Nandigram And Beyond

The recent events in Nandigram and it's coverage by a section of media as well as the response by sections of civil society (wrongly mentioned as intellectuals) point out to a grotesque dysfunction of bourgeois democracy, but that is not the concern of this article. This piece will be concerned more about the whys and wherefores of the problem that erupted in West Bengal over the past year, a problem that has not been studied well enough and that has been deliberately misrepresented by voices that professedly speak for variegated ideologies.

West Bengal: It's different!

The state of West Bengal remains apart from any other in India, as politically, this state remains the only one where there has been no anti-incumbency for the past 30 years, ruled as it is by a political entity, the Left Front, that remains the only effective one which has fulfilled a vital directive of state policy of the liberal Indian constitution, land reforms. This measure has ensured enduring political support from a section of society that pervades the demography in India, small and medium peasantry. Apart from this piece of economic reform, the Left Front ensured that political reform should also be carried out to benefit the same sections, hence, the adoption of the Panchayati Raj system. At the same time however, these pieces of bourgeois reform was not revolutionary or transformatory, and led by a Marxist party the government only willed to improve livelihoods further by undertaking what every civilised power unit was doing everywhere else in the world, industrialisation. As the Indian state took a turn toward neoliberalism after wide ranging economic reform, West Bengal, as one of the states embarked upon industrialisation through private investment as a sine qua non for change: from a peasant dominated economy to a more modern industrial economy.

It was only bound to happen that the excesses and problems of neoliberalism were going to affect West Bengal too. The focus of the regime was to portray West Bengal as investment friendly state owing to a populace that was seen to be largely progressive, and which had good social development indicators, as well as an ideal geographic location for setting up export oriented industries. In this process of competitive wooing of investment (against other potential destinations in other states), the state embarked upon a few measures that were, at least, controversial, coming as they were, from a leftist regime. A controversial SEZ Act was passed in the WB Assembly in the earlier tenure and provisions of this act was used to determine the contours of land acquisition from villagers in Nandigram for a chemical hub project.

What happened in Nandigram?

Obviously learning that the WB government was determined to forge ahead with this model of industrialisation through land acquisition (from the Singur experience), villagers in Nandigram took up a violent means of protest, spurred on in the meantime by elements who had spread doomsday rumours playing upon the fears of land loss for the peasants. The means of protest included throwing away CPI(M) supporters from the village and forcing them to stay as refugees in a nearby area (Khejuri). Most of the confusion was spawned after a notice of land acquisition was pasted by a Haldia Development Authority (HDA) official, himself a CPI(M) leader, who was not authorised to take this move. Clarifications followed from the chief minister that no land acquisition would take place without due consultation, but the fire was already lit.

No amount of political cajoling through meetings or talks could create an atmosphere of peace and what followed was state action to mitigate the violent takeover of the Nandigram village by partisan villagers, now assembled under a motley grouping titled, Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh committee (BUPC), led by Trinamul Congress (TMC) leaders. The state action, involving police personnel on March 14th resulted in a police firing that saw the deaths of 14 villagers. Widely berated for this move, the Chief Minister regretted the firing and held himself responsible for the deaths and resolved to find a solution to the impasse through further political meetings and talks with opposition members at the local level as well as the state level in Nandigram. At the same time, a CBI inquiry was ordered into the incident which is still pending, even as the government has at long last announced relief compensations to the casualties of the firing, recently.

Political meeting after political meeting was called to find a solution for this problem of lawlessness that had been instigated by the TMC and a section of Naxalite and Maoist sympathisers in the Nandigram area. None of these were attended by the very stakeholders in the opposition: the TMC-Maoists. One meeting was attended by Mamata Bannerjee; however, she left the meeting even before it started. Essentially CPI(M) supporters were made to stay as refugees for a full 11 months, before these villagers took it upon themselves to return back.Admittedly, at the same time, no action was taken against the officers involved in the firing, a concern raised by civil society groups who also question the fact that the turbulent area was not visited by the Chief Minister.

The state government asked for CRPF personnel from the centre, knowing very well that any state action would only be assessed as failure in this volatile area. CRPF personnel were late in coming, ostensibly because of the centre's apathy, even as the state government was coy at intervening between the villagers again caught up in conflict. The opposition and civil society were now back to berating the state government for its inaction and for letting the circle of violence go on allegedly for retribution by the displaced CPI(M) supporting villagers. No longer is the SEZ tune played now, however, as everyone now realises that it is a turf war.

The incidents in Nandigram are a repeat of what happened in Panskura (Keshpur-Garbeta story) in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Knowing fully well that there is a large chunk of support base for the Left entrenched among rural segments, the opposition realised that the only way out for wresting control was physically removing these sections from their strongholds. Hence, in a bye-election held after Geeta Mukherjee (of the CPI)'s death, the Panskura Lok Sabha seat was lost by a huge margin, which surprised many. The TMC cadre and leadership had gone on marches hailing the Panskura line in 2001. It took a concerted effort by the CPI(M) cadre to drive back the occupiers in Keshpur (yet another bloody culmination) to wrest back control over Keshpur and other areas. No wonder, Gurudas Dasgupta (the present CPI Lok Sabha member) won by a good margin in the next conducted elections, in the area.

A thorough understanding

To observers who have a liberal bent, the situation would not be understood using the mechanisms of liberal democratic principles that cloud their opinions. What requires is a more correct understanding of the class and rural settings in West Bengal to get the picture as to what exactly entails these violent political conflicts that have erupted in an otherwise progressive state.

Land reform in West Bengal has not only created entrenched support bases for the Left but it has also created several entrenched antagonists. A cursory look at the percentages that have voted for both the Left and the TMC-Congress will provide a better understanding. The absentee-landlords and rent-seeking sections supporting the same as well as middle class absentee landowners are all antagonistic to the Left in mofussil towns, because of the alienation of their owned land which was registered to the tillers and share-croppers. In one swoop, these sections lost their statuses as owners of land which they never tilled and their ability to play poker with their holding i.e. for example, if someone has a large piece of land on which some sharecroppers work, the owner has the prerogative to sell the piece of land to some other sharecropper or small peasant as he might will. This ability was gone after land reforms were undertaken.

No wonder, these segments of the population have gone on to become supporters of the Congress and its likes, who later on manifested as the regional Trinamul Congress. The problem is that, these sections do not have committed political workers, as a peasant or a worker supporting the left would be. Apart from electoral work and some other mobilisations, political work is not quite a vocation for these people, in comparison to trade unionists, peasant organisations, for whom political activity is 24/7. This explains the grooming of musclemen and henchmen from lumpen sections, for the purpose of doing the hatchet political jobs. Yet, even this will not explain how sections of the Trinamul could take up causes for sections of the poor peasantry alienated from the Left, either. One would have to bring in the role of the political outfits from the radical and ultra left in here.

The ultra-left (Naxalites and parties such as SUCI fall into this category) are primarily sections which have protested that the land reform measures enacted by the Left Front government have not been taken to the next “logical” extent- further distribution of land to landless labourers. This opinion is drawn from their theoretical understanding that places the peasantry in the vanguard of an agrarian revolution, a model that is termed, “Maoist”. In essence, the ultra left have tried to play upon the concerns of the landless peasants and labourers and held the Left responsible for only part-bourgeois and moderate land reforms.

A greater Mahajot

Since the support base for the Left Front in rural areas is still intact, obviously due to the measures of land reform and popular mobilisation as well as the institution of Panchayati Raj and local governance, the oppositional space has been considerably narrowed. This space therefore saw the formation of one opportunist alliance after another by the bourgeois parties, termed, a mahajot. In the case of Nandigram, this mahajot received a new entrant, sections of the Naxalites and the Maoists, as the issue of a SEZ was harped as a move inimical to the small peasantry. The leaders in this mahajot, the BUPC, however had no qualms in having disparate sections from the ultra-left to the petty bourgeoisie right (the Trinamul), including sections which were representative of partisan communal elements such as the Jamaat-e-Ulema Hind.

Apart from this motley political crowd in the opposition, Neo-Gandhian groups from civil society, including voices such as Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (a non-governmental entity, which does not participate in elections) also ranged themselves against the government. For these sections, the problematic was not merely the allegation of excesses committed in the name of development, but the whole concept of development in itself. That industrialisation is seen as a sine qua non by the state government and the CPI(M) for development, is not a vision that is shared by these neo-Gandhian sections, for whom no imperative to disturb “idyllic” peasant life can be justified. One could call these sections reminiscent of the Narodniks or even the anti-industry Luddites in the political spectrum.

Thus even though ostensibly, the likes of Medha Patkar articulated their concerns about the non-democratic means of functioning of the state government, the fundamental problem for these sections as has been evinced from their “politics” across the country, is a serial opposition for the concept of industrial development inasmuch. A better term for such outfits led by Medha Patkar, could be “post-modern”.

