Partha Chatterjee’s concepts of civil society and ‘uncivil’ political society: Is the distinction valid?

ABSTRACT Partha Chatterjee's distinction between civil society and 'political society' in post-colonial countries has provoked much debate and discussion. This has remained controversial in the current literature on post-colonialism in respect of democracy, development and politics. In this article I contest his distinction by pointing out, first that his conception of civil society is limited and abstract (and universalist) that leaves out the vast rural life in India. Second, I question the conceptual and empirical validity of his concept of political society, and argue that his original concept of political society was an urban space of illegality and criminality, but his subsequent shift to cover rural India does not explain how original conception works out in rural India. The empirical evidence available suggests that his so-called political society in rural India is actually part of civil society such as rural clubs, NGOs and other associations that operates in the interface of state, politics and society. In conclusion I seek to restore the political society as the space of the nation-state based on, following Locke, the right to life, liberty and property; trust (contract), definite and codified laws, impartial judiciary, separation of powers, limited government by popular consent and the people's right to revolt.