ABSTRACT
This chapter analyses the paradox with the help of empirical datasets from Jharkhand and argues that the latter — homogenising notion of development — is perhaps ill-suited to an analysis of the dynamics of Indian politics, contoured as it is on geographical and political boundaries or ‘regions’ while much of the ‘real’ politics follows a socio-political trajectory, be it caste, identity, religion or, indeed, ‘region’. The meaning, content and objectives of ‘development’ are a matter of increasingly intense debate in the social sciences. ‘The emergence of ethnicity and minority rights on the political theory mainstream agenda can be traced back to John Rawls writings on pluralism and consensus as the essence of liberal democratic thinking’, which created a large literature engaging with the liberalism–communitarian divide. One of the most important indicators in the realisation of socioeconomic rights of the tribal population of any State is the degree of participation in productive economic activity.