One could therefore say that, the turf war in Nandigram is very much a class-war, except that the State government and the Left have to be bound by the liberal instruments of the Constitutional processes, while the petty bourgeois right wing opposition willfully rejects these instruments and performs foul play, aided and abetted tactically by sections disillusioned with what they call, “reformist” leftism. At best, such an alliance is incredibly opportunist, and even more critically, this alliance does not subject itself to the norms by which the state government is judged. One therefore cannot better explain the months of anarchy and egregious behaviour of the BUPC, which was bent upon declaring Nandigram as a “liberated zone” despite the shifting of the SEZ project. If the Trinamul Congress considered itself as a parliamentary party, subject to liberal norms, it should have declared victory at the precise time that the government backed off from the SEZ moves and should have used this as a platform to garner and win support in forthcoming elections. Instead, the Trinamul thought it apt to emulate the Keshpur model, of using Nandigram as a platform for a “military victory” which could be used to enthuse sections opposed to the Left. It was even more easier for the Naxalites and other ultra-left elements to acquiesce in this plan, partly because such “liberation” was part of their understood praxis and partly also because of the fact that there was no other means to dislodge the well entrenched CPI(M) and it's partners from rural Bengal.

Meanwhile, the government in the centre, favorable to the big bourgeoisie classes has been very silent about the problems that have developed in Nandigram. It is essential to understand that the big bourgeoisie sees land acquisition for mega-projects as favourable and insists upon incentive after incentive (social bribe in correct terms, as put by Prabhat Patnaik) to be provided by the state for involving this class in development. Therefore it is not surprising that the big bourgeoisie have continued to repose their faith in the “reforming ways” of “Brand Buddha”, and have been gung ho about the mode of industrialisation that they have envisaged for West Bengal.

State Government's role, the Left Front and its problems

This is however not to absolve the role of the state government and the ruling party in the mess either. Yet, one needs a thorough understanding of the turn toward adopting the same policies, that are derided by the CPI(M) as neoliberalism, in the state (the SEZ is a culmination of which).The main problem that the Left Front government faces is how to industrialise, with limited power in a liberal bourgeois federal set-up. Land reform, the chief achievement was still a bourgeois measure helping in securing of property and land for small peasantry, giving them security and purchasing power. Yet the CPI(M), just as any avowed Marxist party wanted to continue the process of further release of productive forces, inevitably industrialisation.

Hampered by fiscal constraints, and other factors (labour militancy is incorrectly termed as the main problem) such as the national measure of freight equalisation and antipathy of the big bourgeoisie to a leftist regime, the state perforce had to embark upon an industrial policy that had to be private-investment led, even as it took up measures to protect and revive sets of sick public sector industries. Owing to the dominant economic ideology prevalent in the nation of which West Bengal was a part, and from whose problems of crisis the state could not escape and added to that the burden of increased pressure on agriculture due to diminishing holdings and consequently lower increases in productivity, the state government was squeezed into adopting the goal of private investment led growth. The origin of the saga at Nandigram is but a symptom of this goal.

Added to this assessment, is the fact that 30 years of “parliamentarism” and state rule has created a new dialectic that governs the class character of the largest left party, the CPI(M). The party is seen to be mostly supported by sections of the small peasantry, the state government workers, teachers and that one could term that the support base was quite “petty bourgeois” and not quite “revolutionary working class”. The emphasis on the middle peasantry to play a transformatory role, can rest on the theoretical understanding that since this class is exposed to capitalism in contrast to the rural proletariat, they can act as allies of the working class and tenurial reforms ensured this alliance. However, if whether this was truly the case in West Bengal is what is debatable.

But primarily, the need of the hour is to pitchfork the debate on industrialisation back on to the leftist mainstream. What exactly is the mode and tenor of release of productive forces in this new situation of a globalised world and a certain system of federalism, where federal state power seems drastically reduced? It is for the economists and Marxists to articulate necessarily and immediately a path of industrialisation learning from the lessons in Nandigram. A viable alternative (to that practised by other state governments in the country) than just being “a better state government” is what the CPI(M) must offer in West Bengal. The entire left constituency today is looking at this party to deliver and hopefully the incidents of Nandigram will act as a spur to rejuvenate the party to the level that it functioned when it first came to power.

Sporting Vision

Under the direction of Union sports minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, the sports ministry in India has emphasised the need for transforming India into a leading sporting nation in quick time, by combining sport development along with youth development. This vision, which has the handiwork of Mr. Aiyar, who happens also to be the Panchayati Raj (Local Government and institutions) minister, was made into a drafted sports policy document. Whether or not such a draft policy would be implemented sincerely, it must be acknowledged at least that such a vision was long needed to be arrived at, and thankfully it has been articulated now.

India's record as a sporting nation in international competition, or for that matter the internal record for sport development is in one word, abysmal. For despite being the second most populous nation in the world, the country has been simply pathetic as a performer in the Olympics or in other international competition. Sport in India today is monopolised by one game: cricket, the reasons for whose success are diverse. Other sports lack the organising strength and monetising power that cricket has, both dialectically linked to the popularity of this particular game.

Unfortunately people have tended to link up the emergence of cricket as the only monopoly popular sport as a chief reason for lack of patronage for other hitherto well liked sport, such as hockey. This way of looking at things is flawed, as the success of cricket has been due to a interlinking of various factors, primarily got to do with the organisation that goes into running the sport itself. While the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is criticised (and rightly) incessantly for being a non-transparent organisation, greedy to make more and more money, it is not well understood that despite these obvious flaws, the BCCI has created a wholesome structure for the sport of cricket to be played in the country. From school to club to age group to state to regional levels, regular perennial tournaments are played. Presence of urban infrastructure for cricket in the form of maidans and grounds is of an order much better than compared to other sports. While India's success in cricket took a while in consolidating, much has got to do with the organising strength of the sport. It also helped that India won a tournament (the World Cup of 1983) unexpectedly and despite being an underdog, which gave the popularity of the sport a major boost, in turn helping fuelling further success leveraged through the organising power. It is no wonder that cricket remains the most marketed sport in the country and it has benefitted from the economic reforms too simultaneously.

Much of the blame that is being laid on cricket for its monopolising power is based on the fact that cricket receives stupendous marketing and corporate support, something that is denied to other sport in the country. This angst is misplaced, as it is based incorrectly on the expectation that sport thrives only through corporate recognition and support. At best, in this author's opinion, corporate support would only be an add-on, for primarily such support kicks in only after the platform for the popularity of the sport has already been laid. This platform has to come from the state alone. Emphasis (as the draft document shows clearly) on state support and investment in sporting facilities and competition was already made in a 1984 vision document, but which failed to fructify simply because of the incorrect approach.

The approach previously put in was top-down and ad hoc (a stigma that was linked to dirigiste India), with little or no leeway for involvement of local institutions in development of sport. The presence of several sporting federations, each headed by bureaucratic mandarins in charge of running the particular sport without laying any grassroot emphasis on inculcating enthusiasm for sport through mass mobilisation and for sport facilities across the country, didn't help much at all. Sporting federations in India are run by unaccountable bureaucratic officials who keep retaining their posts year after year despite no sufficient accrual to the popularity or even health of the particular sport. In contrast to countries such as Cuba, where sport federations are run by ex-sportspersons and purveyors of excellence, in India, sporting federations are cash cows run by ex-bureaucrats, politicians whose knowledge and relation to the particular sport is at best insignificant. From football to badminton, sporting federations in India have been run by politicians and bureaucrats who have led these associations for years without a break either in their tenure or in the string of unimpressive growth of these sports.

It was no wonder that for example in badminton, a seasoned hero, Prakash Padukone took up cudgels against the BAI (Badminton Authority of India) chief for serious inaction and mal-efficiency in promoting the sport, a few years back. The result of such action by Padukone was dramatic. In a few months time, the structure for badminton playing and promotion was so altered that many new youngsters were getting to become international class, and badminton organisation in the country started gaining a certain degree of stability of order of functioning when a sportsperson such as Padukone was involved in authoritative running.

Yet even this correction of an anamoly is not enough. As Mani Shankar Aiyar emphasises, a whole change in vision for sport is needed. Sport has long been seen as mere amusement in the country in contrast to the emphasis that it has enjoyed across the world for centuries as an important tool and arena for development and community building. And the sports minister has been wise to redirect the vision to inculcate the essence of such emphasis in the grassroots level, at village panchayats for example. The sport ministry has decided to give large impetus to local sports in India, hitherto completely neglected. A bottom-up approach, aided by the Centre and State Governments (sports is now being considered to be part of the Concurrent List in the Constitution), apart from linking up sports development to youth development from the local institutions' level seems much more sanguine.

Mani Shankar Aiyar has rightly found the correct model to emulate, that of the socialist structures in China and Cuba, where state involvement has played a major role in sport development, as is clearly seen in the medal output of these nations in international competition. Even a capitalist society such as the United States, relies heavily on regulatory associations at the grassroots levels (in schools and colleges) for sport promotion, even as this structure is buttressed by corporate and media support in the higher levels. Sport as envisaged in the vision document, is taken up as a means to achieve wider goals of community building within the nation.

Aiyar has also pointed very correctly that the belief that conducting major tournaments and competitions (Asian Games/ Commonwealth Games) and concurrent heavy investment to build facilities for the same (nearly 500 crore of public money is spent for the 2010 Commonwealth games in Delhi) would spur on popularity and recognition for the nation is fairly inadequate a means for promoting sport. It is necessary to build sportsmanship and competitive sportspersons and not just look at short term benefits of conducting competitions and building short term sport infrastructure. Unfortunately not all share this well elucidated opinion, within the ruling party in India.

