Introduction A social entrepreneur is someone who advances “systemic change” by “shifting patterns and perceptions.” This type of person is “relentless in pursuit of their visions” and “will not give up until they have spread their ideas as far as they possibly can.” They often work off of limited resources and must rely on the generosity of the government and private donors to continue their work. Social entrepreneurs often exist in what is called civil society. Bruce Sievers defines civil society as an idea that is made of seven strands philanthropy, the common good, the rule of law, nonprofit and voluntary institutions, individual rights, free expression, and tolerance. Though this definition is pretty standard, because each societies’
…show more content…
As a consequence of this, “associational life is still largely organized around ethnicity and particularistic forms of claims making focused on narrow-identity issues are the norm.” Before any formal type of civil society was set up by the government voluntary action in India “traditionally germinated from the religious and cultural ethos of the country and flourished beyond any regulatory framework of the State.” It wasn’t until the formal enactment of the Societies Registration Act of 1860 that there was any type of government regulation. Once the government got involved with civil society in India, it became increasingly difficult to become and stay a part of an association. When foreign aid started to come into the country in the form of money and branches of associations, the India government created the Federal Contribution Regulation Act of 1976. According to the John Hopkins University working paper on civil society in India, “the FCRA of 1976 is perhaps the most irritating, out-moded and intimidating legislation in place in India…organisations which challenge policies, positions and perspectives of rating elites find themselves intimidated, coerced and harassed by the authorities set up to monitor the implementation of the act.” By intimidating the associations that do not have the same values of the elite of India, the Indian …show more content…
The Bhils have been marginalized since the time of British rule to the present, “they have been neglected and often systematically victimized by mainstream India.” The Bhils make up 4.5 million people of India’s population and inhabit 40,000 square kilometers of India, yet this group is still considered unimportant. Instead of working with the Bhils to find ways to mesh their traditions with modern life, India has used their misunderstanding of modern culture to strip them from their lands and to prevent them from using their traditional resources. This is especially troubling when these hunter-gatherer people have no other way to support themselves and these laws are enforced by a corrupt police force. The Bhils traditional way of life does not fit with what the Indian government has in mind for them, “the aim of the government’s social and economic development policies for the uplift of the adivasis in Madhya Pradesh has been to integrate them into the modern market economy and culture. This has downgraded the Bhils subsistence
As a consequence of this, “associational life is still largely organized around ethnicity and particularistic forms of claims making focused on narrow-identity issues are the norm.” Before any formal type of civil society was set up by the government voluntary action in India “traditionally germinated from the religious and cultural ethos of the country and flourished beyond any regulatory framework of the State.” It wasn’t until the formal enactment of the Societies Registration Act of 1860 that there was any type of government regulation. Once the government got involved with civil society in India, it became increasingly difficult to become and stay a part of an association. When foreign aid started to come into the country in the form of money and branches of associations, the India government created the Federal Contribution Regulation Act of 1976. According to the John Hopkins University working paper on civil society in India, “the FCRA of 1976 is perhaps the most irritating, out-moded and intimidating legislation in place in India…organisations which challenge policies, positions and perspectives of rating elites find themselves intimidated, coerced and harassed by the authorities set up to monitor the implementation of the act.” By intimidating the associations that do not have the same values of the elite of India, the Indian …show more content…
The Bhils have been marginalized since the time of British rule to the present, “they have been neglected and often systematically victimized by mainstream India.” The Bhils make up 4.5 million people of India’s population and inhabit 40,000 square kilometers of India, yet this group is still considered unimportant. Instead of working with the Bhils to find ways to mesh their traditions with modern life, India has used their misunderstanding of modern culture to strip them from their lands and to prevent them from using their traditional resources. This is especially troubling when these hunter-gatherer people have no other way to support themselves and these laws are enforced by a corrupt police force. The Bhils traditional way of life does not fit with what the Indian government has in mind for them, “the aim of the government’s social and economic development policies for the uplift of the adivasis in Madhya Pradesh has been to integrate them into the modern market economy and culture. This has downgraded the Bhils subsistence