

• Bridging structural gaps: Women’s networks redistribute opportunities in access to finance, markets, and governance.
• Intersectionality: Social capital empowers marginalised groups (Dalit, tribal, Muslim women), ensuring more inclusive gender equity.
• Policy Influence: Collectives lobby for welfare schemes (e.g., better maternal health, MGNREGA wages for women), shaping systemic equity.
  

Challenges

• Limited decision-making autonomy even within groups due to entrenched patriarchy.
• Digital divide constrains women’s participation in tech-driven networks.
• Elite capture within SHGs sometimes sidelines the poorest women.

Way Forward

• Strengthen capacity-building and digital literacy for women’s collectives.
• Ensure linkages of SHGs with markets, banks, and e-commerce.
• Promote political mentoring to convert social capital into leadership capital (e.g., training women sarpanches).

Conclusion
Women’s social capital is not just about mutual support but a transformative resource that converts individual struggles into collective empowerment. By enabling women to claim space in economy, society, and polity, it strengthens the pursuit of gender equity and inclusive development.

Q.8 Civil Society Organizations are often perceived as being anti-State actors than non-State actors. Do you agree? Justify. (Answer in 150 words) – 10 marks

Introduction
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) include NGOs, community groups, advocacy forums, and people’s movements that operate outside the state but engage with it to influence policy, deliver services, and hold governments accountable. While ideally “non-state actors,” they are sometimes perceived as anti-state actors due to their critical and confrontational roles.

Why Perceived as Anti-State

• Adversarial activism: Protests against large projects (e.g., Narmada Bachao Andolan, Sterlite protests in Tamil Nadu 2018) challenged state-led development.
• Foreign funding concerns: NGOs like Greenpeace India were accused (2015, IB report) of stalling energy projects, leading to restrictions under FCRA.
• Policy resistance: Movements against land acquisition, mining, or big dams often pit CSOs against state economic priorities.

Why They Are Non-State (Democratic Complements)

• Service delivery: NGOs like Pratham (education) and SEWA (women’s empowerment) fill welfare gaps and strengthen inclusivity.
• Policy advocacy: CSOs pushed for rights-based legislations such as RTI Act (2005) and MGNREGA (2005).
• Accountability & watchdog role: Civil society campaigns like India Against Corruption (2011) forced stronger anti-corruption discourse.
• Recent examples: During COVID-19 pandemic, CSOs distributed food, oxygen, and facilitated migrant worker relief, complementing the state’s efforts.

Balanced Assessment

• Perception of CSOs as “anti-state” arises mainly when they challenge state power or expose governance failures.
• In reality, they are essential non-state actors, acting as the “third sector” that balances the state and market, deepening democracy.

How to Strengthen CSOs

• Transparent funding norms: Balance accountability with easier FCRA compliance.
• Capacity building: Training in digital tools, policy engagement, and community mobilisation.
• State partnership models: Institutionalise collaboration through schemes like DAY-NRLM SHG federations.
• Legal protection: Safeguard activists and organisations from harassment when acting within law.
• Community participation: Encourage local, grassroots CSOs to ensure legitimacy and inclusiveness.

Conclusion
Civil society is not anti-state by nature but pro-people, and in holding the state accountable, it sometimes appears adversarial. For healthy democracy, the state must treat CSOs as partners in governance, not as threats.

Q.15 What are environmental pressure groups? Discuss their role in raising awareness, influencing policies and advocating for environmental protection in India. (Answer in 250 words) – 15 marks

Introduction
Environmental pressure groups are organized collectives—grassroots movements, NGOs, think tanks, and citizen alliances—that act as watchdogs and advocates for ecological sustainability. They mobilise citizens, shape public opinion, and pressurise the state for policies aligned with environmental justice.

Raising Awareness

• Chipko Movement (1970s, Uttarakhand): Village women hugged trees to resist logging, spreading ecological consciousness nationwide.
• Appiko Movement (Karnataka, 1983): Inspired by Chipko, villagers fought against commercial forest felling.
• Fridays for Future India (2019–): Youth-led digital protests raised climate change awareness, linking local issues like air pollution with global action.
• Delhi’s “My Right to Breathe” campaign (2016): Urban citizens mobilised around smog episodes, drawing government action on stubble burning and vehicular pollution.

