All of this logic is really so top down that it makes my head hurt. For one thing, I don't think the NBA alone forced the World Bank to do anything. It was obviously an overdetermined situation which is actually far from over. I see James point about the eventual accession of the people in these provinces, but I don't see this as evidence of anything in particular. It could be as you say that the NBA is the major villian here, convincing the equally evil World Bank to pull out of the project that all the poor people in these provinces desparately wanted. Or it could be that, back when the WB pulled the funding (which it seems was over a decade ago) there was widespread public resistance which included the NBA and now, many years later, people are tired of fighting and/or they've finally been convinced of the benefits. I won't posit that the NBA or any of the public activism had anything to do with the plight improving because, as you continually point out, this doesn't fit with your version of the morality play. And, really, that's all this is at this point. The actors in the struggle are being drawn like cartoon characters and the only question is who wears the fangs and who wears the peasant shoes. Since your version of the story is both predicated on and intended to prove that the NBA has the biggest set of wolf's chops, it doesn't seem like we're really even talking about the same situation.
> More likely is that the World Bank was willing to promote development in
> India when they were in competition with the USSR for influence, but less
> willing when India's growth meant that they were effectively promoting a
> US-competitor. The NGOs just manufactured a post-festum justification for
> the shift in World Bank policy.
This first bit is way off. In fact, the US has been trying in recent years to make India more competative as a counter balance to china--so much so that it seems we're even willing to give them (or help them get) some more nukes. And, like you, the US government is committed to talking about India as a thriving, multicultural democracy, responsive to its population. beacon of freedom and all that. I don't know much that can contradict all this decisively, but the rise of the BJP in national politics and the stuff I've read about the early nuclear program (and the caste biased logic the mostly western/imperialist trained engineers view the countryside and its nameless inhabitants) by Itty Ibriham, Amatava Kumar and others gives me some pause about trusting that institution any more than I do the WB or other undemocratic NGOs.
On the other hand, I certainly respect a local intellectual's choice to get involved in the process. Though, again, if there was a specific thing that intellectual said or did (other than general support) that can be criticized or refuted, well then that might be something to talk about. As it is, this discussion seems to be simply devolving into a melange of already arrived at positions in search of supporting arguments and evidence. This, if I remember correctly, was the original critique of Roy at the beginning of the thread. So I suppose we have come full circle.
s