Fighting the BJP in the national elections

Article written for the student magazine, "Students' Struggle" on request.

An array of secular forces realise the efficacy of a robust platform against both the Congress and the BJP, therefore to neoliberalism and communalism before the 15^th Lok Sabha elections

As elections to the 15^th Lok Sabha are around the corner, it is becoming increasingly clear that the mandate is going to be fragmented. This is no surprise for watchers of Indian politics, who have long seen a gradual but deep federalisation, regionalisation and greater democratisation of India's polity. More than ever, national elections in India are a derivative choice of the aggregation of state related electoral results (Yadav, Palshikar 2009). Consequently, the national parties are having to adopt state specific strategies or tie up with state specific forces across the country.

That has the seen the gradual polarisation of the polity into three poles – the Congress led United Progressive Alliance (the UPA), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the Left Front anchored Third Front which includes several regional parties spread across various states; and the Bahujan Samaj Party charting its own independent course, but pledging support and participation to a non-Congress led, non-BJP led formation post the polls. Of the aforementioned, the biggest of the three alliances, the UPA and the NDA have both set off to a rocky start in their ability to form a cohesive union before the elections. While in the case of the UPA, its' the Congress' arrogance and oneupmanship¹ that is the greatest hitch, in the latter, its the presence of the huge elephant in the room – Hindutva².

After its loss in the 2004 parliamentary elections, the BJP has gone back to an aggressive re-orientation to its core ideology, Hindutva. Particularly in states, where they have an organisational presence, the BJP, buttressed by other elements of the Sangh parivar have used the Gujarat model of creating a religious polarisation and to play on majoritarian sentiments -eventually paving the way for electoral success using these means.

The cases in point are the states of Karnataka and Orissa. In the latter, the aggressive attacks against minority Christians, particularly in tribal areas such as Kandhamal has made a mockery of law and order in the state. Aggressive mobilisation of hindutva forces (to the consternation of, and yet inaction by its ruling partner – the Biju Janata Dal) has created havoc in tribal regions, where plunder, pillage and rape has characterised the attacks against minorities.

In Karnataka, buoyed by a victory in the state assembly elections owing to the insipid campaigns and politics of the Congress and the Janata Dal (Secular), the BJP has targeted minority institutions such as churches (and prayer halls), for their bloody attacks. Constant use of communal rhetoric, blatant use of regional chauvinism (particularly vis-a-vis the Cauvery issue, that raised its head due to aggressive demagoguery by the current chief minister B.Yeddyurappa just before the elections) has created a situation where right wing zealots have been given a free run in the state. Be it in the murder and pillage of Christians and their property or in the actions by the psychotic fringe group Ram Sene, the response by the BJP government has been reduced to mere wink-winks and nod-nods. As the incidents of Mangalore involving the Ram Sene or the attacks against prayer halls involving the Sangh parivar across Karnataka suggest, the state government has been more intent in blaming the victims of the attack rather than bringing the guilty – unabashed members of the Sangh parivar outfits such as the Bajrang Dal and the Ram Sene, to book.

The message is very clear, the BJP intends to replicate its Gujarat model onto many of its states where it is in power. The question to be asked is why is that the BJP has managed to be successful with this divisive strategy in Gujarat and why does it perceive a similar success in the states where such violent attacks are becoming a regular routine? The answer lies in the inadequacy of political opposition by the UPA central government as also the effete responses to communalism by the bourgeois parties such as the Congress in states where the BJP is in rule. A thorough and committed response to communalism would involve greater mobilisation of the common masses against the menace, building solidarity among and across communities and construct the opposition to communalism as a viable cohesive force that has a clear cut pro-people strategy. But more on this later. It is no wonder that the BJP and its cohorts in the Sangh Parivar are reduced to irrelevance in those states where such a powerful alternative to communalism has been constructed.

Owing to the return to the core ideology of Hindutva, allies hitherto committed to the NDA are finding it jittery and uncomfortable to be associated with the BJP. Parties such as the Janata Dal (United) or the BJD see an instrumental reason to be in alliance with the BJP as they consider that their primary rivals in their respective states – the RJD and the Congress – are part of the UPA and the logic of coalitions have forced their hand into tying up with the BJP. But they sense that the stigma of communalism will affect their electoral fortunes and this angst has reflected in the lengthy haggling that these parties have in seat-sharing with the BJP.

Already parties such as the Telugu Desam Party in Andhra Pradesh, Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu and the recalcitrant Trinamul Congress in West Bengal (all erstwhile allies of the BJP) have decided to hitch their bandwagons to the Third Front and the UPA respectively, cutting away from ties with the BJP. Combining these desertions with the jittery nature of the existing alliances in various states, one notices that the NDA is on a weak footing, primarily due to the divisive and the narrow nature of Hindutva based communalism.

An interesting question is then mooted - why is there not a grand alliance against communalism, something that was in a way articulated through the UPA-Left arrangement the past 4 years before the left withdrew support over the nuclear deal issue? One might ask that if communalism is such a virulent enemy, why isn't there a coming together of all secular forces against this beast? Why is that essentially the avowed secular forces have been represented in two antagonistic fronts? Why isn't secularism as the uniting ideal helping the coming together of these fronts?

The answer is evident - communalism is an enemy that can't be fought through a simple formulaic get together of "secular" forces. A party that claims to be secular cannot merely carry the "secular" card and suggest that it is enough to fight communalism. Hindutva oriented communalism might have an agency in the form of the Sangh Parivar and its several branches, but at the same time, the grounds on which Hindutva thrives, are prepared by structural factors - unemployment, economic crisis, poverty. The foot soldiers of the enterprise of Hindutva utilise the vulnerability of the marginalised, and those under the brunt of an economic system that is socially irresponsible - precisely what neoliberalism is. And neoliberalism is the ideology that governs the economic policy making and mindset of the UPA and its dominant constituent - the Congress as much as the BJP as well. The thinking on matters economic among the BJP and the Congress is practically the same, and owing to this small a distinction, the latter is co-opted to adopt a milder variant of the same communal approach wherever the BJP is strong to try to defeat the party. This is precisely what happened in Gujarat. Concisely, fighting communalism when both the communal and the so called "secular" forces share a common ideological understanding on economic matters is impossible. ³

And that explains that the fight against communalism should be a comprehensive one - based on an approach that privileges an alternative to the dominant neoliberal paradigm, argues for social planning, control and allocation of resources, is people-centric and not subservient to the market (an euphemism for the big bourgeoisie) and adopts a framework that realises the necessity of resisting imperialism and is steadfastly against the same. In essence this is a cohesive progressive agenda that is the only capable one in resisting the march of communalism.

As the nation reels under the impact of a global economic crisis that has pushed metropolitan capital into recession, the opportunity to define an alternative to the dominant neoliberal paradigm over and beyond the "inclusive growth"/"trickle down economics" spiel through solid public support exists. And this opportunity which prioritises the battle for economic ideas and the war against economic inequality, want and hunger, provided it is given a proper generalship by the leadership of the working classes, can overcome the distractions that communalism tries to impose through calls to primordial and religious ideas and the ideology of hate. The manner in which several of the regional parties, with their instrumental understanding of the nuisance value of communalism (the BJP) and their traditional antipathy to the party of the big bourgeoisie (the Congress) are gravitating toward a third front, suggests the resonance of an alternative paradigm based platform - in other words, the third alternative.

References

Yadav, Yogendra and Palshikar, Suhas (2009), "Principal State Level Contests and Derivative National Choices: Electoral Trends in 2004-09", Economic and Political Weekly, VOL 44, No. 06, February 07 - February 13.

Note: This article was written before the BJD withdrew from it's alliance with the BJP in Orissa

---

1. Explained in an editorial titled, "The Congress party’s enemy" written for the Economic and Political Weekly, dated March 13th 2009

2. Vidya Subrahmanyam's article, "Ambition and power play in the time of elections" in The Hindu explains the travails of the UPA and NDA eloquently.

3. Professor Prabhat Patnaik's column in the Frontline ("Breeding ground for communalism",June 20th) expounds this in greater detail.

Escobar on the Taliban (both Afghan/Pakistan versions)

Love Escobar's analysis.. 

Charley Rosen on Duncan vs the Dream

Charley Rosen is among my favourite sport writers. He is forthright, doesn't mind calling a spade a spade, is no-frills, appreciates the fact that sport is a "character-building-activity" (of course the definition of character for him is his subjective opinion), is an excellent writer (with a degree in English literature to boot), and is heavily opinionated (after all, thats what you want in an opinion writer, don't you?). Plus, he has had some wacky experiences as a coach in the obscure Continental Basketball Association (including a free-for-all that resulted in a "jailing") and he has written more than a dozen books on basketball. Add some excellent X and O analyses every time he writes about a game in his articles and his bylines are generally a delight. Enough intro'ing.

Rosen answered a question that I posed to him on his column today. He was comparing Tim Duncan (a favourite sportsman of mine) with former Nigerian basketball player Hakeem Olajuwon who played for the Houston Rockets and was nicknamed, "The Dream". Am posting the question and the answer verbatim here:

It is obvious that your promotion of fundamentals and poise as being two essentials of a basketball paragon makes Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan among your favorite big men. Just to delight us young viewers who never had the opportunity to relish the Dream's play but are familiar with Duncan, could you compare these two four-and-a-halfs? Thank you. — Srinivasan R, New Delhi, India

It would be my pleasure to do so.

They were of comparable stature — Olajuwon at 7-0, 255, and TD at 7-0, 260 — but their body types were different. Whereas the former had well-defined musculature, the latter was rounder, less well-muscled, and had a slightly broader butt. This anatomic feature actually helps Duncan establish and maintain better pivotal position that Olajuwon.

Because TD is more of a low-post player, he's also able to induce more fouls.

Hakeem was much quicker and faster, which gave him greater range on defense (making him a better shot-blocker) and enabled him to actively participate in the Rockets' running game. Also give Olajuwon a significant edge in pure athleticism.

Duncan, though, is more fundamentally sound — meaning that his footwork is superior and that he has a more expanded repertoire of moves in the low post. Plus, TD is a more accurate passer and sets more solid screens.

Olajuwon was a slightly better mid-range shooter, with his unstoppable turnaround-fadeaway jumpers being much more reliable than Duncan's bank jobs. And Olajuwon was more efficient at the stripe as well. Although they each managed to drop a trey from time to time, their taking 3-point shots was usually an act of either folly or desperation.

Shocking attacks in Lahore

The attack on the Lankan cricket team members in Lahore must be the most shocking attack on sportspersons since the Munich incidents in 1972 when Israeli sportspersons were kidnapped and murdered by terrorists. What makes this incident even more gruesome is the fact that the brave Lankan team embarked upon the test tour of Pakistan as a replacement for the Indians and atleast this cricket crazy fan liked their decision, driven by the desire to watch Ajantha Mendis bowl in another meaningful test series. Sadly, the dastardly attack has resulted in the tour being cancelled and has put a permanent question mark over test cricket in Pakistan itself.

Samaraweera, the unassuming under-the-radar performer was hurt and hospitalised; Ajantha Mendis, the up and coming spinning maestro was hit by sharpnel; articulate and intelligent Kumar Sangakkara was hurt with sharpnel on his shoulder; and young debutant Tharanga Paranavitana was also hurt. So were some others from the coaching staff, from initial reports. Mahela Jayawardane and his cricket team members' band play the game with the "Surangani" spirit. They are among the most well behaved, level headed cricketers on the circuit today. It is so unfortunate that these solid performers (or for that matter any sportsman) could be targetted at all.

I find it difficult even to try to find a motive behind this. I feel that even a thought about the motives would dignify this act by the crazy bunch of monsters who carried this attack out. No one in frame of mind would want to scare away sportspersons. Such has become the order of the day in Pakistan.

From the multiple bomb attacks on Benazir Bhutto and her eventual assassination to the Marriott attacks, to the growing might of the Taliban-Pakistan-version in the west to the Mumbai attacks to this, the degradation of Pakistan's society has descended into a hastening spiral. I feel for all those liberal and modern voices in Pakistan who would want to break away from their country's shattering and shameful past since independence.

Controversial recommendation

Acknowledgement: Most of the ideas in this editorial were constructed from the links and debates at this excellent blog maintained among others, by V.Venkatesan, the Frontline legal correspondent.

A controversy rages in the Election Commission triggering debate among constitutional experts.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), the one institution that in recent years has more or less managed to maintain its integrity in overseeing an important aspect of the functioning of Indian democracy, finds itself greatly weakened on the eve of the elections to the 15th Lok Sabha.

The suo motu recommendation by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) N.Gopalaswami to the president to remove fellow Election Commissioner Navin Chawla from his position has raised a political storm, not to mention created a legal controversy about the Constitutional propriety of such an action.

An interesting aspect of the controversy is is that whether or not there is substance to the allegations that Chawla has acted in a prejudiced and partial manner as a member of the ECI has not been subject to close scrutiny. These allegations and many more had already been levelled against Chawla by the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and others in the National Democratic Alliance. They followed up a petition to the former president seeking Chawla's removal with a plea filed in the Supreme Court by BJP leader Jaswant Singh pleading for action against Chawla. The BJP later withdrew the petition following an affidavit filed by the CEC affirming that he had the powers to recommend the removal of an election commissioner.

There is no express provision in the Constitution that states that a recommendation by the CEC should be preceded by a referral from an appropriate executive authority. Some commentators, however, assert that Article 324 (5) of the Constitution which says, “any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner”, implies that the CEC does indeed have the authority to initiate action against an EC.. This logic has been cited by the CEC and others to affirm that he can issue suo motu recommendations to have a fellow member of the ECI removed from his post. In the Chawla case, the argument that there must be a referral from the political executive prior to any recommendation by the CEC is complicated by the fact that Navin Chawla is accused of bias toward the ruling party.

Yet, the procedural aspects governing the recommendations by the CEC have to pass the test of the course of natural justice. Even if the CEC is empowered to make recommendations (as mentioned in the Constitution), it is surely the case that such a recommendation would have to emanate from investigation of misconduct by someone else apart other than the CEC as the CEC cannot take up both the processes of investigation and recommendation for action by himself.As some insightful commentators have noted, a suo motu recommendation based on the findings of the CEC is indeed problematic since the requirement of a recommendation by the CEC for the removal of an election commissioner from her position is only a Constitutional limit on the powers of the executive vis-a-vis the ECI. It does not automatically translate into a shift of power from the executive to the CEC on the removal of an election commissioner. Thus procedurally speaking, the CEC's decision to issue a suo motu recommendation creates a new precedent that could be misused by future CECs.

The right course of action would have been for the CEC to provide all the material collected on Navin Chawla and hand it over to the president who would provide the same to the council of ministers, who would then constitute an enquiry with the election commissioner given an opportunity to respond.. The adjudicating authority would then be given to the CEC to act upon. While these are issues of precedence that all the institutions of democracy should have grappled with, there is also the case that when it came to it, some of these institutions have been found wanting. As argued elsewhere in these columns, the Supreme Court, in particular, was presented an opportunity to clarify matters. But the Court, which has otherwise shown an unhealthy enthusiasm to interfere in political matters, chose in this very important Constitutional issue to pass the buck.

There is no question that Navin Chawla is unfit to occupy the position he now does, let alone be line to become the CEC. His record as secretary to Delhi's lieutenant governor during the Emergency was appalling, with the JC Shah commission investigating the excesses during the period, holding him responsible and going on to make specific remarks against him ("unfit to hold any public office which demands an attitude of fair play and consideration for others").. Subsequent evidence that a trust run by him and his spouse was a beneficiary of the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme funds administered by Congress party members of Parliament (before his taking over the post of Election Commissioner) or that he asked for (and received) land for the trust at concessional rates show that the Chawla’s subsequent actions were in conformity with the negative observations of the Shah commission more than three decades ago.

Considering that the ECI is mandated to perform duties of "superintendence, direction and control" of elections it is apparent that call for an extraordinarily high degree of integrity and neutrality, Navin Chawla's record as a public servant and the multitude of allegations against him make his continuation in office a travesty of governance and Constitutional propriety. Can the United Progressive Alliance government, whose reputation is more in tatters than properly clothed, redeem itself at the end of its term with at least the one action of not appointing Navin Chawla to the post of the CEC? The UPA government may find it politically impossible to accept Gopalaswami’s recommendations but it can demonstrate to the electorate that in the end it does care for the integrity of the ECI, even if it has done so much to tear it to shreds.

Draft of the editorial to be published in the forthcoming issues of the Economic & Political Weekly

Saffron intact in BJP's pot-pourri

The Bharatiya Janata Party offers a confused mixture of policies, but anchors itself firmly on its Hindutva base on the eve of parliamentary elections.

Incoherence and posturing has always characterised the Bharatiya Janata Party (the BJP). Owing to the limitations of the exclusivist ideology that it depends upon, the BJP has tried to camouflage its Hindutva base, to win over alliances in the fractured polity that is India's. Such a strategy has paid the party dividends in the past as well as in assorted state elections across the country, wherever its adversaries have been lacking in governance/administration or ability in forming the right identity-based alliances. But every now and then, in order to keep its ideological mentors in the Sangh Parivar impressed and to foster the hard-line impulses of its activist base, the party goes back to the Hindutva theme.

One such occasion was its recently held national executive and council meetings in Nagpur. The party yet again performed its trapeze artistry of swinging between Hindutva and a modern vision for itself and the nation. In essence though, it offered no coherent alternatives and responses to livelihood issues of the day as a contrast to the ruling alliance's, beyond putting forth a string of grouses.

As an opposition party, the BJP repeatedly disrupted proceedings in Parliament on the slightest pretext. The meaningful oppositional space had been usurped by the left parties, even when they were supporting the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government and after the withdrawal of support. After five years of rabble rousing and harping on agendas such as minority appeasement and “soft state”,the BJP had more of the same in its political resolution for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

There was therefore a return of the hackneyed slogans on Ram, “Ram temple in Ayodhya” and Ramarajya from its president Rajnath Singh, and which received some lip-service from its prime ministerial candidate L.K.Advani. And Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi stayed true to his hard-line image by alluding toward “inside help” for the Mumbai terror incidents. And while waxing eloquent on its strategy to fight terrorism at all costs, the party president dismissed the investigations to the Malegaon blasts' suggesting that Hindus are being maligned in the name of terror. All in all, the party chose the proximity of its national executive meeting to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's headquarters as an excuse to burnish its Hindtuva credentials, harping yet again on minority bashing and other obscurantist agenda.

The economic road-map chartered by the party promises a employment oriented policy of growth and a determination to address the agrarian crisis in the country. But beyond pointing fingers at economic mismanagement by the UPA, the BJP has little to offer on how it plans spur the economy through “recapitalisation of the financial sector” and “spend on infrastructure”. While the BJP criticises fiscal spending and suggests that this had resulted in high inflation in the country, it insists on “massive” infrastructure spending on a “war-footing” as part of its core agenda in the same breath in its resolution. Interestingly, Rajnath Singh in his address invoked Gandhian swadeshi economics as well to pitch in yet another economic vision in the resolution's hotch-potch of neoliberalism (pension reforms), Keynesianism (infrastructure spending), self-reliance and what not.

The situation that the BJP finds itself today is not encouraging for the party. Its insistence on retaining its Hindutva extremist fringe has seen it reap highly polarising gains in Gujarat, Karnataka and Orissa. In other states, however, despite the rhetorical shift to an agenda of efficient governance, it has only got mixed returns, as the wins in the assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh have been juxtaposed with losses in Rajasthan and Delhi. The party's polarising ideology has assured that the party stands bereft of an alliance partner and of a base in most states in the south and east of the country. And the language used by the party in it's run-up to the elections only suggests a further isolation on that count.

The rise of the BJP to the centre-stage of Indian politics and as one of the two biggest political forces, has had disastrous consequences on the nature of the Indian state. Be it in the weakening of the welfare state, or the vitiation and communalisation of the body politic,the rise in disenchantment among myriad sections (minorities in particular), the BJP's legacy has been malignant. That the party has stuck with Hindutva as a core and basic political philosophy even after years in opposition, suggests the threat that the cancerous influence of communalism continues to pose to India's polity.

Editorial written for the Economic and Political Weekly. Cartoon courtesy, The Hindu newspaper

Grand Alliance takes root

Competitive populism dominates the agenda for all political formations in upcoming elections in Andhra Pradesh.

The opposition parties, including the Telugu Desam party (TDP), the left parties and the Telengana Rashtra Samiti (TRS), in the state have formalised a grand alliance against the Congress party. This is a similar coming together of the opposition parties against the ruling incumbent, as had happened five years ago against the then ruling TDP.

In the 2004 assembly and Lok Sabha elections, the TDP had an alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the main constituent of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). And the seat sharing between the Congress and the TRS as well as between the left parties and the Congress helped these parties to collectively overcome the TDP, which received a trouncing, retaining merely 47 assembly seats and winning only five parliamentary seats. The broad alliance of the opposition was able to capitalise on the widespread resentment with the economic reforms followed by the TDP and also managed to win the support of large sections of the populace, particularly from rural areas with populist promises such as free electricity for farmers.

During the tenure of the Congress government however, a gradual withering away of the alliance took place with the TRS coming off it owing to the non-realisation of its goal of a separate Telangana state and with the left parties adopting confrontationist positions, particularly in the course of a land struggle. Within a few years into the tenure, the TDP disavowed any relations that it still had with the BJP, changed tack from its “reformist” past and adopted populist slogans, and soon enough found itself in alliance with the left parties. The TDP also managed a volte-face on the Telangana issue, endearing the TRS into the grand alliance as it stands today.

The Congress government led by Chief Minister Rajasekara Reddy has been successful in projecting a populist image of itself during its tenure. Owing to measures such as the free provision of electricity for agriculture, steps taken in building irrigation capabilities across Andhra Pradesh, or the Indiramma housing schemes for the homeless, the Arogyashree health scheme, the government has achieved a semblance of popularity and retaining of support base across the state. The opposition has duly adopted a strategy of scrutinising these schemes and protesting the deficiencies in them. And despite the opposition's legitimate criticisms of malfeasance by the government, the incumbent's success in delivering a populist message in comparison to the “reformist” predecessor has been there for all to see. And in that sense, there has been an instrumental reason for the coming together of disparate and erstwhile rival political parties such as the Left, the TDP and the TRS in coalition against the Congress.

The left parties reason out their political stance in the state as flowing from their national goal of preventing the Congress and the BJP from coming to power. Locally, they affirm that their electoral strategies would not affect their political campaigns and socio-economic struggles, which has seen an increase in support for them. Whether that is indeed the case is questionable as disparate alliances determined by electoral criteria have not helped the Left in retaining their ideological influence on governments formed after elections. Even if the success of the coalition is assumed, it is indeterminate if the TDP (as the largest party in the bloc) would be any different in its stances on socio-economic matters and development trajectories from the others in the ruling class segments.

What prevents the elections from becoming a two-horse race – the Congress versus the grand opposition (the BJP has been relegated to a minor presence in the state) is the dark horse presence of the newly formed political outfit, the Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) anchored by the popular film actor Chiranjeevi. Despite overtures and discussions between the PRP and the Left, the latter decided to throw in their lot with the TDP as the PRP refused to join the grand coalition. With a purported support base of youth, and other marginalised sections of the populace, the PRP hopes to make a significant dent in its first attempt in electoral politics. Unsurprisingly the political language of this party also draws from populism and concern for the poor.

Electorally however, considerations such as identity, as in particular caste combinations still play an important role in determining the success or not of such coalitions. The PRP is expected to draw a good chunk of votes from the Kapu community, assumed to favour the Congress party traditionally. And in that regard, the relatively popular Congress party faces a formidable challenge posed by the grand alliance and the PRP.

The biggest loser even before the elections, seems to be the BJP. The party has been able to neither carve a presence nor befriend a regional ally in the state – a trend that resembles the situation in other southern states excepting Karnataka, surely affecting the overall prospects of the NDA in the parliamentary elections.

Editorial written for the Economic and Political Weekly

The rival knights of lawn tennis

"This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" -- The Joker in the Dark Knight.

Two players who form a complete contrast in style of play, but adhere to the spirit of tennis and are paragons as gentlemen off court, fought yet another epic Grand Slam final at Flinders Park, Melbourne the day before yesterday.

The World Number 1, Rafael Nadal is a street fighter, who plies his game using top spin from the baseline and revels in an all-court offense-defense system. His game relies on wearing out his opponent through relentless intensity and aggression. The World No 2, Roger Federer, already an accomplished all-time great is a master of finesse, angles and the percentage game - i.e. always pinning on a high percentage of winners. The latter's game was what that made him invincible for a few seasons before the arrival and transcendence of the former from a clay court matador to a all-court workaholic. In short, Federer forms what is metaphorically acknowledged as the irresistible force and Nadal is the immovable (lets say im-passable in tennis terms) object.

So, what happened when these guys met yet again, evoking memories of their earlier contest at hallowed grass in Wimbledon (long five-setter resulting in a Nadal win)? Did the irresistible force gush past the immovable object or did the "object" withstand the "force" and ground it out? It was the latter that happened.

Why couldn't the greatest player possibly to play tennis, Roger Federer manage to overcome Nadal, despite Nadal having to play yet another grueling tennis match following his marathon 5 setter against Fernando Verdasco in the semifinals? It was obviously Nadal's indomitable spirit that triumphed in the end, but that is not a good enough answer to the question. One has to delve into parallels from history to answer it, in my opinion. And I will try to do that by focusing on the women section of tennis to answer this.

Around 19 years ago, Freulien Steffi Graf of Germany was having a most dominant life at the top of the tennis world. She had just won the Golden Slam in 1988 and 1989 was a cakewalk except for a blemish at Roland Garros against Spanish upstart Arantxa Sanchez Vicario. The dominance of Graf was built on the twin pedestals of exuberant finesse and power backed by precision, as she sliced her backhands and boomed her forehand cross-courts to simply demolish every competent opponent of her time, from Gabriela Sabatini to an ageing Navratilova and others.

Enter circa 1990 though and the irresistible force of Graf met up with immovable object of the Grunting Slav, Monica Seles. Seles' game was completely a contrast to Graf's. If Graf with her bangles and blond hair, pranced around on the tennis field as a gazelle, combining the prose of her forehand with the poetry of her backhand; Seles grunted and galloped her way across the court, relying on an ugly but powerful and effective double-handed play. Suddenly the wins for Graf were drying up. And soon, so was her dominance challenged, by Seles' complete antithesis of a game. And just about the time Graf was about to crumble in the face of Seles' relentless onslaught, a deranged fan (Gunther Parche) of hers dug in a dagger on Seles' works, injuring her enough to stop her on the tracks to great-dom.

Fate took a twist and Graf retained her dominance, settling down after 1992 to become one of the best ever. Seles had to get out of injury and out of psychiatric care, trudge onto court, but with the stabbing, she was never her old self.

Rafael Nadal's game is very much like Seles as much as Graf's was like Federer's. His reliance on grit, muscle, power and a never-give-up during a baseline rally has much in common with Monica Seles. Other players in the world have their own unique strengths; Andy Roddick with his booming serve and rasping forehand, Djokovic, who is a middle class Nadal; and others. None of them have been good enough to overcome the finesse laden excellence of Roger Federer. Much like, none of the rest during Graf's time being able to overcome her, before Seles came in, resisted her and was herself stopped by a Gunther Parche aided murderous and unsolicited assist for Graf.

Roger Federer dominated tennis like never before in the earlier half of the 2000s. He laid an easy claim over the tag of best ever and was poised to take that title to the bank. The biggest challenge he received though, was from a marauder from Mallorca, produced as if from an assembly line of clay courters from the hot fields of Spain. The world expected the inevitable conquering of the clay in Roland Garros by Federer; but that was not to be. Instead, the nephew of Miguel Angel Nadal adapted his game to all surfaces, much like what Seles did and even went on to win in his alien environment on grass in Wimbledon. Nadal laid out a layer of friction on the pathway to "forever great" for Federer; and steadily this layer of friction turned from a hurdle to a formidable obstacle, enough to wear Federer out, as was seen in the Australian Open finals. The mental fatigue that Federer has had to endure trying to overcome this obstacle, wore out his inner calmness to the extent that he was engulfed in a bucket load of tears at the presentation ceremony of the Australian Open; much like Batman losing his cool at the continuing and festering irritability of the persistent Joker.

The immovable object has finally got the better of the irresistible force. Men's Lawn Tennis of the 2000s has given an answer to this fictitious physics question. Can Federer re-invent and resurrect himself to once again commence the battle for overcoming Nadal at the Roland Garros. One certainly hopes so; for Federer is pretty much the "White Knight" of lawn tennis.

Suspension of Disbelief

Fresh state assembly elections can be an escape route from the present miasmal state of politics in Jharkhand.

If what is happening in Jharkhand in the political realm is the “will of the people”, then certainly it must be a case of suspension of disbelief. Ever since the election of a hung assembly in 2005, the merry-go-round drama centred on the chief-ministerial chair has reduced democracy to a farce in the fledgling state.

After the conclusion of the 2005 elections, a 10-day long government, led by the perennial actor in Jharkhand politics, Shibu Soren of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), was followed by an 18-month administration under Arjun Munda of the Bharatiya Janata Party. But with the withdrawal of support by four independents, the Munda government fell, following which, strangely, an independent, Madhu Koda was elevated to the post of chief minister, supported this time by legislators belonging to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). The Madhu Koda dispensation gave way to yet another concoction led by Shibu Soren as chief minister. The latter was the result of a quid pro quo for the JMM’s support to the UPA in the dubious trust vote held in Parliament on 22 July last year. But Soren’s loss in a by-election in Tamar constituency held on 29 December resulted in the fall of the latest government, inviting president’s rule and the “suspended animation” of the assembly.

Shibu Soren, who returned to state politics after being acquitted in a murder case, was a sitting parliamentary legislator of the JMM from Dumka constituency. His return to state politics was necessitated following a diminution of political capital after having lost his cabinet post (the coal ministry) owing to the criminal case, after which the JMM withdrew from the UPA.Using the expeditious circumstances that required the JMM to help the UPA to win the trust vote, Soren orchestrated the downfall of the Madhu Koda dispensation and “seized” power in the state. It is no wonder that his loss in the Tamar by-elections was emphatic – the people have indicated that they have had enough of his political shenanigans.

Keeping the assembly in “suspended animation” serves no purpose. Soren has suggested yet another nominee from the JMM for the post of chief minister, clearly wanting to prolong this farce and obviously to retain power and influence, despite his ignominious loss in the elections. The UPA could be enticed to do that in return for the JMM’s pledging of support, or to secure the alliance with the JMM for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. But in every sense, the continuation of this farce of governance by another literal flip of the coin in the choice of a new chief minister would surely be a travesty of democracy. The ideal course of action should be to immediately dissolve the assembly, call for fresh elections, and invite a new mandate. For reasons of convenience, these elections should be scheduled appropriately to coincide with the upcoming parliamentary elections.

That the eight years since the formation of the state of Jharkhand have seen six governments is an indication of the level of political instability that has characterised it. The situation of unreliability has given rise to all kinds of political manoeuvring, disrespecting the verdict of the people. Even after government formation, an elaborate system of patronage, pandering to corporate interests in the mineral-rich state, and poor governance have been the norm, irrespective of which dispensation is in office. Power, enabling cronyism and influence in high places, has corrupted every party which has exercised it in the state. The cunning, the scheming, the treachery, the double-dealing, and the various self-serving combinations have made politics so full of machinations over here.

Following the bifurcation of the erstwhile united Bihar, the new state of Jharkhand was carved out of the mineral-rich and predominantly tribal regions. This was done to address the deprivation and inequality in these regions and to allot a separate federal unit for the tribal population. Those objectives remain still-born, as the abundance of minerals has only attracted and encouraged regimes of cronyism, corruption, and all kinds of wheeling-dealing, to the detriment of the development-yearning tribals. Shibu Soren’s crushing defeat indicates how fatigued the electorate is with this brand of politics and suggests that a return to the ballot box may be an escape route from the miasma that has characterised government formation in Jharkhand.

Editorial written for the Economic and Political Weekly

Laughter server Nagesh is no more...

A man who brought smiles to millions of Tamilians breathed his last today.

Nagesh, the effervescent actor who played innumerable comic roles in Tamil cinema, was a family favourite. I remember when I was a young boy and we were renting videos for our newly bought VCP (video cassette player), the popular choice was always to get hold of a Nagesh classic, and I used to lead the fight against my parents' and relatives' will to get hold of one. How many times had I seen Ethir Neechal, Server Sundaram, "Soap, Seepu, Kannadi" or "Pattanathil Bootham" or "Madras to Pondicherry" as a young boy, I don't remember. But I never tired of the slap-stick, the body flips, the mirth and the general feel-good that this actor generated whenever he was on screen.

Of his later films, I would never forget, Magalir Mattum, where he plays a character, who is a corpse (no kidding!) and that too of a dreaded Mafia criminal. That he played this role without having to do anything but look like a corpse and yet managed to steal the show in all those scenes, proved his worth in mirth.

He was as adept in character roles (the aforementioned Ethir Neechal is a revered classic), the best for me was the college lecturer role he played in the Kamal Haasan movie, Nammavar. I suppose Kamal Haasan always made it a point to include Nagesh in as many important roles as possible in his films- the patriarch from Nagore in the film, Dasavatharam also comes to my mind immediately as that of the make up man, "Joseph" in the Kamal classic, Avvai Shanmughi.

But perhaps his best role ever, was in the movie "Thiruvilayadal", where he stole a march over the leading thespian of Tamil commercial cinema, "Sivaji" Ganesan. His immortal tete-a-tete with Sivaji (playing the Hindu god Shiva) is a classic nugget that remains part of Tamil cinema history as a shining moment of wit, repartee and dialogue delivery (and later satired, copied, in many films). If Sivaji Ganesan made his name as the doyen of Tamil cinema through his ability to perform melodramatic action combined with powerful dialogue, forging it as a template for others to work upon; Nagesh continued the tradition of comedians playing an important role in Tamil cinema (from the days of NS Krishnan, Thangavelu, and many others) and charted his own course of slapstick, wit and mirth.

The closest to a Nagesh these days is the effervescent actor who seems to have made bellyache an infectious pandemic among Tamil film watchers - Vadivelu and it is no wonder that he prides himself as the "Dark skinned Nagesh".

It is with a great deal of sadness that I have to mark the death of a man who gave me so much laughter ever since childhood. Nagesh - you will remain on celluloid and in our hearts forever.

UPDATE: DBS Jeyaraj writes a moving obituary on Nagesh here.

A Pyrrhic Victory

The LTTE might be on the cusp of defeat, but no viable solution to the ethnic conflict is in the offing.

Not very long ago, commentators on the Sri Lankan conflict were hinting that the latest set of sieges by the Sri Lankan Army were doomed to be interminable as it was assumed that there was no way that the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) could be defeated militarily in the harsh terrain of the Vanni in north-east Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan army might have belied those expectations by managing to take Kilinocchi, the administrative headquarters of the LTTE, but the costs at which the Sri Lankan government has achieved this target beg the question whether the victory is indeed what the government claims it to be.

The LTTE, now cornered in a few square kilometres of the Mullaitivu forests, has vowed to continue the fight. Even as the Sri Lankan army entered Kilinocchi, it found the town deserted, pointing to the fear and distrust of the Sri Lankan government that the much traumatised and victimised people of the Vanni harbour. The government has of course promised to proffer a political solution to the conflict once the LTTE is completely vanquished. The displaced Tamils in the Vanni have been used as cannon fodder, subjected as they were to forced recruitment and conscription by the LTTE. And yet, they have betrayed no trust towards the “invaders” from the south. Such is the predicament of the Tamils caught in the humanitarian catastrophe that is the civil war in the north of Sri Lanka.

Why have the Tamil people of the Vanni opted to take refuge in areas under the thrall of an intransigent terrorist organisation facing defeat? Why has the Sri Lankan government not been able to win the trust of the displaced people despite the iron-fisted administration by the LTTE in the northern regions of Sri Lanka? The answer lies not just in the years of ethnic conflict and “majoritarian” impulses that have characterised the Sri Lankan polity but in the refusal of Sri Lankan governments in the present and the recent past (irrespective of the party in power) to sincerely address the federal question in the country. For all the lip service paid to devolution and recognition of minority rights, the facts on the ground – inhuman treatment of the minority population in Sinhala majority areas, a ruthless military campaign which cared little for the lives caught up in the conflict in the north-east, and continuing refusal of the Sri Lankan polity to think beyond a framework of the nation which privileges the majority population over the minority – suggest that the grievances that were at the root of the decades long civil war persist and fester.

During the present phase (the last two years) of the civil war, the Sri Lankan government has taken recourse to stifling dissent over the course of murderous actions that it has embarked upon. Journalists have been prevented from reporting from the war zone in the north, and a cult of violence and murder has pervaded the country, attacking anyone seen as a dissenting voice. The brutal killing of respected journalist and editor of the newspaper Sunday Leader, Lasanth Wickramatunga, a known critic of the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency and of the war trajectory followed by the government in the north, is just one inglorious example. Wickramatunga, in a poignant “posthumous” editorial, published in the Sunday Leader after his death, left no doubts about who was the real reason for the cult of violence that would eventually take away his life – the Rajapaksa regime. Wickramatunga's death follows a series of incidents targeting dissident media voices, such as the attacks on the premises of the television channel Sirasa TV early this year, or the multiple threats, detentions and abductions of dissident journalists (both Tamil and Sinhala writers). It is no wonder that Sri Lanka was recently rated at the bottom in press freedom in any democratic country in the world by the organisation, Reporters Without Borders.

Indubitably, the Sri Lankan government's endeavour to use “war to establish peace” – arguing that vanquishing and obliterating the LTTE is the first step to re-establishing a peaceful democracy – has ensured that violence as a means has now been ingrained as an end in itself in a country that has just celebrated its sixtieth year since independence. There remains no excuse for the Sri Lankan government now to refrain from offering a genuine federal solution to the ethnic conflict that has ravaged the country, now that the intransigent LTTE is seen to be on the verge of defeat. But the means adopted for the objective, a reliance on unremitting violence – inflicted even on civilians caught in the crossfire of the conflict or those who question this strategy – suggests that a return to a liberal regime of rights for the much harassed minorities or indeed a rule that respects civil liberties and democratic dissent remains impossible under the existing regime.

That the other major political parties, the opportunist United National Party, which has boycotted an all-party representative committee constituted to suggest a package of devolution, the ultra-nationalist Janata Vimukti Peramuna, and a blatantly supremacist Jathika Hela Urumaya have no viable alternative to offer, suggests how degenerate the Sri Lankan polity is today.

Editorial written for the Economic and Political Weekly

A leftist take on Barack Obama and foreign policy vis-a-vis India and the world.

One of the much asked questions to this "political analyst" is, "So, is new US president Barack Obama going to be good for India"? I suppose it is not a question worth answering for a leftist who would find that such a question is redundant or at best s/he should ask back, "Which India are you asking about"?

Anything else would be a statist response. But assuming that a leftist is asked to provide a statist response, the leftist has to weigh as to what indeed would be a response from a statist perspective; in other words from an "international relations" perspective that takes states for given - as irreducible units in interaction among each other in the system of states. That is precisely the kind of fare that the average strategic affairs analyst gives you - indeed, he is among a slew of beings who are a dime-a-dozen in New Delhi in mandarin circles, in thinktanks and who get some good chunks of real estate in newspapers and in the electronic media (especially since the Great Nuclear Deal Debate). But lets not digress.

Most Indian strategic affairs analysts, taking a contrarian position to heck..the world, actually felt that the maverick, the Straight Talk Express and the "Bomb ..bomb..bomb.. Iran" guy, John McCain was "good/better for India" (check.. here and here for examples) than The One, as many have started terming Barack Obama these days for his celebrity status throughout his presidential campaign as also after his election whence he has been enjoying nearly 80% approval ratings in the USA.

The primary reasons for the strategic analysts love for Republicans, in particular George Bush (as so pathetically articulated by Manmohan Singh who told Bush that he was "loved by Indians") however flows from the worldview that these folks have and share in common with the hard realist imperial Republicans, in particular the neoconservatives. The Neocons in their quest for a Great American century, believed (and still believe) in a Kenneth Waltzian hard power argument, and an arrangement of the world which is not quite an arrangement, but a derangement that requires the superpower to bring sense to it (for IR buffs, one only has to check out the Stag Hunt analogy by Waltz that makes this point). The American exceptionalist argument that drives the neocons is simple, "Power flows from the barrel of a F-16" (sorry Mao!).

It is this belief that drove the Republicans of the 1980s to fund and support the jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and to take up sides with the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan. It is this belief in power that condoned the AQ Khan profileration network, supported the apartheid regime in South Africa, killed Allende in the 1970s in Chile, and did whatever they did all across the world. End'eth the cold war, neoconservatism is born, an enhanced version of the hard realism of the Cold War era.

The neoconservative project in the 2000s identified (and correctly according to the paradigm) that China, with its growing clout as the manufacturing base of the world, was re-emerging as a hard power and it was necessary to contain its rise. Hard power could not be used as Chinese and American interests were intertwined through the complex, intricate set up of economic relationships between the countries over the years. Enter the new logic of stopping the Chinese dragon on its tracks - containment through "balancing". How to go about it? Engage the services of the other "growing tiger" in the continent - India. Ergo - the Indo US Nuclear Deal.

The Indian strategic community understands the motivations of the Hard Right in America and their goals for sustained hegemony in the world. They see a "correlation of interests" between a domineering United States and an India finding its place through pitching its elites' interests on to the forefront as its national interest. That explains the love affair between the most neocon of all regimes- the Bush regime and the strategic community and its minions in government in India all along.

Why does the Indian strategic community refuse to accord the same love to the Democrats (and by extension- Obama) now? One has to delve into the Weltanschaung of the Democrats (in Marxist terms - liberal imperialism) vis-a-vis the world. The Democrats in contrast to the Republicans are not quite neoconservative (although it is not as black and white as I would want it to be - different Democratic administrations take a mixture of the hard right and the liberal imperialist positions). Thus, the emphasis of the Clinton administration on south Asia was focused on greater engagement with China and consequently with Pakistan, resulting in the whole "hyphenation" argument that drove US foreign policy in the subcontinent. The aggressive posturing on the Kashmir issue by the Clinton administration was never appreciated by the strategic community in India and they expect more of the same in an Obama administration.

The Obama administration in contrast to the Bush's or the hypothetical McCain's, would want a greater engagement with China, in particular to address the US' own financial economic plight as it stands. That would mean that the aggressive moves to use India as a balancer against China, an approach used by the Bush regime would not quite follow. But again, there would be a liberal internationalist zeal in the American foreign policy toward India- perhaps accommodating the rising Indian elites in the global economic clout clique - the G8 or other forums. There would be a return to the hyphenation thing; Pakistan is still important for the theatre of operations in Afghanistan and for the US' withdrawal from this affair (in contrast to a Republican intensification of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan). This explains the strategic community's angst against Obama and fear about his moves vis-a-vis India. I am not sure if Manmohan Singh would have an interest in expressing India's love for Barack Obama.

Lets get back to the original question. What would a leftist's answer be to the question? The leftist's interest would be divorced from the elite interest. For the leftist, "national" interest would automatically mean an anti-imperialist interest, in solidarity with the struggles against imperialism all across the world. What does Obama offer on that account - atleast from his statements and positions that have been on record so far? The Obama administration offers putative engagement with "adversaries", and other forces- say states across the world. This engagement on offer, is welcome (as dialogue is anytime welcome over armed conflict), but not more can be said about this so called engagement without fleshing out the details of the same. If the engagement on offer recognises the validity of the concerns about American exceptionalism, American unilateralism or indeed American imperialism, then it would definitely be real change from the neoconservative past. Say if the US administration under Obama revokes the oppressive blockade against Cuba or decides to forgo the continuing veto of condemnation or halt of Israeli crimes in Palestine - that would be welcome.

Vis-a-vis India, American engagement can be welcome, if the partnership is bound by equal terms of trade and investment and respect for economic sovereignty. Or indeed, if the American initiative on various issues such as terrorism is bound to multilateralism and a genuine intent to forgo the use of instrumentality in fighting terrorism, then it could be welcome. The best way to address terrorism is of course politically, i.e. to reduce the stake of radical tendencies, which take root in areas of disenchantment (I am not assuming that they dont' have any agency whatever though) - which in turn is a result of the nefarious influence of imperialism and its allies in those areas.

This leftist feels that considering the state of affairs that America is - a plutocracy, mind you and a nation that is still ruled by the biggest of the big bourgeoisie and a bourgeois paradise in some senses; such expectations of Obama are going to be belied. An Obama administration would continue the emphasis of using globalisation as a tool for using the terms of trade in the favour of the American big bourgeoisie (with its byproduct of benefits to sections of the Indian elite indeed). It would re-focus on addressing conflict through a liberal internationalist framework, but which would still be driven by a rhetoric that favours the status quo - vis-a-vis Cuba, Iraq, Palestine or indeed in Latin America. The structure and nature of Obama's cabinet - a hangover of the Clinton administration is indicative of this. It is left to Obama to prove me wrong.

The silver lining however, is that the Obama administration, in raising its hopes of "change" and its emphasis of knocking the wax house of neoconservatism, will enthuse those who believe in it genuinely. There would be greater avenues for those in the left to question the motives and the actions of rulers as in America, as elsewhere in the world. The emphasis on internationalism would provide greater relevance to the multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. By suitable groupings, the Non Aligned Movement for e.g. or the get-together of the nations from the third world countries, American and indeed imperialist exceptionalism can be handled hurdles if not completely thwarted.

In that sense, an Obama administration (over a Bush administration) is indeed better for "India".

More on Satyam-Maytas

(More is promised)...

For now...

Praful Bidwai on the Satyam affair. ....

CP Chandrashekar on the same...

Sitaram Yechury on the same.. (forthcoming article in the People's Democracy)

Some sensible opinion on the same..

More articles later..

EPW Special Issue on Thirty years of Chinese reforms

Economic and Political Weekly brought a selection of special articles analysing the thirty years after China announced wide ranging reforms that heralded a transition from the so called, "Maoist" era in the issue dated December 27,2008-January 2,2009. The issues covered included - inequality, class contradictions, property rights, rural industrialisation, the countermovement and so on. Presented are the article links with relevant abstracts from the site:

Inequality and Its Enemies in Revolutionary and Reform China
Ching Kwan Lee, Mark Selden

During the epochs of revolution and reform in China over the past six decades, under what conditions have heightened inequality and perceptions of inequality translated into the discernment of inequity and the stimulus to challenge the order perpetuating it? The paper throws light on the key institutions and mechanisms underlying, structuring and restructuring patterns of inequality, the changing features of popular resistance that inequality has bred, and the contested meanings and discourses of it.

Property Rights and the Social Costs of Transition and Development in China
Carl Riskin

There is considerable ferment over property rights in China today. This paper briefly explores important areas in which social unrest over property rights is currently under way, beginning with a discussion of the general debate about this issue in China, and then moving on to consider such rights in agriculture, intellectual property rights, and property rights in the environmental field. The objective is to indicate how the property rights debate overlaps the argument about social costs of transition, including widening income inequality, environmental devastation, and so on.

Rural Industrialisation and Spatial Inequality in China, 1978-2006
Chris Bramall

This study analyses the impact of rural industrialisation in China on poverty and spatial inequality at the county level between 1982 and 2000. The most positive consequence of industrialisation has been its contribution to absolute poverty reduction, especially in the coastal provinces. Much less clear is whether migration – mainly from west to east and driven by rural industrialisation – has contributed to poverty reduction in the interior. For, remittances have accrued mainly to the relatively well off rather than to the rural poor. More negatively, counties which were large exporters of labour have suffered a skill drain. However, the main adverse effect of rural industrialisation has been its exacerbation of spatial inequality, which has also resulted in a rise of inequalities in per capita gdp among China’s counties.

Double Movement in China
Shaoguang Wang

This paper traces China’s move towards a market economy in the mid-1980s, the near triumph of market forces in the 1990s, and the countermovement this engendered as inequalities between the rich and poor increased and social security networks collapsed. It focuses on the country’s regional and healthcare policies to illustrate how it has dealt with issues of inequality and insecurity over time. The prevailing view now is that the market is necessary but it must be embedded in society. And the state must play an active role in the market economy to prevent a disembedded and self-regulating market economy from dominating society.

A House Divided: China after 30 Years of ‘Reforms’
Robert Weil

The 30 years of Chinese capitalistic “reforms” now exceeds the 29 years of socialist revolution under Mao. A “new” China has emerged, economically powerful, showcased by the Olympics and spurred by nationalistic sentiments. But beneath this shiny surface there is growing polarisation between those with extreme wealth at the top and hundreds of millions in the working classes who have lost power and face a bleak struggle for survival in the global capitalist market. Despite ameliorative measures by the current leadership, there is no fundamental plan to reverse this ever widening divide. In the face of the deepening global economic crisis, these divisions are swelling. China is suffering its most severe downturn in decades, and working class protests are spreading. The Chinese left is re-emerging, but remains largely isolated from these popular forces. Only by beginning to bridge that gap, can China once again find a socialist alternative.


Light and Shadow of an Inarticulate Age: Reflections on China’s Reform
Pun Ngai

This tribute to the resilience of China’s migrant workers is by an academic who lived and worked among them in Shenzhen for seven months, sharing their screams and dreams. It touchingly portrays the plight of young migrant workers, many of them women, who have been caught in the grip of capital’s unscrupulous willingness to sacrifice anything in the pursuit of profit. Their efforts to organise themselves have been at best a partial success.


Socialism, Capitalism, and Class Struggle: The Political Economy of Modern China
Minqi Li

This essay traces the evolution of the political economy of China from the 1949 revolution up to the triumph of Chinese capitalism in 1992. It first describes and discusses the tremendous achievements in the first quarter century after the revolution, and also the struggles during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The essay outlines the context of the tussles that followed the death of Mao, the role of the “intellectuals”, the alliance or the lack of it with the urban working class during Tiananmen 1989 and how the forces represented by Deng Xiaoping were able to impose their writ on the economy and society of China.

China’s Rural Reform: Crisis and Ongoing Debate
Dale Jiajun Wen

Despite China’s dramatic transformation in the last three decades, its countryside is in a state of crisis. This study examines the dark side of the country’s economic “miracle”, looking into the various adverse effects that have followed the break-up of communes in rural areas and analysing their causes. It also examines the contentious issue of privatising landownership, which is favoured by those sympathetic to a neoliberal agenda, and reports on recent grass roots and government efforts to rebuild communities at the village level.

Globalisation Meets Its Match: Lessons from China’s Economic Transformation
Dic Lo , Yu Zhang

The sustained and rapid growth of the Chinese economy in the last three decades has been in sharp contrast to the prolonged stagnation in most parts of the nonwestern world. The persistence of a mixed economic system despite market reforms further contradicts the orthodox doctrines of globalisation. This study argues that China’s economic transformation has been mainly based on productivity improvement and is thus to a significant extent a real development. It has been achieved mainly through a process of “governing the market” by a set of structural-institutional factors that are China-specific but can be of general importance for late development worldwide.

EPW Archives

The Economic & Political Weekly (my organisation) now offers archives on its site. Currently archives are available from 1988 onwards to 1998 (issues from 1998 to 2008 were available on the site). In due time, (hopefully in a couple of months), the entire archives from 1966 (since the birth of EPW specifically, not Economic Weekly - the earlier avatar) will be soon up on the internet.

Needless to say, the archives are a rich source of information for everyone interested in tracing policies, issues, news, analysis, etc that have been tracked in the Economic and Political Weekly for years and have made what EPW has been reputed to be.

This is to humbly encourage all readers of this blog to kindly subscribe to the EPW site online and get a peek and even more of the rich archives of the magazine/journal.

Satyam- beyond incredulity

That the Satyam fraud scam is massive is beyond doubt. Here is a Tier-1 company, one of the top few representatives of the neo-Indian big bourgeoisie, one of the few IT tags-to-riches stories that have defined the Indian liberalisation period, and one of the few perennial contenders/winners for the multiplicity of the bourgeoisie instituted "awards of the year" every year.

Much has been written about it or is still being talked and written about it in the media already. What is unsaid is the level of colossal failure that can be stuck to several authorities who were seen to be unimpeachable in quality and prestige.

Can you imagine it? Here is a promoter/chairman who says that books were fudged to the tune of Rs 7100 crores and no one in the all powerful and independent"Board of Directors" knew a thing about it. And all this seems to have happened under the nose of a supposedly prestigious accounting/auditing firm (a global "powerhouse" at that)- PriceWaterHouse Coopers. And the CAs who are supposed to have colluded or perhaps simply been utterly inefficient in going about their jobs are considered to be the creme-de-la-creme of the Indian literate, having passed their tough CA examinations conducted by the prestigious ICAI. And to beat it all, not a whimper or a whiff of this scam could be noticed or deciphered by the even more powerful overseer of India's official arena of casino capitalism- BSE/NSE - the SEBI. The one letter by Ramalinga Raju has blown up into shreds, any notion of "checks and balances" in the finance capital institutions in the country. Satyam surely is among the many who have been twisting, ignoring or simply breaking the law of the land in its financial transactions in the country.

The ever growing myth of affluence, prosperity, growth and value addition quarter after quarter, built up a institution of such high repute that Satyam received award after award for "corporate excellence", "best employment", "best CEO" and what not, only for one big lie resulting in the crashing down of this edifice resembling the collapse of a pack of trick joker cards.

Several questions need to be raised and thankfully, already being raised - Whats this Maytas story all about? How much of Maytas' contracts and projects got to do with political patronage and plain crony capitalism. How much of a finger in the pie do these Rajasekara Reddys and Chandrababu Naidus have, in the Maytas-Satyam crony capitalist enterprise? What is the nature of the real estate story in the environs in and around Hyderabad? Already real estate has been swarmed and eaten up bit by bit by land sharks all around Hyderabad, leaving shreds for the government to pick and develop for public infrastructure projects and the likes.

I wish, we in the media, have the gumption to dig as deep as possible and possibly bring about a change in the "system" as it stands. The Satyam-Maytas story is now, surely, the tip of the "liberalised" iceberg, nay glacier. It needed a simple spark to heat up this glacier; it requires a bonfire of media activism to melt this mammoth bit of crony capitalist enterprise which has now threatened the well being of even the most upwardly mobile employees in India today - the IT workers.

Watch this space for more on the affair as things descend further into the spiral.

Forty Years since Keezhavenmani

Forty years ago, on the night of 25 December 1968, in the village of Keezhavenmani in what is today Nagapattinam district of Tamil Nadu, 44 dalits, many of whom were women and children, were burnt alive in a hut in which they had taken refuge. The reason: the labourers had the “temerity” to organise themselves and demand better wages for agricultural work. All that they were demanding was six measures of paddy for every 48 harvested on the land of the mirasdars (landlords). In the course of a prolonged struggle for better wages the dalit workers had organised under a communist union. In retaliation, the landowners had formed a paddy producers’ association. It was not just the demand for higher wages that was galling to the landlords; the fact that they were standing up to the all-powerful mirasdar was unacceptable.

A mockery of a court case followed. Ten landlords were convicted to 10 years of imprisonment. But the Madras High Court overturned the judgment citing the convicted’s “respectable statuses as mirasdars” and this was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Justice denied by the law was in a grotesque way delivered by the brutal murder of P Gopalkrishna Naidu, the leader of the landlord association, when he was killed 12 years after the incident.

What is striking about what has transpired through the years since Keezhavenmani is the improvement in the lives of the dalits in the village and in surrounding areas in Nagapattinam district. The flashpoint in 1968 and the court acquittal did not lead to the dissipation of the agricultural workers’ long-standing movement. The political movement for wages became a wider one for justice for the victims of the brutal murders, for emancipation from untouchability and for self-respect. After demanding a mere handful of measures of paddy in the late 1960s, by the mid-1970s the workers had managed to extract substantially higher agricultural wages. The class mobilisation of the dalits and the agricultural workers soon consolidated into a strong political movement, and today 40 years later, the strength of the left parties (the Communist Party of India-Marxist in particular) under the leadership of the dalits in the district is there for all to see, as substantiated by their electoral performance in the area.

Today’s dalits in Keezhavenmani and in Nagapattinam face other issues – the agrarian crisis in the Cauvery delta region, lack of other means of employment beyond agricultural labour, and only a marginal improvement in livelihood indicators. But the deaths of 44 villagers from Keezhavenmani spurred the dalits of the area to reject exploitation and they took up a concerted struggle that built consciousness and forced the governments of the day to acquiesce to their just demands. No longer is the mirasdar the controller of the workers’ destiny or the overlord of economic activity in the paddy fields. Landownership patterns in the Cauvery delta have changed, though much of the land in large quantities is still under the control of temple trusts. Today’s struggles are oriented towards demand for redistribution of such land and house pattas, as announced by the government but not yet implemented.

The 40-year-long journey of the dalits of Keezhavenmani and of the erstwhile east Thanjavur district since the gruesome events of December 1968 stands as an inspiration to the vast numbers of dalits elsewhere in the country who continue to face the twin barriers of social and economic exploitation. As the Karamchedu massacres in Andhra Pradesh in 1985, the Jhajjar lynchings in Haryana in 2002, the Khairlanji murders in Maharashtra in 2006, and the scores of incidents in which the feudal Ranvir Sena have targeted dalit families in Bihar in the 1990s have shown, dalits are still at the receiving end of violence and exploitation across the country. While affirmative action and reservation have provided some relief, they have only been formal ways of enshrining equality while entrenched caste prejudices and economic exploitation remain.

No longer does the judiciary in India show a blatant class/caste bias as it did in the Keezhavenmani judgment. But kangaroo courts, run by caste panchayats, still go about ostracising dalits in the rural hinterland. Without a concerted political movement for rights, political representation has largely resulted in cooption of sections of dalits into the system.

The saga of struggles and steady political mobilisation by the dalits in Nagapattinam district – despite setbacks such as the court rulings on the Keezhavenmani murders and periodical dilution of land ceiling laws in Tamil Nadu – stand out as a success story in the fight against exploitation and casteism in the country. They may be facing newer challenges and newer struggles, but they hold their head high today in reverence to the memory of those who were brutally massacred 40 years ago.

Editorial written for the Economic and Political Weekly