In a recent in-depth podcast discussion, a leading public policy scholar issued a stark critique of India's evolving governance landscape, arguing that the growing reliance on public-private partnerships has fundamentally weakened civil society’s ability to hold power to account and advocate for equitable public policy.
The conversation, featured on the UnMute podcast (Part 1), was hosted by two prominent figures in Indian development and rights advocacy: Gagan Sethi, a development practitioner with over four decades of experience in organisational development, policy advocacy, and minority rights, and Minar Pimple, founder of the grassroots organisation YUVA and former senior director at Amnesty International and the UN Millennium Campaign.
Their guest, Professor Navdeep Mathur of the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA), traced the rise of “collaborative governance”—a model where the state offloads service delivery to private and non-profit actors. While intended to bridge gaps in state capacity, Prof. Mathur argued this shift has created a crisis of transparency and public accountability.
“The questions were that since there's no statutory mandate and statutory jurisdiction within which they deliver or engage with public services, how does the public regulate them?” Prof. Mathur stated, highlighting the inherent vulnerability of a system where non-state actors operate without the same democratic scrutiny as government bodies.
The dialogue, weaving through themes of urban displacement, corporate influence, and feminist evaluation, pinpointed a critical paradox. The language of “partnership,” hosts Sethi and Pimple noted, often disguises a contractor-subcontractor dynamic that subjugates civil society organisations (CSOs). Responding to Gagan Sethi’s observation that CSOs transformed from influencers into “service delivery boys,” Prof. Mathur concurred, stating their sway over policy has dramatically reduced.
“Civil society organizations that worked at the grassroots have as much say as these… other [entities],” he said. Instead, he argued, policy is increasingly shaped by corporate interests. “Large corporate houses have been engaged in shaping… educational policies in India… Information technology companies have been singularly responsible for shaping… urban development and urban transportation policies in India for their own needs.”
Drawing on his research into urban projects like Ahmedabad’s riverfront development, Prof. Mathur illustrated the human cost of this policy direction. He asserted that the state has shown no will to build capacity for humane rehabilitation, treating displacement as an afterthought. “There has been no development of state capacity to deal with this issue of displacement… These projects are elite projects… conducted for leisure spaces for real estate growth,” he said. The result, he explained, is the intensified “peripheralization of the poor” to city margins with inferior services.
When Minar Pimple steered the conversation towards potential avenues for change, such as feminist discourses or corporate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, Prof. Mathur offered a cautious assessment. While acknowledging better practices in some multinational subsidiaries, he found Indian corporate culture largely unchanged. “The good things that I've heard… have been international companies,” he said, adding that in many Indian firms, even discussing public issues is often reprimanded as “politics.”
On the mandated Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditures, Prof. Mathur remained sceptical of systemic impact. While allowing for some genuine grassroots efforts, he argued the broader picture is bleak. “Broadly if you look at worsening inequality in India and worsening quality of life… one can clearly make the claim that in general it doesn't work and neither is it aimed to,” he stated, characterising much CSR activity as trivial or geared toward brand-building.
The comprehensive discussion, moderated by seasoned advocates Sethi and Pimple, concluded with a sobering picture of a governance model where collaborative rhetoric masks a deepening capture of policy by market forces, a deliberate erosion of state accountability, and a concerning marginalisation of the civic space essential for a vibrant democracy.
Comments