In an effort to develop the disadvantaged dalit population, the Bihar Government introduced a category called ‘Mahadalit’. Under the rubric of this nomenclature, many schemes have been introduced to uplift the Mahadalits, including the Musahars, often described as ‘dalit among dalits’. One such scheme is the Vikas Mitras scheme, which aims to appoint people from the Mahadalit population to the lowest position in the bureaucracy, envisioning them to emerge as ‘change agents’. In this scheme, fifty per cent of the positions are reserved for the Mahadalit women. The article presents an ethnographic study of the experiences of Musahar women navigating through the bureaucracy as Vikas Mitras while engaging with their intersectional identities related to caste, class and gender. The reflexive engagement with the scheme’s intent and reality on the field raises critical questions about the broader categories of development, empowerment, intersectionality and depoliticisation.
AhmedR. (2020). Looking beyond the implementational paralysis in the Indira Awas Yojana: Narratives of the Musahar community. In GhaiR., MishraA. K., & KumarS. (Eds.), The marginalized self (pp. 82–110). Primus Books.
2.
BanerjeeS., & GhoshN. (2018). Introduction. Debating intersectionalities: Challenges for a methodological framework. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal. https://doi.org/10.4000/samaj.4745
3.
BatliwalaS. (2007). Taking the power out of empowerment: An experiential account. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469559
4.
BilgeS. (2011, June8). Doing critical intersectionality in an age of popular and corporate diversity culture. Paper presented at theInternational Colloquium on Intersecting Situations of Domination, from a Transnational and Transdisciplinary Perspective, Université de Paris 8, Paris, France.
5.
BilgeS. (2013). Intersectionality undone: Saving intersectionality from feminist intersectionality studies. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 10(2), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000283
6.
CarswellG., & De NeveG. (2020). Paperwork, patronage, and citizenship: The materiality of everyday interactions with bureaucracy in Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 26(3), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.13311
7.
CerwonkaA., & MalkkiL. H. (2007). Improvising theory: Process and temporality in ethnographic fieldwork. The University of Chicago Press.
8.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
9.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
10.
DatarC. (1999). Non-Brahmin renderings of feminism in Maharashtra: Is it a more emancipatory force?Economic & Political Weekly, 34(41), 2964–2968.
11.
DavisK. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700108086364
12.
FergusonJ. (1996). The anti-politics machine: “Development,” depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. University of Minnesota Press.
13.
FlindersM., & WoodM. (2015). Depoliticisation, governance and the state. In FlindersM. & WoodM. (Eds.), Tracing the political: Depoliticisation, governance and the state (pp. 1–20). Bristol University Press, Policy Press.
14.
GuruG. (1995). Dalit women talk differently. Economic & Political Weekly, 30(41/42), 2548–2550.
15.
JohnM. E. (2015). Intersectionality: Rejection or critical dialogue?Economic & Political Weekly, 50(33), 72–76.
16.
KabeerN. (1999). The conditions and consequences of choice: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment[UNRISD discussion paper no. 108]. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
17.
KumarA. (2020). Culture, development, and capital of farce. In GhaiR., MishraA. K., & KumarS. (Eds.), The marginalized self (pp. 29–60). Primus Books.
18.
KumarH., & SomanathanR. (2015, August). Caste connections and government transfers: The Mahadalits of Bihar (pp. 1–25). Delhi School of Economics.
19.
MishraA. K. (2020). Power of the margins a critique of discourse on underdevelopment. In GhaiR., MishraA. K., & KumarS. (Eds.), The marginalized self (pp. 128–150). Primus Books.
20.
MosseD. (2018). Caste and development: Contemporary perspectives on a structure of discrimination and advantage. World Development, 110, 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.003
21.
Nesfield. (1888). The Musheras of central and upper India. Calcutta Review, 86(171), 1–53.
22.
NishaantT. (2019). Musahars: A noble people, a resilient culture. Media House.
23.
PhoenixA., & PattynamaP. (2006). Intersectionality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506806065751
24.
Priyanandini. (2023). The neglected Musahars of Bihar. Seminar, (765), 62–66. https://www.india-seminar.com/2023/765/765-12%20PRIYANANDINI.htm
25.
RazackS. (1998). Looking white people in the eye: Gender, race, and culture in courtrooms and classrooms. University of Toronto Press.
26.
RegeS. (1998). Dalit women talk differently: A critique of “difference” and towards a Dalit feminist standpoint position. Economic & Political Weekly, 33(44), WS39–WS46.
27.
RisleyH. H. (1891). The tribes and castes of Bengal: Anthropometric data (Vol. 1). Bengal Secretariat Press.
28.
SahayG. R. (2019). Substantially present but invisible, excluded and marginalised: A study of Musahars in Bihar. Sociological Bulletin, 68(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022918819357
29.
SinghS. (2015). Ruled or misruled: Story and destiny of Bihar. Bloomsbury Publishing.
30.
StandingG. (2001). Globalization: The eight crises of social protection. ILO.
31.
TeltumbdeA. (2017). Foreword: Dalits, dalit women and the Indian state. In AnandhiS. & KapadiaK. (Eds.), Dalit women: A vanguard of an alternative politics in India (pp. 53–74). Routledge.
32.
VergheseS. (2002). Dignity and daily life. In JoshiH. & KumarS. (Eds.), Asserting voices: Identity and livelihood of the Musahars in the Gangetic Plains (pp. 53–59). Deshkal Publication.
33.
VerlooM. (2013). Intersectional and cross-movement politics and policies: Reflections on current practices and debates. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 893–915. https://doi.org/10.1086/669572