Influencing Policy & Law

• Silent Valley Movement (Kerala, 1980s): Stopped a hydroelectric project in a biodiversity hotspot, setting a precedent for ecological prioritisation.
• Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA, 1980s–2000s): Highlighted displacement, ecological impacts of large dams, influencing rehabilitation policies and World Bank withdrawal from Sardar Sarovar project.
• MC Mehta PILs (1980s onwards): Led to Supreme Court’s CNG order for Delhi buses, closure of polluting industries near Taj Mahal, and the “polluter pays” principle.
• Niyamgiri Hills agitation (Odisha, 2013): Dongria Kondh tribals, supported by CSOs, successfully opposed Vedanta’s bauxite mining, protecting tribal rights and forests.

Advocacy & Global Linkages

• Greenpeace India campaigns against coal projects linked India’s local battles to global climate change narratives.
• Kalpavriksh promotes community-driven conservation, influencing the Biological Diversity Act (2002).
• Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), through its reports (like the 2019 “State of India’s Environment”), nudges reforms in waste management and energy policy.

Challenges

• Funding restrictions: FCRA amendments curtailed foreign funding, affecting NGOs like Greenpeace India.
• State suspicion: Movements labelled as “anti-development.”
• Representation gaps: Tribal/rural voices sometimes overshadowed by urban NGOs.

Way Forward

• Institutionalise public participation in EIA processes.
• Ensure transparent NGO funding while safeguarding autonomy.
• Promote community-led monitoring of forests and water.
• Encourage partnerships between CSOs and local governments for climate adaptation projects.

Conclusion
From Chipko to Niyamgiri, environmental pressure groups have shaped India’s green discourse. By raising awareness, influencing policies, and protecting vulnerable ecosystems, they have proven vital to balancing development with sustainability. Strengthening their role through trust and institutional support is essential for India’s ecological future.

Q.16 Inequality in the ownership pattern of resources is one of the major causes of poverty. Discuss in the context of the ‘paradox of poverty’. (Answer in 250 words) – 15 marks

Introduction
Poverty in India is not simply the absence of resources; rather, it stems from inequality in ownership and access. The “paradox of poverty” refers to the reality that resource-rich regions often have the poorest people. For example, mineral belts of Jharkhand and Odisha are full of coal, iron ore, and bauxite, yet tribal communities there are among the most deprived.

The Concepts of 

• Ownership pattern of resources: Refers to how land, forests, minerals, water, and capital are distributed among people. In India, these are highly concentrated in the hands of elites, leaving small farmers, tribals, and landless labourers with little control.
• Paradox of poverty: Coined in development studies, it means that poverty coexists with plenty. It is not scarcity but exclusion from resource use and benefits that produces poverty.
• Entitlement failure (Amartya Sen): Even when resources exist, poverty persists if people lack legal, social, or economic rights to access them (e.g., landless labourers during famines).

How Inequality Fuels Poverty

• Land concentration: Top 10% rural households own over 50% of land; the bottom 50% own less than 2% → small farmers and landless workers remain poor despite fertile soil (Bihar, UP).
• Resource-rich but poor regions: Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh—among India’s richest mineral states—record 30%+ poverty rates (NITI Aayog, MPI 2023) because mining profits go to corporations, not locals.
• Displacement: Narmada Bachao Andolan and Niyamgiri Hills agitation show how tribals lose land/forests to dams or mining without fair rehabilitation.
• Human capital inequality: Literacy among Scheduled Tribes is only 59% (NFHS-5), far below the national average (72%), perpetuating poverty despite resource endowments.

Way Forward

1. Land and tenancy reforms: Update land records, secure women’s land rights.
2. Community resource rights: Full implementation of Forest Rights Act (2006) and transparent use of District Mineral Foundation funds.
3. Inclusive finance: Expand SHGs, microfinance, and credit access for small farmers and tribals.
4. Human development: Universal education, health, and skilling to improve ownership of human capital.
5. Participatory governance: Gram Sabhas should have real power in deciding resource use (as under PESA Act).

Conclusion
The paradox of poverty reveals that India’s problem is not lack of resources but exclusionary ownership patterns. Poverty alleviation thus requires democratising access to land, forests, minerals, and education, ensuring that growth translates into empowerment for the most marginalised.