Many a youngster friend of mine, which whom I grew up, who had outstanding potential for taking up sport as a career, gave up owing to lack of support and encouragement. Hopefully this vision articulated by the sports ministry in India would create more opportunities for the huge chunk of younger generation people in the country, which could be a templar for other third world nations too.

Article to be published in The Post

Re-Crossing the Rubicon-III

The third and concluding part in series of articles on "Independent Foreign Policy" published in The Post.

In the preceding sections, we had established the debate on foreign policy vis-à-vis the Indo-US nuclear deal. It was made clear that the context of India’s new paradigm shift in foreign policy toward a more pro-unipolar world is what has raised hassles in the culmination of the nuclear deal. The third edition of the series shall focus on the vision of ‘independent foreign policy’, for the Indian nation.

As such, this vision is only an updated continuation of what Jawaharlal Nehru had envisaged for India after its independence, the policy of ‘non-alignment’. Non-alignment as a term was significant in the bipolar world, and some may question its relevance today. But indeed, as a unipolar hegemon (the US) sets about protecting its interests such as energy security and geo-strategic control of vital regions across the world, non-alignment still has a resonant significance. It is another matter that India abides by non-alignment today only as a symbolic gesture for an avowed policy of the past and there has been a near unbridled thrust toward ‘bandwagoning’ – a term in international relations theory that suggests getting into coalition with a stronger power to realise benefits of such a subordinate relationship.

What would therefore be the alternative? There are two ways to look at them. One way would be to reject the whole concept of recognising the division of the world into powers and work toward a moral imperative, i.e. affirmation toward disarmament, supporting humanitarian positions across the world with respect to conflicts, etc. The other way is to recognise that no amount of unilateral moral imperative can reap dividends in a hard world that dances to the tunes of the logic of power alone. In other words, where the world is organised into units of self-interest, each trying to maximise its benefits (power or security) in an unorderly organisation of power, it is better to mimic such impulses and base foreign policy on a cost-benefit analysis. The latter way would mean that India’s interests as a nation are not rewarding if bandwagoning alone is considered a policy and that there are limits to the same. The former approach would conversely suggest that India’s core capacities as a normative democratic unit can be used for salutary benefits across the world. This writer argues that India’s historical foreign policy was a combination of both these approaches and that this mix should be reaffirmed. This would mean turning back to the paradigm shift made in the late 1990s and updating the historical approach with capabilities acquired lately.

Once we have established the contours, it is not quite difficult to formulate policy within this broad approach. This means that India should be bold enough to articulate its renewed support for progressive movements of self-determination against neo-imperialism. And there must be as much commitment to raising confidence in the neighbourhood and across the world of India’s normative philosophy. Support for the Palestine movement and a peaceful resolution to the conflict in this region must not be confined to verbal statements alone, but broader diplomatic relations with the Palestinian authority has to be established. In the neighbourhood, political differences such as border problems should be given primacy of attention and their resolution must be hastened by both a commitment to give-and-take, as also by privileging economic ties to mitigate these irritants. Thus better cross-border trade with China and intensive border talks are the need of hour, while innovative solutions to the vexed Kashmir problem by involving the people themselves must be contemplated. A hands-off policy on internal issues that are being resolved through various sections of society in countries such as Nepal (where moves are afoot to establish a constitutional republic) while at the same time, positively intervening in areas torn by environmental disasters (the post-Tsunami relief operations in Sri Lanka or the perennial flood-related problems in Bangladesh) through humanitarian aid are other sanguine steps. At the same time, where the nations in the neighbourhood are suffering because of internecine conflict, India must act positively to ensure not only humanitarian relief, but also supporting progressive steps that ensure a democratic environment for addressing grievances at various levels within that nation. For example, in Sri Lanka, India would be better off not to meddle in the ethnic conflict whose resolution must be decided by the ethnic communities involved, yet whenever approached for facilitation of dialogue or peace building, India should not shirk its responsibilities. In essence, a nuanced policy of non-interference, yet progressive assistance must guide India’s policies in the neighbourhood.

Internationally, the emphasis on disarmament must be renewed and this cannot be done by trying to cohabit in the same institutions that create a caste system of differentiation of power such as the UN Security Council (UNSC) or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the unofficial Nuclear Weapons club. On issues that determine immediate ‘national interest’, such as energy security and scouring for energy resources across the world, India would do fine without indulging in debilitating competition, but mutual cooperation. The Chinese-Indian joint cooperation in energy in countries such as Syria and Sudan is one such example. The creation of a pan-Asian energy grid through the ‘peace pipeline’ and cooperative energy sharing based on mutual benefits is another necessary step.

For being able to achieve all the above, India would have to break off the shackles imposed by the binding relationship with the US. India’s neo-liberal model of growth has helped itself become a outsourcing and service providing partner to several American corporates and this closeness of business ties is forcing elites in the country to accept that a strategic bond with the US is a necessity. Unfortunately, India’s vital interests in regions such as West Asia will be drastically undercut because of the strategic bond and India would be well off not trying to reduce its options of energy ties with Iran or moral support to the Palestine cause, both of which are problematic for the US and its chief strategic ally, Israel.

At the same time, the liberal institutions of the US, its universities, its technology laboratories and its new economy companies offer very progressive avenues for India’s ambitions to become a ‘knowledge power’ and therefore, a growing relationship with such institutions should not be discouraged. In essence a line should be drawn between a strategic bond and a mutually cooperative progressive relationship. Too many strategic commentators and obsequious media pundits have not been able to distinguish between a bond and a relationship, which pretty much explains the gung-ho reaction to the nuclear deal despite the strategic caveats in contrast to the near non-enthusiasm to the even more fecund energy tie up through the ‘peace pipeline’.

India can play an even more vital role in humanitarian and civil society building moves across the world. India’s experience in conducting a stable democratic and civic order in its environs can be leveraged in other areas around the world, where such exemplars could be emulated. Recently for example, the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took inputs on local institutions and governance from the experience of Panchayati Raj in the Left-ruled Indian state of West Bengal. The splendid efforts of the Election Commission in India, which has played a yeoman role in ensuring free and fair elections in inhospitable terrains, can be used in countries in Latin America and Africa where democracy has been a hesitant starter because of the underdevelopment of impartial institutions. Innovative policy should govern bilateral relationships with the countries in the Latin American and African regions, without recourse to narrow national interests.

The above is not quite a blueprint, but it establishes in an ad hoc manner, the broad contours of the meaning of ‘independent foreign policy’. It would, however, require to be seen how much the policymakers in India will divorce themselves from being attached to elite interests alone and adhere to the vision that came about after independence.

(Concluded)

Indian Express: Ace Liar

The Indian Express is known to be a pro-libertarian bourgeois paper. One need not find fault with this. Every paper has an agenda building role, apart from a critical-investigative and an credible-informational role, as N.Ram once wrote in an article in The Hindu .

In other words, the paper must play a truthful role even if it has a particular position to take. The Indian Express is renowed for a strong critical investigative role that it adopts as its motto of journalism. However, being a pro-bourgeois paper, it has been so dishonest and blatant in its apathy and hatred for working class agitations, working class based political parties and working class issues, that it has forgotten its credible-informational duty.

Two instances suffice to explicate this matter:

a) The most recent of this shameful agenda building at the cost of truth by the Indian Express was vis-a-vis indigenous nuclear energy generation. The Indian Express carried an article on it's front page quoting a letter from the NPCIL Chairman, SK Jain that there was a huge shortage of fuel for the indigenous power plants and they were running at a hugely reduced capacity and that the only way out of this morass was for the culmination of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal.

Thankfully the Indian Express' bluff was called by CITU leader, Tapan Sen, who wrote to Dr. S.K.Jain seeking clarifications. Here is verbatim the report from People's Democracy:

Dear Dr Jain,
Kindly refer to the leading news item appearing in the Indian Express today quoting you on the fuel shortage crippling India’s nuclear power plants which are currently running at half capacity. The news item also goes to the extent of stating that “there has been a steady decline in operating capacity of reactor over the years”.

Unfortunately, in the Annual Reports (2006-2007) of Department of Atomic Energy and NPCIL which have been placed in Parliament such critical constraint, as enumerated in the Indian Express, has not been highlighted at all. As a matter of fact in your statement in the 20th Annual General Meeting of your company on 03.08.2007 you had assured that the capacity factor of 63 per cent would improve further by September 2007. In the Annual Report of DAE, power generation till December 2006 had been shown more than targeted generation.

Will you please clarify at the earliest?

Dr S K Jain's Reply:

This has reference to your letter dated October 29, 2007, regarding the news item appeared in the Indian Express of October 29, 2007.

I would like to clarify that I have not spoken to the reporter in recent past, who has contributed to the news item appeared in the Indian Express edition of today. As such the news item quoted me is totally incorrect I have taken up the above matter of misquoting with the Editor of Indian Express.

I would like to inform you that NPCIL today has 17 reactors, two of Light Water type and 15 of pressurized Heavy Water type which are in operations. Out of these reactors two light water units and 11 pressurized heavy water units are operating the remaining three have been taken out of operation for renovation, upgradation and maintenance works, 13 units are operating at various power levels to match the current uranium production.

