India is often described as a country of paradoxes. There are skyscrapers and slums, free newspapers and moral policing, global achievers and neverschooled children, deserts and flood plains. It is also amongst the world's most vibrant and reliable democracies. The remarkable life history of Indian democracy since its independence from colonial rule in 1947 has brought about the irrevocable expansion of popular politics. Paradoxically, while India is feted for its democratic institutions and processes, the politics that accompanies these institutions and processes has been subject to a great deal of disparagement. Such cynicism seems to affect a generally negative perception of what democratic politics and politicians can deliver: efficient services in cities, proper disbursement of state welfare in villages and security against terror. This irritation with politics and politicians was initially observed as part of an elite urban discourse (Hansen 1999), but researchers documenting talk, gestures and strategic manoeuvring amidst a cross-section of social groups even in rural India have noted the description of politics as ‘dirty’ and ‘morally ambivalent’ (Osella and Osella 2001, Ruud 2001).

In this book, I am concerned with such cynicism about politics; but more specifically, I am interested in examining the notion that development is indeed apolitical, or devoid of politics, no matter how trenchant the view of political influences, processes and behaviour. Indeed, my purpose is to question the very belief that implementers of development are wilfully engaged in keeping politics away from development.