This article discusses the current debate in India centred on freebie schemes and budgetary priorities. Both are being shaped by India’s political economy within and by globalisation forces outside. Targeting high growth rates and making economies competitively fit are driving this globalization forces. Should budgets prioritise growth or distribution? The Bhagwati–Sen debate provides us insights into the pros and cons of this apparent choice. Economic growth in India has been reasonably good, but not enough employment has been created. The decline in poverty rate has been slower, and in absolute numbers, a staggering number are still poor. India, an erstwhile colonised nation-state, is currently focusing on an infrastructure-led growth budget. The current governing elites assume that growth will take place and benefits eventually will trickle down. It rests its hopes largely on the middle class for high growth rates. The counter-elite voice demands more budgetary allocation for the Indian labouring poor, largely rural. This allocation will widen the participatory base of the economy. The two viewpoints presented here represent two perspectives: an economic growth-led India and an inclusive India. This debate has significant implications for re/distributive policies and programmes and human development.

This note offers some comments on Theophilus Nkansah’s article entitled, ‘The Role of Adult Literacy in Community Development in Ghana: Perceptions and Experiences of Two Rural Communities’, which was published in the previous issue of this journal (Vol. 4, Iss. 3, pp. 272–293). It aims to share some of the more interesting and insightful aspects of Nkansah’s article and draw attention to the commonalities between Ghana and India in their rural development practice and history.

This note contextualises the ‘choice’ India exercised in her Union Budget 2021. This budget stressed on privatisation and economic growth. As the Indian social structure evolved historically, it came to comprise several communities excluded from mainstream life. Independent India evolved a development trajectory that combined democratic structures with participative decision-making processes buttressed by constitutional provisions in the form of quotas/reservations in legislatures, education and jobs. This trajectory succeeded in forming an elite section from some of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities and from them a techno-managerial elite has emerged who could professionally find a place in the expanding private sector. But the Indian development trajectory has failed in case of the Scheduled Tribes (STs)/indigenous peoples or First Nations category. This failure means that the historical mission of the Indian development trajectory is yet incomplete.

This note examines aspects of colonial commonality between British colonised East Africa and India. Community development as a rural development programme, its presence in academic institutions and its use as an expression in development discourse are some of these commonalities. With the passage of time, British East Africa and India have diverged on some of these commonalities. In India, community development began with great developmental hopes in 1952, but it ended miserably and was soon abandoned as a rural development programme. While it vanished from India’s development lexicon, community development still retains a place in the development discourse of Botswana. It also seems to resonate in the mainstream life of some East African countries unlike in India. But one commonality still continues. Community development finds some place in the halls of academe in both Botswana and India today. To discuss these aspects of colonial commonality, this article moves back-and-forth among Botswana, India and British East Africa. This article needs to be read in the historical context of de-colonisation struggles over developmental ideas in British East Africa and India and the role of the native elites in this process.

आमतौर पर ऐसी मानयता ह कि आतकवादए सरकषा और मानवाधिकार परसपर विरोधी विचार और वयवहार ह। हालाकि इस बात म सचचाई हए पर गहराई स छानबीन करन पर पता चलता ह कि इन तीनो को लकर आसानी स इस तरह क निषकरष पर नही पहचा जा सकता ह। वरतमान सदरभ को धयान म रखकर ही हम मानव.अधिकार की परिकलपना को पनर परिभाषित कर सकत ह। सोवियत सघ क विघटन क पशचात की दनिया की रपरखा को एक नए सिर स राजनीतिक रप स समझना पड़गा। एकल विशव शकति क रप म सयकत राजय अमरिका का सथापित होना भी वशविक सथिति को सपषट करता ह तथा इसक साथ.ही.साथ दनिया क राषटरो क आतरिक ताना.बाना को भी अनिवारयतर बनता ह। रही बात मानव.अधिकार की तो इस परिदशय म जो घटनाए घटी जस 9ध11 अमरिका म विशव वयपार सगठन पर आतमघाती हमलाए अफगानिसतान तथा इराक म अमरिका का विधवसकारी आकरमण. ऐसी घटनाए ह जो मानवाधिकार क उललघन को आसान बना दती ह। सरकषा का भान असरकषा म बदल जाती ह। मानव.अधिकार का उललघन किन.किन कारको क आधार पर तय किया जाएगाघ कया लोकततर का सिदधात हम इस कारय म सहायता परदान करगा या दनिया की उभरती हई शकति इस महतवपरण तथय को तय करगीघ या फिर नव.उदारवाद की आवशयकताए मानव.अधिकार को पनर परिभाषित करन क लिए विवश करगीघ य कछ ऐस सवाल ह जिनका आधार अनभवजनय तथय क साथ.साथ आदरशातमक तथयो पर भी आधारित हए विशषकर लोकततर क सदरभ म।

This article explores the broad processes that facilitated the effectiveness of a Gram Panchayat (GP, institution of local self-governance), despite its location in a relatively underdeveloped region. By employing a qualitative case study method and drawing on interviews, observations and secondary data, the effective work of Ahana GP, notwithstanding political contradictions, is analysed. Three practice implications arising from this case study are: the significance of developing organic links between a community and its economy; building effective grassroots-level leadership; and addressing felt needs of a community within the complex development process. The findings may be useful for local level development practice in similar contexts, both in developed and developing countries.

The identity of Vaiśālī is changing through the constructions of Buddhist Shanti Stupas, temples and monasteries of Eastern and South- East Asian countries. These modern developments raise several questions about their history, local and international identity, reclaim and conflicts. I would like to discuss Vaiśālī in relation to their archaeological past and historical importance in the Buddhist world, and how they became important in the modern world. This paper proposes to examine the revival of Buddhist Modernism[1] through art & architectures of Buddhist temples and monasteries of Eastern and South- East Asian countries in Vaiśālī.[2]   [1] The German Buddhologist heinz Bechert coined the term ‘ Buddhist Modernism’ and defined it as follows: “Buddhist modernism is characterized by the emphasis laid on rationalist elements in Buddhist teachings, by the belief that the teachings of Buddhism and those of modern science are not only in conformity but identical, by the tacit elimination of the traditional cosmology, and by a reinterpretation of the objective of the Buddhist religion in terms of social reform and the building of a better world.” Bechert noted that Buddhist modernism is also characterized in part by the creation of lay religious organizations that did not previously exist. For him, the primary ethos animating this modern interpretation of Buddhism is the attempt to bridge the traditional gap between otherworldly and this-worldly practices and aims, transforming a religion of world-renunciation into one stressing societal reform and human development. (David L. McMahan, Buddhism in the Modern World. Routledge, 2012.)   [2] Vaiśālī has more than ten temples and monasteries built by Buddhist countries such as China, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka.

This article discusses the current development of Bharatiyakaran/Indianisation of social work education and practice in India. Drawing on relevant information from Bharatiyakaran workshops and conferences, it analyses mission and motives, and prospects and perils of Bharatiyakaran. The Indic-religions and emic approach are crafting a unique form of the Indian religio-cultural nationalism. The Bharatiyakaran advocates assert that their initiatives of de-colonisation, Indianisation and indigenisation would challenge the Eurocentric domination of the Indian social work. While indigenisation of social work in India is overdue, the current Bharatiyakaran trend raises more contradictions and questions.