I would like to bring out that the country has enough resources of natural uranium to support the operation of 10,000 MWe PHWR type units.

The mining and milling of the above resources are being taken up by the Department of Atomic Energy to match the progress on nuclear power plants. Work on additional mines and mills at Jaduguda was started around 2002 and is in final stages in the meantime three units of 1080 MWe, which were under construction, got completed faster before schedule Early completion of 3 units and certain delays in completion of additional mining/milling project created a mismatch between the demand (increase) and supplies of uranium to meet the situation innovative operating strategy has been worked out in order to keep maximum stations running and getting maximum possible power output.

I am happy to inform you that the mines have been commissioned and the processing mill has started trial production which will increase the production of the uranium and is expected to take care of the mismatch in the demand and supply.

For supporting the future expansion programme works on mining at Chitrial in Andhra Pradesh and Gogi in Karnatka has been take up. For further implementation of uranium supply, action has been initiated to start minning at Lambapur in Andhra Pradesh, Domiyasath in Meghalaya.

I hope the above gives the correct situation as it exists.

The above is enough to incriminate the Indian Express for not only shoddy reporting, but also for deliberate and malicious misquoting of a technocrat-official to suit its agenda. This is however, not the only instance or an exception in the game of duplicity that the Indian Express has played to follow its nefarious ends. There existed another such report, as shown below.

b) On May 6, 2005, Indian Express carried a report titled, "Dear Comrade Prakash...", ostensibly to highlight that a public official from Sewa Bank had written a sarcastic and stinging letter to Prakash Karat asking him to understand the necessity for pension reform. Only, the official, Ms. Jayshree Vyas, later confirmed to People's Democracy, that she never wrote such a letter, but had only sent a piece with her views on pension reforms to the Indian Express, which had duly added masala , distorted her views, added its own lines on Prakash Karat's supposed quotes on the pension bill, and changed the tone and tenor of the piece to suit its ill guided agenda.Subhashini Ali in the People's Democracy was stinging with her critique of the Indian Express' immoral methods of building its agenda, and rightly so.

In essence, media outlets such as the Indian Express deserve the highest opprobium for peddling falsehoods in trying to set its agenda of anti-Left polemics and politics. The vigilant readership and masses who read newspapers should be alert to such tactics of manipulation adopted by Shekhar Gupta and his cohorts at Indian Express.

Inhumanity revisited

Editorial to be published in EPW next week.

Revelations by Tehelka can only shame us more about the 2002 Gujarat murders

Even as assembly elections in Gujarat draw near, a “sting” operation conducted by the magazine, Tehelka has thrown more light on the subversion of justice and how the state administration aided the horrific pogrom in 2002 in the aftermath of the Godhra deaths. The frank comments made to the Tehelka undercover reporter by perpetrators as well as some of those arguing the government's case in judicial bodies to the reporter expose the degree of state complicity in the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated five years ago. Even allowing for a degree of ugly bragging on camera on the part of the functionaries of the various Sangh parivar outfits such as the Bajrang Dal, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), there is no doubt, if ever there was one, of the extent to which the state is complicit in those mass killings.

We can only be shamed when we watch and hear one political activist after another, one state official after another and one lumpen after another boast about their roles in the pogrom (from providing logistics for the rioting to taking part in the killings) and recount the support the state silently gave to the rioters. The accused describe in detail how they had participated in incidents such as the killing of former member of parliament, Ehsan Jafri, how they were shielded by senior government officials and even got help from the police while committing those horrifying acts.

The reaction of the political parties in Gujarat has been on predictable lines. While the BJP has dismissed the operation as being politically motivated, the Congress has been cautious, fearing that the Tehelka operation would actually benefit chief minister Narendra Modi in his bid for re-election. The BJP is riven with dissent and internal conflict in the state ahead of the elections. Senior leaders such as Gordhan Zadaphia (the former home minister, who held this ministry during the killings), Keshubhai Patel and former chief minister Suresh Mehta are some of the people who are identified among the dissidents. Civil society organisations, however, have reacted quickly and have asked for the tapes to be admitted as proof of involvement of the accused in the various cases being tried. Already the Nanavati-Shah commission inquiring into the riots has affirmed that the Tehelka tapes will be verified as part of the allegations made against the accused.

The survivors of the pogrom meanwhile still live in horrific conditions with little sympathy and support from government institutions (EPW, October27). They have been herded into resettlement areas with little support in terms of facilities and far removed from their means of livelihood. For all the talk of a “Vibrant Gujarat”, a vision promised by the current chief minister, the state of existence of people displaced (often forcibly by the rioters, in order to grab their land) makes one feel appalled by the insensitivity of the administration. Several incidents in the past few years confirm the acute communalisation of governance and the tearing up of the secular fabric in the state.

Against this background, the Tehelka revelations cry out not only for justice to be dispensed and not to be delayed any further, but also for drastic measures to be undertaken to reverse the communalisation of society in Gujarat. A first step would be to rehabilitate the victims justly and to ensure basic means of livelihood to those who have been living as internal refugees, virtually ghettoised, in their own state. The role of the judiciary in ensuring punishment to the perpetrators of the crimes has to be re-emphasised. Several cases are still pending following applications to transfer them outside Gujarat. The findings of the sting operation have to be taken cognisance of by the courts that are trying the cases related to the post-Godhra violence, especially the Naroda Patiya and Gulbarg Society incidents referred to in the sting operation.

The BJP is pinning its hopes on Narendra Modi leading the party back to power in the December elections. The chief minister is projecting a different image and is offering a vision of development in contrast to the communal rhetoric that was used to get back to power in 2002. Irrespective of the verdict, justice must be ensured for the victims of the pogrom. It is necessary that the Supreme Court takes cognisance of the fact that the state institutions in Gujarat are thoroughly communalised and offer little hope for both the victims as well as survivors, most of whom are from the minority community, and that the government in power has shown no inclination to better the lives of the victims.

Re-crossing the rubicon-II

The previous column set the stage for understanding the differences that were causing political opposition to the Indo-US nuclear deal. The assertion was that the opposition was primarily based on the aspect of “independent foreign policy”. While the protagonists are suggesting that the deal would in fact ensure that the “independent foreign policy” of India would have more leeway through the culmination of the deal, the antagonists suggest that the strategic embrace by America would essentially make India a subordinate ally to the hegemon, drastically reducing the width of independence in foreign policy matters. We shall try to work a bit more on these arguments, trying to establish the rationale for the same, in the course of this essay.

The shift in foreign policy toward closeness with the US over the past few years in India, has been justified by the protagonists as being necessitated because of a convergence of interests and not because of a quid pro quo or pressure from the hegemon. The nuclear deal is seen as a logical culmination of this shift. Thus, in the updated world order (since the collapse of the socialist bloc), it was in India's interests to play the balance of power game in Asia, work upon to neutralise the growing hard power capability of China, continue to have the leverage to act unilaterally in the environs of the south Asian region to confront terror (which has sympathy and support from other nations) and so on. For these strategic thinkers, who have thrived on this understanding of neo-realism, the shift of an even closer relationship with the United States is no leap from moralpolitik to realpolitik, but mere updation of realist needs. Getting the nuclear deal done, would place India in the high table of powers, being recognised as a responsible nuclear power, and provide it with an ability to partake on decisions that affect the world. With a booming economy (notwithstanding the appalling degree of inequality and continuing poverty), India could now have a decisive say on affairs of regulating international issues, is the argument made by the pro-deal enthusiasts. A new ability to use “soft power”, i.e economic aid and humanitarian missions, to suit the national interests, would be guaranteed now, such is the opinion.

The strategic closeness between India and the United States is asked to be necessitated because of the immediate threat that supposedly faces both these nations- radical pan-international terror. Realists see this as a threat to the liberal international order of states and ask for closer state co-ordination in order to eliminate this threat, termed as 'jihad'. The engagement and military balance against China is seen to re-order the balance of power both in the region and internationally.

How do the antagonists to this deal react on the same area of contestation - strategic affairs? They argue that the so-called convergence of interests doesn't really exist. India's historical foreign policy, even if moored in realism, has a priority that is not quite shared by American hegemonic interests. The American emphasis on unilaterism and on concepts such as pre-emption in use of military power as well as the new strong ideological impetus on hard power capabilities to continue to establish the American empire (as articulated by the Vulcans in the neo-conservative US establishment) is in odds with Indian interests. No amount of cohabition with American interests will help solve India's cross border problems and interests in maintaining peace in the near-environs. Long standing engagement with China is a must not just for the region, but also to establish a genuine trading order beneficial to the citizenry in both the nations. And threats to India's security cannot be merely tackled by tactics such as pre-emption or big-brotherliness in the neighbourhood, but by creating enough avenues of positive engagement, as shown by the Gujral doctrine in the mid-nineties (fruits of which are already seen in relations with countries such as Sri Lanka and Nepal).

The antagonists say that those who support the closeness with American hegemony to tackle terror, do not understand the structural reasons for the rise of terror in itself. The US has always strived to control energy resources across the world and while doing so, has created vast swathes of disenchantment in areas of west Asia, for e.g. The disenchantment has given rise to radical tendencies and more US pressure and unilateral action has actually been the reason for the sustenance of forces such as the Al Qaeda. Today, the US-Israeli power axis is moving toward creating more problems in the region by adopting a hard stance against the Iranian state, least bothered about the problem that it will only force Iran to act even more hostile. India cannot and must not ignore the threats to its own security if the US plays on notions such as the “clash of civilisations” thesis to underline its hegemonic actions across the world. India has vital energy and strategic interests in Iran, which will be wrecked if the US has its way as it had done in Iraq.

The whole balance of power game against China also has its shortcomings. China affirms to move toward a peaceful development programme, and to concentrate on mitigating its own internal problems effectively. The unnecessary ratcheting up of notions of the Chinese threat would only invite hostility at a time, when the scope of improvement of relations has been never better before. Russia, a time tested ally has also expressed serious disappointment with the way India has steadily eroded it's ties of friendship. A senior ex-diplomat and specialist in the Russian-Central Asian region, M.K.Bhadrakumar pointed out how India was losing out on a stable partnership with the Russians by embarking on a path of gradual erosion of ties, through lack of people-to-people contact, etc. A strategic embrace of relations with the United States would further undercut this problem.

More importantly, a critique is made of the “coming together of democracies”argument. Despite the formal similarity in the processes that determine formation of leadership and power in both the nations (i.e regular elections and democratic processes), a substantive evaluation would belie this understanding. The US is still ruled by elite interests, which regulate the distribution of power internally, and whose interests (i.e. Big capital interests) in the world require the perpetuation of hegemony and control over other sovereigns through various forms of pressure. It is the interest of “big capital” that has overseen the machinations in west Asia and the current quagmire in Iraq. It is indeed the interests of this section that has dictated structural adjustment economic policies of post-colonial nations, and obviously it is this interest that ultimately suggests a concert of closeness with India. One cannot divorce class interests from determining how the power game in the world plays out. The opposition in India, particularly the left, is aware of this and has articulated its opposition to the nuclear deal and the strategic partnership with the United States acutely opposed to such interests.

Is “independent foreign policy” in a world dominated by hegemonic interests of an unilateral superpower a chimera? Is there just one way of running a nation (the American “free market” way or the highway) and just one way of determining foreign policy prerogatives (contain and repel any force that is working against the logic of free markets)? These are the primary questions that have been pitched onto the debating circles as India embarks on its decision whether or not to sign a caveat-loaded nuclear deal with the United States. We will explore as to what indeed are the options and policies that would drive India's “independent” foreign policy in the forthcoming sections.

(To be continued).

Re-crossing the rubicon – I

http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=125313&catid=11

http://thepost.com.pk/PrevColumns.aspx?src=Srinivasan%20Ramani

A known strategic commentator in India termed the growing nexus with the US and overt nuclear weaponisation as undertaken by successive Indian governments since the early and mid-1990s as akin to “Crossing the rubicon”. The paradigm shift in the Indian foreign policy from non-alignment to adjustment to a new world dominated by a hegemon was welcomed in a sense by this commentator, whose views in turn were lapped up and rejoiced in the elite strategic circle, most of them beholden to the ruling classes’ and elite interests. A roadblock to the flowing currents across the rubicon toward an all encompassing strategic embrace of the US was, however, placed recently by a much maligned section of the Indian polity, the Left. Using its modicum strength to the fullest potential, the Left used the political circumstances to enforce a firm pause on the process of strategic alignment with the US, as defined by the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Why and how this had to be achieved are questions that this writer will delve with, in the course of a few articles in these columns.

The nuclear deal, popularly known as the 123 Agreement signed between the US and India is in doldrums. As no operationalisation of the deal has taken place (the next step was the negotiation of a safeguards agreement with the IAEA), because of political expediency, and since experts believe that the next steps in the operationalisation would require to be completed within an all-important timeline that suits the Bush presidency’s tenure, and because the Left is steadfast in its opposition to the implementation of the next step, a denouement favouring the completion of the deal seems not in the offing. If indeed this is the case, it would mark a major policy triumph for the Left in the country, who have protested against the deal, primarily because of the context which connotes the agreement. Remarkably this context is invoked only by the Left in India, while it is explicitly stated by the US government too. The context involves the building up of a strong strategic partnership between the US and India, involving collaboration between the respective militaries on security, logistics and strategic interoperability, investment and business ties in agriculture, retail and high technology, as well as increased congruence in foreign policy as determined by the US’ worldview of “spreading democracy”. The context is specified out even explicitly in the US legislature’s Hyde Act, which enabled the signing of the civilian nuclear 123 Agreement between the US and India. The Hyde Act has provisions that clearly mention that India must conform to what the US considers are policies that are in congruence of its own, related to countries such as Iran.

It is this worldview and strategic foreign policy context that is opposed tooth and nail by the Left, which wants the continued affirmation of the policy of non-alignment that drove India’s external relations since independence. Basically the concept of non-alignment was very much moored in realism (contrary to its critics’ opinion) as the policy helped India steer clear of alignment with ideology-driven ‘polar’ powers in the world while getting benefits from both the regimes (the US and the USSR). Attached to this utilitarian policy was a strong normative advocation of support to nations fighting for freedom from colonialism and solidarity toward other third world nations. The ideology that drove the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was development, as these countries privileged self-development over the causes of supporting the West or building socialism beholden to Moscow or Beijing.

Today, since the end of the Cold War, the changed world has made it imperative for India to reconsider its priorities and the choices are very clear: align with the interests of the unilateral superpower, the US, or promote the cause of a multipolar world by striving to build strategic alliances with other big nations (Russia and China particularly), or work toward balancing the superpower taking confrontationist positions. The last choice would be foolhardy for a country that is striving to continue development, albeit with a greater role for the market in a globalised world. Therefore, the primary debate in the foreign affairs for the country is what to do, i.e. between the first two choices.

This is where the policy followed by successive Indian governments since 1995 must be emphasised. After overt nuclear weaponisation, the orientation of the NDA-led regime and the UPA regime has been to strive to settle differences with neighbours and at the same time, move closer to the US. The NDA regime particularly was gung ho on a strategic partnership with the US, calling the hegemon, a “natural ally”. India was over-enthusiastic in trying to affirm support to even those policies of the US that were considered pigheaded and dangerous to world peace, such as the National Missile Defence (NMD) programme, during the NDA rule. The current nuclear deal is a culmination of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), a sequence of steps agreed upon by the Republican-led US and the NDA-led India. Other initiatives include treaties that will allow for checking proliferation in waters close to the Subcontinent through joint patrols (the Proliferation Security Initiative), inter-operability between the militaries and logistics support (Logistics support Initiative) through a defence framework agreement.

The above ties are justified by its proponents who suggest that such close ties with the US will help India attain great power status, as its inclusion into the ‘nuclear mainstream’ through the legitimacy accorded by the US, its ‘hard power’ capabilities and economic growth numbers would enable India to sit at the high table of power in the comity of nations. The proponents also mention that a closer alliance with the US is mandated to balance China, whose superlative growth as a power in the Asian region is seen as a threat. Building on the already paranoid opinions of China in India, bolstered by select hostile events of the past and present, the proponents have made a case for “bandwagoning with the US”. They also affirm to the fact that leverage in issues (such as Kashmir) that have plagued the south Asian region can be obtained if closer ties with the US are maintained.

The opponents (mostly the sections of the Left supported by others who prefer a continuation of the independent foreign policy) are however clear: any movement for a strategic embrace with the US is fraught with dangers. Apart from being drawn into the whirlpool of American interests, which want to retain hegemony in the Asian region through various subtle means (from containment of rising powers such as Russia and China to engagement), India would lose its ability to secure its own interests vis-à-vis established ties with nations such as Iran in west Asia, the critics argue. The cost of ‘balancing China’ is high too, as it would cut badly into the improving ties with the neighbour. As the US tries to hitch India on to its march for maintaining global superpower status, India risks becoming yet another battleground pitting US interests against those who oppose the same, say the critics. Examples of Pakistan and South Korea are pointed out for negative influence of US strategic interests. The critics also argue that if at all a balance of power is needed, it is at the global level to deter conflicts such as the unjust war in Iraq, born out of unilateral moves by the US to control the resource-rich regions in the world. As the US ratchets up its rhetoric for confrontation against Iran, the critics feel that India would also be drawn into such moves to favour the US, as a quid pro quo for the Indo-US deals. Ambitious programmes that would help India address its energy security, as well as help create a pan-Asia energy grid, such as the peace pipeline between Iran, Pakistan and India would be in doldrums as the US expresses its displeasure at losing its strategic lever in the region. The undercutting of better relations with neighbours is yet another reason offered by the critics.

In essence, the above forms the raison d’être for the Left to oppose the culmination of the Indo-US nuclear deal. The Left has thus brought foreign policy into the core of political contestation in the country and has made it now imperative for the declaration of a blueprint of future Indian foreign policy. What would the contours of such an independent foreign policy be? This will be explored in future sections.

(to be continued)

The writer, trained in engineering and in political science, works with the editorial team at Economic and Political Weekly, and is an avid follower of sports, political economy and the performing arts

Not just spectator cricket...

Not just spectator cricket

Aniket Alam in these columns a few months back (‘The discipline of spectator sports’, The Post, March 21, 2007), had commented that spectator sport, by its competitive nature, disciplined viewers (who are not participants) into actions that are not necessarily driven by real political interests, but simulated from the passions toward the sport itself. This is precisely what has happened recently, as news reports tell us that Australian cricket enthusiasts (bloggers) have decided to pay Indian cricketers on the same coin as some Indian spectators who had used racial taunts against Andrew Symonds during the recent ODI series between India and Australia in India. Pictures showing spectators simulating monkey gestures as Andrew Symonds (who happened to be the man of the series for his splendid batting skills and performance) came on to bat in Mumbai and accusations of racist taunting by spectators in Vadodara have dominated news reports.

Racism in spectator sport is not a new or a less debated phenomenon. European football has its hands full with obnoxious racial treatment of African players in Spain, Italy and even in England. Several punitive administrative measures have been taken by the authorities to curb this menace. The current Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Chairman Michel Platini (a former footballing great himself) vowed to act tough against clubs that were lax in punishing spectators indulging in racist behaviour. The racist nuisance is not limited to spectators alone. Spanish coach Luis Aragones used racist vocabulary and taunts against French superstar Thierry Henry in order to ‘inspire’ Spanish player Jose Antonio Reyes (who was a teammate of Henry for the club Arsenal).

Cricket too has had its cup full of such nonsense. Darren Lehmann of Australia was banned for a few matches for his loud vulgar statement against Sri Lankan players. Brian Macmillan of South Africa had to publicly apologise for using a racist term, “coolie creeper” (which was a term widely used in South Africa those days), to describe a bowling delivery. Australian spectators in Perth were guilty of racist comments and noises against Makhaya Ntini of South Africa.

What has surprised cricket watchers is the behaviour of cricket fans in India. A country that was steadfast against apartheid in South Africa and was instrumental in the isolation of apartheid era South Africa from international sport competition, and a nation that was born through a struggle against ‘white’ colonialism, India seemed to be the last place for the existence of racism, especially during sport activities. Contrary to this image, however, the Indian cricket fans are as guilty of racist prejudice as other ‘white’ fans of other nations. West Indian cricketers, including stalwart performers of not-so-long ago, have long complained of racist taunting by Indian fans in cricket grounds. Comments by some West Indian cricketers that they “are not animals” show up the arrogance and venality of those who have shown racist prejudice against these cricketers.

What explains such behaviour toward visiting cricketers of the non-fair skin? Is it mere expression of hatred toward the other, the team that competes against your own? Or is there something more structural to this venality? In this writer’s opinion, there definitely is. Two levels of understanding are required to explain this phenomenon. The first level is that of the discipline of spectator sport itself, as pointed out by Aniket Alam. As spectators inculcate into themselves the ideology of victory and defeat superseding the real meaning of sport (heck, it is just a pastime!), and as spectator sport in countries such as ours invariably involve international competition and also as the dominant political norm is absorbed by the nature of sport watched, passions that drive such spectators take the form of ideologies such as nationalism. Victory or defeat is a matter of pride or shame for the ‘nation’, never mind the quality of play or skills on display. Operating from the unitary of nationalism and from the binary of win or loss, passions ignited in spectator sport always verge on the irrational. Therefore, for the ordinary spectator, the opposite team member is an enemy and he/she deserves contempt. This anger against the adversary is fuelled commercially, witness the commercial campaigns in Neo Sports (the official broadcaster of the recent series) openly featuring intimidating Australian comments about the Indian team.

The next level of understanding obtains from the existing mores of cultural norms that pervade a society. In India, for example, fairness and fair skins are virtues longed for, sustained by the dominant cultural norms. Crass commercialism has venerated this vice. Cosmetics promising ‘fair skin’ are lapped up by the public. Beauty is determined as and from the level of fairness and a certain degree of fitness and form, fairness however being the predeterminer. Drill this dominant cultural norm into the arena of spectator sport and one can notice the perverse form it takes. Players from the opposition teams (‘enemies’) are targeted for dark skins and gruff looks. It does not matter how well they perform with their skills or how elegantly or clinically they display their abilities on the field. Commercialism itself thrives on these tendencies. For a sample, one has to witness the commercial featuring a female cricket enthusiast using a ‘fairness’ cosmetic to gain confidence and rub shoulders with Kris Srikkanth as a fellow commentator. The ideologies inherent in spectator sport, the dominant cultural norms, constituting the two levels, thus work together in harmony to produce this travesty of retrogression.

Punitive measures against select spectators openly seen performing these egregious acts of hooliganism and racism are of course required. Grounds where these incidents reoccur could be threatened with non-staging of matches and it could be hoped that the fear of commercial loss could force organisers to be more stringent against the spectators, and the watchers themselves could be restrained owing to the same reason. Yet such measures are mere palliatives. The structural dimension inherent will not be cured so easily. The value of sport as a competitive pastime and as a spectacle of human abilities has to be restored. This part is not difficult as intra-national competition, encouragement for participative sport through youth development and support for rural activities can achieve it. Such a process has already been addressed conceptually by India’s sports minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, who also happens to be the local development and Panchayati Raj minister.

The other cultural aspect is a difficult problem to solve. Mindsets favouring irrational concepts such as fairness of skin will not vanish quickly, but there are enough counterexamples of pride in one’s self to disprove the credence of such concepts. Political movements privileging the under-class and subaltern culture have effectively countered dominant norms that set hierarchies based on irrational prejudices.

The day is not far off, hopefully, when participative sports devoid of dominance of regressive cultural norms rule the roost.

The writer, trained in engineering and in political science, works with the editorial team at Economic and Political Weekly, and is an avid follower of sports, political economy and the performing arts

On the Ladies Special

This nice piece has been written by my colleague in a Women special issue of a journal named, "Agenda". The article tells a heartwarming account of "train friends" in Mumbai. Read on....

http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda9_14.jsp

On the ‘Ladies Special’

By Lina Mathias

The women-only compartments on Mumbai’s locals and ‘Ladies Special’ trains are unique spaces for the city’s working women, who have converted the benefits of this reservation to even greater effect. For many, the compartment itself is transformed into a workplace to sell anything from shelled peas to lingerie Neither Hallmark Cards nor Archie's have scheduled a day for ‘Train Friends' or come out with sentimental cards to mark such a day. But for many of Mumbai's 5 million daily train commuters, this category of friendship provides a strong antidote to the unbearable stress of commuting, and the effects it has on their lives.

‘Train friends' travel by the same local at the beginning of the working day and often on the return journey too, share family news, gossip, food, vacation and wedding photographs, and even sing together to the entertainment/chagrin of other commuters. More than men (the only group activity they seem to engage in on trains is playing cards), it is women who take this form of friendship to a different dimension altogether.

These are women who travel long arduous hours every day on the local trains of Mumbai to and from work; women who often use the train itself as a workspace, either to sell food items and other products or to complete household tasks such as cutting vegetables; women who have transformed a daunting daily commute into a social sphere of comfort and sharing.

Local trains in Mumbai, as any commuter would know, have compartments only for women, as well as scheduled ‘Ladies Special' trains. While the women-only compartments have existed for decades, Western Railways introduced the Specials in 1992. On May 5 that year, the first ‘Ladies Special' left Virar station at 7.39 am for Churchgate. The return Churchgate-Virar journey started at 6.13 pm. Central Railways started its own train only for women on July 1 of the same year. It leaves at 8.15 am from Kalyan for CST, and from CST in the evenings at 6.05. Western Railways now has another north-south ‘Ladies Special' from Bhayander to Churchgate, and one in the evening between Churchgate and Borivali.

The benefits of such reservations are immense, but even with the reservations the local Mumbai train is an intensely crowded space. The women-only compartments and trains are the location of harassed squabbling for the ‘fourth seat' (the edge of a three-seat bench, which accommodates an extra person), crying children (who invariably accompany the female relative), an unending stream of hawkers and beggars, catcalls and lewd remarks called out by male passengers from passing trains or platforms, occasional stones hurled by miscreants, and a recent series of attacks by drug-users. All of this can ensure that many women commuters are in a state of irritation and anxiety when they reach their workplace and return home in the evenings or at night.

Over the years, women commuters have converted the benefit of having reserved spaces to even greater effect. The women-only compartments and ‘Ladies Special' have become a microcosm of the socio-economic patterns of the world outside. So vibrant is the ‘Ladies Special', with its multiplicity of activities, that it has been the subject of more than one documentary film. Women-only compartments and trains are not just spaces where some of the irritants recede, but sources of positive work and play that relieve some of the stress of commuting.

The camaraderie and banter between women ‘train friends' may seem spontaneous to an onlooker, but it is usually the eventual outcome of tentative beginnings. Mira Madhavan's group of train friends also began slowly. Mira, a former nurse who works as a teacher trainer, would travel with a friend who boarded the train at Thane, rushed to her favourite window seat and promptly went to sleep until their destination at Dadar. So when Mira heard two young strangers, Shilpa and Phalguni, animatedly talking about health and children's education, she joined the discussion. Soon, another passenger, Karen, also fond of going off to sleep, began joining in the conversations, at a time when she was upset with her son's school and teachers. At Bhandup, Bindu and Chandra would join the group (the two were acquaintances of Shilpa and Phalguni). They began bringing batata wadas from a well-known stall for the group's breakfast on the train, while Mira made ribbon sandwiches. After a while, Chitra and Pooja also joined the group. Chitra's mother-in-law made crochet pieces and the others in the group began asking her to make gift items for their family and friends. Soon they began celebrating birthdays, anniversaries, husbands' and children's birthdays, all on the train. A high point of this friendship came when one of the group members, a bank employee, played matchmaker to one of the single women in the group. Today, the match-made couple has a two-year-old daughter.

“We are still in touch,” Mira says, “but the group split because two of us changed jobs, one had a baby and decided to work from home, and another's husband got a job offer in Dubai and she accompanied him there. None of us has forgotten the good times on the train -- the eating, the laughter, the few dinners we went to, a day picnic to Karjat. But more importantly, the journey put us in an excellent frame of mind to face the working day and the commute. My train friends were wonderful.”

No study in India has specifically measured the effect of the stress of commuting on work and productivity. However, psychologists Richard Wener and Gary Evans at Cornell University in the US have studied how travelling by mass transit can affect the stress level of commuters. When compared with men, they found, women with children are more susceptible to commuter stress and are more likely to carry that stress into the workplace. Women commuters, they write, experienced more stress in the workplace and that stress was exacerbated by the commute; if the women had children at home, they had the equivalent of a second job and hence additional stress.

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions has studied the impact of commuting on the health and safety of workers. People who travelled for more than 45 minutes from home to work (as do most of Mumbai's train commuters) reported higher psychological stress scores, more health complaints (essentially psychosomatic), and greater absenteeism from work due to sickness. Women commuters bore the brunt and had more family difficulties, more travelling complaints, and higher absenteeism.

The Wener-Evans study also found that women benefited the most when transport services improved, which directly resulted in less stress at the workplace. Until the year 2000, women commuters in Japan faced such extensive sexual harassment that the railroad companies decided to provide sections only for women. The first women-only carriages started in Japan in 2000, on the Keio Line. By 2005, train services in all of Japan 's major cities had women-only carriages for at least the morning rush hour.

A few years ago women commuters got the first women-only (and pink-striped!) subway cars in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro as part of a scheme to curtail groping and other forms of sexual harassment. When buses exclusively meant for women were introduced for the first time in Pakistan by the Karachi Green Bus Company, women were relieved. Students and working women had complained that the unwanted male attention was affecting their academic and job performance. Clearly, sexual harassment that occurs even outside the workplace greatly affects women's psychological health and ability to work.

The importance of reserving compartments only for women and having exclusive ‘Ladies Special' trains in Mumbai thus cannot be over-emphasised. This system of reservation, which Indian women rail commuters have had for decades, remains uncommon in other countries. When the bulk of the transport is in private hands, this is not a right that can be demanded. Mumbai might in fact be the only city in the world that reserves an entire 12-coach train for women during peak hours.

To return to our ‘train friends' on Mumbai's locals, like the crochet gifts that the group members bought from Chitra's mother-in-law, many women commuters tap into each other's contacts and hobbies to ease their familial and social obligations and to form supportive networks. The other day, in the Kalyan-VT ‘Ladies Special' a woman realised that her friend's ‘train friend', hastily introduced, was a children's counsellor. A visiting card was hurriedly thrust out; her neighbour was worried about the erratic behaviour of her child and this commuter wanted to help.

A jatra- like atmosphere prevails in the women's second class as well as first class compartments in the ‘Ladies Special' trains. It is a marketplace -- and thereby a workplace -- for many women and children, who sell hair pins, flowers, gajras, cheap Chinese pens that double as torches, toys, colouring books with crayons, magazines, cosmetics, and even lingerie -- the list is inexhaustible. Others sell vaatas (shares) of vegetables like bhindi , beans, shelled peas (these vendors only travel in the evenings), fruits and homemade snacks. Often, the women who sell small packets of dry snacks uniformly priced at Rs 5, give away a packet or two for the children of some of the regular women commuters. Many women commuters prefer to complete their purchases on the train, which enables them to straightaway dash to the bus or autorickshaw queue to get home without wasting precious time.

Asha Sarangi, who travels by the ‘Ladies Special' from Mira Road in the morning, often buys idli-chatni or mini medu wadas from a woman who makes them at home and sells them on the train. “They are hot and fresh and tasty. And the price is very reasonable. Her stuff simply vanishes within minutes,” she says. This vendor, like many others, services ladies' compartments in other trains too, and, along with her husband who looks after the purchase of the raw material and the packaging, depends on the sales for her livelihood. She also takes ‘orders' during festivals for special snacks for women who do not have the luxury of time to make these snacks.

Another category of sellers is somewhat discreet because vending is their ‘second' job -- women who sell saris, salwar-kameez pieces and artificial jewellery, often only in the first class compartment because their prices are steep. Their ‘regular' clients get the first viewing when the new stuff arrives. It is common to hear women commuters placing ‘orders' for a particular colour or texture to give to friends and family members, and disappointed wails when a deadline is not honoured.

Deepali Bhalerao, who travels to Thane in the ‘Ladies Special' from CST in the evening, sometimes likes to travel in the luggage compartment. “Most of the women here have finished selling their wares and have bought vegetables to make for dinner,” she says. “They keep their baskets close by, sit on the floor of the compartment in companionable circles and clean and cut while talking and laughing all the time.”

Deepali treasures the experience of travelling on the Kalyan-bound ‘Ladies Special' a few months ago. A group of 12 women were composing ukhane (couplets that Maharashtrian brides playfully put together with the husband's name in one of the lines). Each woman was given a small note with one word on it and she had to compose an ukhane on the spot that would include this word and her husband's name. It got so exciting, says Deepali, that other commuters joined in and women from the first class compartment next door, who usually do not give the second class commuters a second glance, began prompting words and phrases. “I would have even forgotten to get off at Thane if it was not such an ingrained habit,” she laughed.

Women and work takes on a new colour altogether on Mumbai's locals. Here, the ‘train friends' go on from day to day, from track to track, easing each other's journey as women have been doing down the centuries.

Lina Mathias is Senior Assistant Editor at the Economic and Political Weekly

Unprincipled Politics in Karnataka

Editorial to be published in Economic and Political Weekly

Unprincipled Politics

President's rule in Karnataka has been declared after the breakdown of the alliance between the Janata Dal (Secular) (JD(S)) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The coalition government formed was on the basis of a power-sharing arrangement which envisaged a handing over of the reins of the chief minister's post from the JD(S) to the BJP after 20 months of rule. This arrangement also involved elaborate division of ministries among both the parties. The JD(S) breaking the covenant, refused to hand over the post of chief minister to the BJP, whose nominee, deputy chief minister B.S.Yediyurappa was supposed to replace the current incumbent from the JD(S), H.D.Kumaraswamy, chief minister since January 2006.

This display of breach of trust has been widely berated, for the reasons offered by the JD(S) for their actions amount to nothing. The sudden discovery by the JD(S) of the communal character of the BJP (even as no such classification was made in the first place during the formation of the coalition) will not convince anyone. Simply put, this action by the JD(S) amounts to petty politics.

This form of power sharing arrangement which lays impetus to ministerial posts and executive positions is not new and neither is the drama that follows the breakdown of such arrangements. In the recent past (in 1997), the BJP had a similar arrangement with the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) whose nominee Mayawati as chief minister was supposed to hand over reins to the BJP nominee after a specified period. The transfer of power never happened, resulting in the collapse of the arrangement and declaration of president's rule. A similar situation occurred with the People's Democratic Party (PDP)- Congress arrangement in Jammu and Kashmir, however, after some wrangling, smooth transfer of power did in fact take place.

Most of these arrangements have been made necessary (or atleast such is the reason provided by the parties involved) because of the fragmented nature of the verdicts in the assembly elections. Owing to no decisive victories for any parties in many states, such short-lived and expedient arrangements have been attempted. The sad state of such arrangements is the fact that alliances thus formed, despite the peoples' verdicts, do not coalesce and function according to common policy prerogatives or programmes. The bottomline that governs the formation of such alliances is not a give-and-take on issues or on specific programmatic outlines from the parties that partake in such alliances. It is more to do with the trappings and perks of ministerial power as these posts are seen as avenues to extend patronage to sections and to win over newer segments. Contradictions between the parties are swept under the carpet and the emphasis is on somehow latching on to ministries. The period of early bonhomie invariably vanishes as the alliance enters into a zone of problems, as has proven in the recent case in Karnataka.

The formal alliance between the JD(S) and the BJP was achieved after a segment of the JD(S) which was dissatisfied with the ruling coalition with the Congress (Dharam Singh was the chief minister and JD(S) leader Siddaramaiah was the deputy chief minister in this arrangement after the 2004 assembly elections which lasted till January 2006), broke away to align with the BJP, which had won the single largest number of seats in the elections. The new chief minister Kumaraswamy had justified this unprincipled move by saying that he was keen on a programme of economic development “more important than abstract notions of secularism”. By invoking secularism again as the main reason for the non-transfer of power now, it is clear that alliance was founded upon opportunistic basis in the first instance itself.

The fragmented nature of the polity, with several parties appealing to core sections of the populace has resulted in fractured verdicts, which in turn has meant political arrangements made out of expediency. However fickle a verdict might be, it does not mean that opportunist alliances can be formed without a commonly agreed policy outlook. There is every possibility of instability because of disagreements on various policy positions, but this arrangement is certainly more principled and respectful to the peoples' verdict as compared to a mere portfolio sharing agreement involving rotation of seats of power.

A champion batsman departs..

http://thepost.com.pk/PrevColumns.aspx?src=Srinivasan%20Ramani

http://thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=123214&catid=11

A champion cricketer bids farewell

Yesterday marked the swansong for one of cricket’s most dominating batsmen, Inzamam-ul-Haq. A colossus of a batsman (and not just because of his burly stature), Inzi – as he is popularly known – can stake claim to being one of the best batsmen of this generation. Inzi’s career has been a jolly rollercoaster ride, with elements from the sublime and the supreme to the tragic and the bizarre. All along, however, he has maintained a silent dignity of a champion who has been one of the most dependable bats in the world.

Starting off as an unknown youngster plucked from anonymity, as most Pakistani cricketers were, Inzi’s first stab at greatness was his stellar performances in the 1992 World Cup when his superlative batting catapulted Pakistan to the finals, before contemporary Wasim Akram assured a championship triumph. His potential was highlighted when Imran Khan, the then captain announced that Inzi was the best player of fast bowling in the world. Imran was not far off the mark. Inning after solid inning confirmed this praise.

His batting was an ideal combination of power mingled with finesse. For a man of that bulk, subtlety came surprisingly easy. A good eye, capability to read the seam and swing early and tremendous timing ability characterised his batting all through his career. Added to this strong technical ability was his stubbornness on protecting his wicket and an unflappable attitude. No wonder, his fortitude generally rubbed on his teammates as he shared some excellent partnerships with even tailenders, often trusting their abilities without having to shield them. A recent example was his 92, not out, against South Africa, where he had to bat at number eight and enjoyed a partnership with unheralded tailender Mohammad Asif. The 184, not out, against India in Bangalore was another example of solid batting under immense pressure. Such innings were characteristic of Inzamam, batting was an art made easy.

This easy attitude perhaps was both his strength and weakness, as his cavalier approach to facing the delivery could not be sustained on other aspects of batsmanship, particularly running between the wickets. In this area, Inzi was a perennial malefactor, responsible for scores of run-out mishaps involving himself or his partners. His running foibles resulted in the public caricaturing this aspect of his cricket. Surprisingly, he was a robust fielder, with a canon arm from the outfield and quick reflexes at slips, showing no bit of sloth alleged by many as defining him.

A man of utter calm on the crease, on and off the field, Inzamam’s one black mark was the incident in a match against India in Toronto. Taunted by a raucous spectator on his girth, Inzi lost his nerve and chased the offender with a bat, a scene that was totally against his character. This incident apart, Inzi presented a pious image, nonchalant and gracious in victory and defeat. This cool attitude rubbed on the perennially tempestuous and mercurial Pakistan side, as his captaincy marked a period of unity and integrity in his teams that he led. His was a captaincy by example, as his courageous batting reflected leadership more than vocal admonition or handling of players.

The incident that catapulted Inzamam from being known as a calm, composed and mild-mannered captain to a no-nonsense indignant leader was the Oval Test match spat with umpire Darrell Hair, with the match being forfeited, an occurrence without precedent in Test Cricket. His team accused of ball tampering, Inzamam refused to bite the allegation and preferred dignity over defeat. His stout defence of his team and his standing up to an official, who had a history of controversial decisions against players from the Subcontinent, won him a lot of respect among several cricket lovers, particularly those who believed that cricket was still blighted by racial preference for the stiff upper lip and the white man. His actions, however, invited a four match ban, a censure that did not diminish his forthright rejection of imposed disrepute.

Inzamam’s actions were reminiscent of Arjuna Ranatunga’s stout decision to defend Muttiah Muralitharan after he was called for throwing by umpire Ross Emerson in Australia. While it would not be worthwhile to extrapolate this issue by calling it an act of standing up to colonial attitude, it is not far from the mark to say that Inzamam stood steadfastly for the pride of his team, unfairly accused of malpractice without sufficient proof.

The end to Inzi’s career, however, has been tragic. His captaincy and batting failed to help Pakistan march on to knockout stages of the 2007 World Cup, particularly because of a shocking defeat against Ireland (one of the biggest shocks ever in sport in this author’s opinion). The subsequent death of Pakistan’s coach Bob Woolmer and a tearful retirement for Inzi marked a dark end to his One-Day International (ODI) career. As Pakistan went on a rebuilding mode, Inzi declared that he was playing his last Test match against South Africa in Lahore. He missed breaking the highest runs scored by a Pakistani (a record held by Javed Miandad) exactly by three runs. International cricket’s loss is perhaps the Indian Cricket League’s (ICL’s) gain. Inzamam has signed a contract to play in the much touted Twenty20 league in India.

An eventful career thus marked Inzamam’s international cricket enterprise. From unique displays of sublime batsmanship under conditions of immense pressure to singular and bizarre ways of getting out (he was one of the few batsmen ever to have been given out obstructing the field, and he once fell over the stumps while attempting a sweep shot), from spectacular heights (the 1992 World Cup victory) to abyss (a complete non-show in the 2003 World Cup), Inzamam-ul-Haq has seen it all and experienced it all. He would, however, take immense pride and satisfaction from the fact that he carved a niche for himself among a generation of splendid batsmen like Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Rahul Dravid and Jacques Kallis. He will remain an inspiration for future generation of Pakistani players, as well as for batsmen from the Subcontinent. Pakistan and the Subcontinent owe him a glowing tribute.

The writer, trained in engineering and in political science, works with the editorial team at Economic and Political Weekly, and is an avid follower of sports, political economy and the performing arts

On the Nepal turmoil..

...An editorial published in the Economic and Political Weekly

A Curious Twist

The recent withdrawal of the representatives of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN (M)) from the government has precipitated a crisis of governance and created an impasse for the “seven party alliance” (itself a misnomer, since one of its members, the United Left Front is an alliance in itself) that had taken over power from the king in November 2006. Since the formation of this government, based on a mutual pact between the representatives of the seven political parties/groups and the Maoists, several steps had been taken to steer the political process in Nepal towards the formation of a democratic republic. The institution of monarchy has lost its legitimacy; most political observers now believe that Nepal is bound to become a republic if the elections to the constituent assembly are indeed “free and fair”.

The withdrawal of the CPN(M) from the government at a time when, as is being claimed, some of the key issues raised by them were being addressed, has aroused widespread curiosity. A series of dramatic moves, such as the withdrawal of several of the powers and privileges of the monarch and the adoption of a part “majoritarian”, part proportional representation system of elections, had been initiated by the present government.

Recent events in Nepal, particularly the happenings in the Terai region, suggest a set of clues to disentangle the reasons for the political impasse. The anarchic violence in the plain regions of Nepal, led by a diverse set of groups, whose claims range from madhesi inclusion in the political mainstream and government to independence for the Terai region, has not been contained. The Maoists, who had included marginalised sections such as dalits, madhesis and minorities in their contingent of members of the interim parliament, have not been able to assuage the raging discontent in the Terai. Neither could the government, of which the Maoists were a part, relying as it did on same old patterns of containment and selective appeasement as a response to madhesi demands.

Essentially, the madhesi problem is a cauldron that involves fissures on several axes such as caste and language and not just the differences between the dominant “pahadi” and the madhesi identity. The Maoists had lent support to a madhesi regional front, the Madhesi Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, but the internal fissures in the Terai region have meant that this forum no longer commands predominant support. The Gaur incident of March 21, in which several Maoist sympathisers were massacred by other madhesi partisans, is indicative of the sharp divisions on the ground. The Maoists have blamed the forces backing the royals and foreign interference (India and the US) for this situation and have therefore demanded the declaration of a republic even before the elections to the constituent assembly.

The rapidly deteriorating support for the Maoists in the Terai region and their inability to retain their support base despite commitment to genuine devolution of power and radical economic reforms has in turn created pressures within the party, linking the setback to the party’s participation in government. In a recent party plenum, apparently dissatisfied with the performance of the Maoists in government, many members demanded a reorientation to the goals of revolution. As such, the Maoists had accepted minor ministries in the interim government, perhaps contributing to this dissatisfaction.

The Maoists’ demands for immediate declaration of a constitutional republic in Nepal and a full proportional representation system have therefore to be seen in this context. This “shifting of goalposts” (so termed because the Maoists originally insisted on the question of the republic being decided by the constituent assembly) and withdrawal from government had precipitated the present crisis. In hindsight, the Maoists should have insisted on a full PR system to be incorporated in the interim constitution itself.

The “return to open politics” by the Maoists has necessitated renewed mobilisation and readdressing of demands (as mentioned in the 22-point charter prepared by them before the formation of the government), even as they realise that the containment policy followed by the other parties towards them is limiting their influence. The Maoists still appear committed to the elections to the constituent assembly and there seems no threat of a return to “people’s war”. The political uncertainty suggests unfolding political alignments among the left in Nepal to counter the reunited and strengthened Nepali Congress. Meanwhile, as we go to press, the government has requested the Election Commission to suspend the elections to the constituent assembly (that were slated for November 22) pending a special session of the interim Parliament to consider an amendment to the interim constitution to meet the Maoists’ demands.