What We Are to ‘Marginalized Groups’: Advocacy CSOs’ Constructions of Their Legitimacy in Jharkhand, India

This study explores the way Indian civil society organizations (CSOs) in the state of Jharkhand that work from rights-based approaches construct the legitimacy of their advocacy roles regarding marginalized groups. Finding that they typically do so from a stance of solidarity, the article shows that solidarity in this context supports access to rights and entitlements, but can be delimited in terms of its emancipatory quality. The article identifies these limits, discussing the position of superiority that is often taken, the limited engagement with constituency perspectives and leadership that can be found, and a negotiated positioning that seeks to harmonize organizational, constituency and state interests. The implication is that CSOs’ solidarity through rights-based approaches needs close examination rather than flat-out embracement as the mainstay of legitimate CSO advocacy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Progress in Development Studies
Published
2025-07-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14649934251351081
Primary Topic
Tourism, Volunteerism, and Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What We Are to ‘Marginalized Groups’: Advocacy CSOs’ Constructions of Their Legitimacy in Jharkhand, India

Margit van Wessel, Yogesh Mishra
Progress in Development Studies
Tourism, Volunteerism, and Development
article

What We Are to ‘Marginalized Groups’: Advocacy CSOs’ Constructions of Their Legitimacy in Jharkhand, India

Margit van Wessel, Yogesh Mishra
article en

Abstract

This study explores the way Indian civil society organizations (CSOs) in the state of Jharkhand that work from rights-based approaches construct the legitimacy of their advocacy roles regarding marginalized groups. Finding that they typically do so from a stance of solidarity, the article shows that solidarity in this context supports access to rights and entitlements, but can be delimited in terms of its emancipatory quality. The article identifies these limits, discussing the position of superiority that is often taken, the limited engagement with constituency perspectives and leadership that can be found, and a negotiated positioning that seeks to harmonize organizational, constituency and state interests. The implication is that CSOs’ solidarity through rights-based approaches needs close examination rather than flat-out embracement as the mainstay of legitimate CSO advocacy.

Progress in Development Studies
O. P. Jindal Global University (IN), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Tourism, Volunteerism, and Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

What We Are to ‘Marginalized Groups’: Advocacy CSOs’ Constructions of Their Legitimacy in Jharkhand, India — Margit van Wessel, Yogesh Mishra · Progress in Development Studies (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS