Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts

01/05/08

t.r.baalu, thevar or brahmin?

was caste conceived in a world of shortages? india still faces shortages in many fields: is that the reason why caste works so well today? nearly half the country still doesn't have regular access to electricity, and almost all gas based plants in the country are hungry for fuel. the babus from the former soviet union would know better about how goods and services get distributed when they're rationed out- the weak stay in the lines, forever, while the powerful get those goods without ever stepping into any line. our own planning commission would also know a lot about it: the government stores enough food in its godowns, for everyone, but the poor never get enough.


if the true principle of socialism is the elimination of hierarchy, caste espouses the merits of hierarchy. if socialism is about equality, caste is about separation. then why, in practice, do both end up looking like each other? the problem is with looking at hierarchy and separation separately: hierarchy would remain as long as there is separation, or inequality, and not just along class lines, but along ethnicities. and if you wish to eliminate ethnic divisions, say, which ones would you eliminate, first? yeah, hierarchy. across the world, people progress towards democracy by eliminating the nobility first. physically, or by stripping them of all privileges. is it possible in the hindu world? prachanda is trying to do that in nepal? yeah, with a tilak, most probably applied by a brahmin, on his forehead. i don't think i've seen an image more loaded with irony, hypocrisy and deceit in recent times.

coming back to the original question: when gas is rationed out, would the rationing work in any other way? and should t.r.baalu feel guilty about jumping the line? he says, he did it for the shareholders. that's a secular reason the prime minister finds nothing wrong with. did t.r.baalu act out of secular motivations? his grihastha dharma enjoins him to focus on his extended family first, the world later. that's what he was doing. if a hypocritical democracy finds comfort in secular excuses- interests of cheated shareholders must be good enough.

if nepal wishes to promote equality, it should start thinking of eliminating the privileges of those at the top (and not merely those, nominally, at the top), first. would there be any lower castes without any upper castes? and if the dmk, a party that has long championed the cause of social justice and reform, wishes to destroy the caste system it can't harbour members such as t.r.baalu who practise caste so very openly. hell, it can't harbour even folks such as karunanidhi. every secular excuse that they offer in defense of according special privileges to their kin would strengthen caste. special privileges and hierarchy go together- if you acquiesce to a system of privileging, you would consolidate the position of those at the top of the order, more than justify their practice of caste, and not bring them down.

a lot of champions of lower caste politics, especially those of the obc kind, act like fools cutting down branches of the trees they're sitting on. if you're a thevar seeking special privileges for your kin, you're not just separating yourself from others lower down in the hierarchy, you're also separating yourself from other thevars, less fortunate than you. will your actions, in any fashion, dent the whole hierarchical order? no, they will only strengthen it. other thevars would find it that much more difficult to secure their rights, forget privileges, because those traditionally at the top would not need any excuses to continue to practise caste. remember, their right to privileges is divinely ordained while your right to equality is the result of secular, democratic struggles. when you uphold privileges, don't you strengthen the divine writ (and weaken your secular right to equality)? how can you begin to question their privileges when you seem to accept, willingly, other portions of the divine writ?

everyone should look after their own kind, right? first the kul, or the family, then the jati, then the varna and finally, if there's any time left, the world. as long as you defend privileges, mr.baalu, you defend caste. and as long as you defend caste, don't nurse any illusions that you can always secure all your rights. there'd be other people stealing your rights most of the rest of your life, who wouldn't even need to defend their actions: caste has already accorded them privileged positions.

lastly, those thevars who show scant respect for the dalits, lower down the caste order, aren't very different from baalu, are they? someone would always reign over them as long as they try to reign over the dalits.

29/02/08

more socialist than the swedes

prof. gadde swarup directed my attention to this post, which talked about why the delivery of public services, like education and healthcare, is so poor in india:
First, especially compared with Bangladesh, India is an extremely heterogeneous society, with many castes, ethnic groups, languages and religions. There is some evidence that polarized societies find it more difficult to build political support for public goods. Second, to the extent that these services are transactions-intensive (a teacher has to spend time with students, doctors with patients), caste or other differences may stand in the way of publicly-provided services working for some people. Low-caste people, for instance, have been excluded from some public schools and public clinics. They are able to obtain services in the private sector—because they pay for these services. Paradoxically, therefore, the fact that the Indian government mandated free and universal public education and health, and decided to finance and provide it from the public sector, may be the reason poor people are largely obtaining these services in the private sector.
i've talked about this issue in too many posts: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah etc., and blah, blah, blah, and blah and..here's the gist of most of the arguments made in those posts:

* the welfare government of india focusses more on equalizing outcomes than opportunities and fails miserably on both counts,
* the brunt of this failure is borne more by the lower castes and other marginalized sections of indian society- more parliamentary time is spent on discussing issues related to the pay and pensions of the 33 lakh strong central government staff and on whether the goi should disinvest its holdings in the public sector insurance/telecom/airline/hotel businesses to the extent of 75% or 49% than on the miserable conditions of public schools in which more than a 100 million children from the lowest strata of indian society study,
* if the government wishes to improve the opportunity structure, at least, for the lower castes in this country it needs to focus more, much more undivided attention on the school education, healthcare and other factors that impact human development of these sections,
* and this can only happen if it sheds a lot of excess baggage it has gathered over the years, in terms of policies and implementation machinery- education, healthcare, rural infrastructure and justice should be four of the most important priorities of the goi out of a total of ten, and not four also-important-goals out of a hundred other priority areas,
* and it has to do this on its own because # the market can't deliver education to most of the lower castes because they don't constitute a market, # it's its primary job to build a nation of citizens with equal access to opportunities.

you might wonder- what excess baggage? i'm talking about the idelogical baggage that dictates that the government should govern most aspects of economic and social life in the country. and the huge multi-headed, many armed people and policy apparatus built in mindless pursuit of that goal.

inspired by a blogger who every once in a while points out how the socialist government of sweden takes more care of the welfare of its citizens than neo-liberal india, i've devised this crude graphic presentation to point out how much more socialist the government of india is than the government of sweden:

here's the swedish government (list of its ministries- from the wikipedia):

* Ministry of Justice
* Ministry for Foreign Affairs
* Ministry of Defence
* Ministry of Health and Social Affairs
* Ministry of Finance
* Ministry of Education and Research
* Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
* Ministry of the Environment
* Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications
* Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality
* Ministry of Culture
* Ministry of Employment

here's the indian central government (again from the wikipedia):

# Ministry of Agriculture
# Ministry of Agro and Rural Industries
# Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers
# Ministry of Civil Aviation
# Ministry of Coal
# Ministry of Commerce and Industry
# Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
# Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution
# Ministry of Corporate Affairs
# Ministry of Culture
# Ministry of Defence
# Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region
# Ministry of Earth Sciences
# Ministry of Environment and Forests
# Ministry of External Affairs
# Ministry of Finance
# Ministry of Food Processing Industries
# Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
# Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises
# Ministry of Home Affairs
# Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
# Ministry of Human Resource Development
# Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
# Ministry of Labour and Employment
# Ministry of Law and Justice
# Ministry of Mines
# Ministry of Minority Affairs
# Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
# Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs
# Ministry of Panchayati Raj
# Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
# Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
# Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
# Ministry of Power
# Ministry of Railways
# Ministry of Rural Development
# Ministry of Science and Technology
# Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways
# Ministry of Small Scale Industries
# Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
# Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation
# Ministry of Steel
# Ministry of Textiles
# Ministry of Tourism
# Ministry of Tribal Affairs
# Ministry of Urban Development
# Ministry of Water Resources
# Ministry of Women and Child Development
# Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports

the ministries marked in red (in the indian list) are common to both governments, nominally. sweden has twelve ministries, apart from the prime minister's office... india has so many more socialistic arms! and there are also ministers of state and deputy ministers etc., does more socialism deliver more welfare?

19/02/08

exhuming mumbai

over a million people live in dharavi, in an area spread over roughly 600 acres. roughly, again, you could say that each resident has access to around 3 sq.yds of living space. if you exclude the space occupied by such unnecessary frills as walls, roads etc., you'll realize there is not much space left for everyone to eat, shit, sit, play, dance, pace, make love, sleep, read, work, cook, fart, breathe, live in but just enough space to lie down and die, if you squeezed in your legs and your arms and pulled in your whole body together a little. yes, you can rest in peace in dharavi. roughly.

for the last thirty years, while the residents of dharavi and other slums in mumbai were doing just that, resting in peace, the governments of mumbai, maharashtra and india were engaged in furious, energetic efforts to ensure that no one eats, shits, sits, plays, dances, paces, makes love, sleeps, reads, works, cooks, farts, breathes, lives in over 34,000 acres of land in mumbai. not in peace, at least. now, suddenly the government has decided to give up its vigil- that powerful, progressive legislation designed to protect the poor from landlords always eager to hoard land in their tijoris and smuggle it abroad or even to the afterlife, the ulcra, has been scrapped:
After deferring this major reform measure from one Assembly session to another, the Maharashtra government today finally scrapped a law that controls urban land holdings, potentially freeing up large tracts in Mumbai for housing and construction and sending shares of property firms sharply higher.

Amidst slogan-shouting by Shiv Sena members, the resolution to repeal the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act of 1976, moved by Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, was passed by a voice vote in the state Assembly.
the report says the chief minister admitted that 'the Act has failed to serve the purpose'. it's quite obvious to every discerning citizen in mumbai by now that the 'Act has failed', but what was the original purpose of the act anyway?

truth isn't reality

the 34,000 acres weren't manufactured over the last thirty years- they were there in 1976 when the act was promulgated. and one of the purposes served by the act was to keep them vacant so that land elsewhere in mumbai became costlier and costlier- definitely out of the reach of the poor, out of the reach of those living in slums such as dharavi. and also out of the reach of most of the working classes. and those from the middle and the upper classes who could still afford to pay for it, paid several times more than they would have if those 34,000 and many more acres that had simply disappeared were available for sale.

many say dharavi isn't as large as 600 acres: it's only 175 hectares, or 430 acres. which means each resident has to squeeze himself tighter than i assumed ealier- his total access to space has declined by around a third in the space of a few lines of text. that's what legislation of the kind the urban land ceiling act represents- grand, arbitrary, idealistic, myopic, progressive, repressive, noble, inane, call it what you will, depending on your ideological tilt, your favourite bollywood heroine and your lucky number- ultimately ends up doing. distorting truth and reality, dividing them, rendering both meaningless. banishing them to the murky world of rumour, speculation, gossip, fantasy (read this, this and this to get as many estimates of the area, population, population density, slums, slumdwelling population in mumbai as three different citizens of mumbai can think up).

mumbai, as the wikipedia says, occupies 603 sq.kilometres (i've read elsewhere that it is spread over only 430 sq.kms or so- as i said, you're free to choose your reality here). which converts into around 1,49,000 acres. and the population of mumbai, again according to the wikipedia, was 13.3 million in 2006. which means the residents of dharavi, who constitute around 7.5% of mumbai's population, live on around 0.29% of the total land area in mumbai!

and it's not just dharavi, according to various estimates over half of mumbai lives in slums. one estimate says about 40% of the city's population lives in 3.5% of its area. in 1976, around the time the ulcra was brought in, bombay's population was about 5.9 million. the slumdwellers numbered 2.8 million. and common sense tells you, the available 'excess' or vacant land was probably much more than 34,000 acres. enough to accomodate all of the 2.8 million slumdwellers (in 1976) in some decent housing. and also enough to accommodate all of the 3-4 million additional influx of people into the slums since then. with more than enough land to spare for parks, roads, offices etc., and for future parks, roads etc. why didn't that happen?

the road to hell

the road to hell is paved with good intentions and is also dotted with grand obsessions, egoisms and vanities. instead of disappearing, slums in mumbai multiplied since 1976. what did disappear was one-third the land mass of the city- land that you could touch, feel and see everyday but... in the new reality, it didn't exist. it didn't exist for the slumdwellers whose number more than doubled, from 2.8 million in 1976 to around 6-7 million now. it didn't exist for the lakhs of migrants who still kept coming to mumbai and dharavi grew denser. and it didn't exist for all the homeseekers who paid at least 30% more, for the available land, than they'd have if the ulcra hadn't been promulgated. and the lawyers, builders, fixers, goons, politicians, babus, policemen, gangsters grew richer protecting, invading and trading in land that belonged to anyone, and also the land that suddenly belonged to no one, that had suddenly fallen off the map of the world.

how did this state sponsored deprivation work on the collective psyche of mumbai? and how did it affect india?

02/12/07

'worthy but ineffective'

Whether it is called the market, or capitalism, or neoliberalism, it is a tool that has not yet been harnessed fully for poverty alleviation. As Desai points out, the market is a tool for eliminating scarcity. It is departures from the free market, such as big subsidies for agriculture in rich countries, that are doing most to solidify poverty. Even from a tactical perspective, arguments expressed in the language of the free market are listened to, whereas moral sentimentality about excessive inequality is worthy but ineffective.
from an old review of meghnad desai's marx's revenge. seems like an interesting book.

01/12/07

why most indian states should seriously think of seceding from india

THE Green revolution from the late sixties onwards, owing to its markedly greater success in Northern and North western India compared to other parts of the country, had led to increase in the regional concentration of foodgrains output, to a degree of which few are aware. Over a decade ago we had worked out the changing structure of the various regions' contribution to aggregate food output in India for the period 1960-61 to 1987-88 and presented the summarised data in the form of snapshots of three sub-periods, in Table 1. This shows a marked, indeed dramatic shift. Total food output in the regions considered rose by 82 per cent from the early sixties to the mid-eighties. Accounting for just around a quarter (26 per cent) of total food output during 1959-60 to 1961-62 (taking the average of the three years), North and North-Western India had increased its share to two-fifths (39.8 per cent) by the mid-eighties, taking the triennial average for 1983-84 to 1985-86. All other regions of India showed a greater or lesser decline: Eastern India from 23.2 per cent to 20.2 per cent, South India from 21.5 per cent to to 17 per cent and West-central India from 29.1 per cent to 23.1 per cent. Of the addition to grain output during this period, which was 65 million tonnes, nearly 37 million tonnes or over half came came from North India alone.
read ms.utsa patnaik's glib explanation of how this severely distorted growth has been good for india- read and understand that the grotesque edifice of food security in india has been built and rests on growth in a few states in the north and north-west and the concomitant decline in food production across the majority of states! food security at the national level sorely depends on food insecurity in most of the states!

and that is exactly the point i've been trying to make in this series [ (1), (2) and (3) ] of posts. i'd outlined how difficult it is for most indian states to think of producing enough food for all the residents living in any given state. it's not possible because a) the country already produces enough food for everyone, and b) the government distributes surpluses from a few states in all the deficit states so that the total market for local farmers in any given state stands diminished. why should farmers use 100% of the resources at their disposal to produce enough food for 80-90% of the consumption needs in any particular state? any producer would produce only as much as his market demands- in deficit states in india, the government of india ensures that the deficit (5-70% of total consumption needs, across various states) is bridged by bringing in surplus grain from punjab and a couple of other states. so where can the farmers in that state sell their produce if they produce enough for 100% of the consumption needs in that particular state? they can't a) sell in their own state all their produce because the grain sold through the pds takes away 5-70% of their market- their produce can't compete with pds grain on price, and b) they can't sell in other states, because of increased transactional costs, trade restrictions and because their grain, in all probability, would be costlier than grain from surplus states like punjab which have over the years achieved certain economies of scale (i shall touch upon these reasons again, later).

in the final analysis, what the governnment of india does in all the deficit states is to follow precisely the kind of ugly, neo-imperialist strategy that patnaik and sainath and many like them accuse the e.u., and the u.s., of adopting in most of the third world- dumping cheap, subsidized produce and driving the local farmers to suicide.

to survive, any food-deficit indian state needs to produce enough food for all the citizens in that state - it is also necessary for the overall development of the economy of that state that agriculture, and farmers, should be able to grow. that isn't possible for most indian states as long as they remain indian states.

older posts in this series: [1], [2], [3].

16/10/07

this picture is worth a million shiv sainiks


organized sector employment in bombay in 1961 was 8,82,000. it rose to 11,82,000 by 1991. that's a statistic- now think of the abolition of the privy purses, the nationalization of banks, the green revolution, the land ceiling legislations, the five-point, twenty-point programmes to sweep away garibi. think of all the measures, schemes, policies and emergencies that were deemed necessary for ushering in socialism and making india secure for its workers. and its poor. in mumbai, india's economic capital, all those measures yielded an additional, secure, 3 lakh jobs over a thirty year period. while the population of the city nearly tripled.

now look at the chart at the beginning of this post- that picture is worth a million shiv sainiks (because it was in the sixties that the congress *first started sleeping around with the shiv sena and, simultaneously, *professing and practising socialism more vigorously than ever before). what do we see? let me draw the conclusions for you: since the sixties, most of mumbai's workforce has been progressively pushed into the insecure informal sector while most of its citizenry has been driven into an increasingly insecure sena raj.
 
Add to Technorati Favorites