Now that the dust has settled somewhat on the Ram Sethu issue with the government maintaining a silence , let us ponder on what a sane nation might do.
Nations with a continuous civilization such as ours,(which though interrupted throughout history by various invaders, was never wiped out) , generally take pride in their heritage. Often such nations are interested in knowing about the history of their nations. An example would be Israel where archaeology, of which Biblical archaeology is a part, is a valued research tool used to define it as a nation. In fact, much of Israel’s claim to the particular piece of land is based on its beliefs. In such nations, institutes of research, though populated occasionally by members of specific persuasions and ideologies, do not have their research agenda determined by whichever ruling party currently occupies power. These institutes are fairly independent and focus on understanding the past. In any other nation, the discovery of a land bridge connecting two pieces of land would have elicited curiosity, wonder, perhaps even the desire to study the phenomenon even further.
Not so in India.
In India alone, any discovery of an ancient civilization which has its mooring in a specific religion is at once denied legitimacy. Without any facts to back statements, the ASI can at once claim that it is not a man-made bridge but a natural rock formation. All stories that Hindus consider historical can be painted with the brush of being a myth and therefore not true.
Chief Ministers can then publicly decry the protest by Hindus as motivated by something other than a desire to protect their religious heritage. These incompetent people, who may not even have a high school diploma, go on record asking whether Lord Rama had an engineering degree etc.
Subsequently, buses can be torched and people burned in protest.
Another insane episode in national history.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Critique of Sanjeev Sabhloks book "Breaking Free of Nehru"
I read “Breaking Free of Nehru”, Sabhlok’s book on overthrowing Nehru’s legacy. Definitely, we have outlived the socialist policies of Nehru and some of his ideas of rectifying historical discrimination by punishing current generations.
However in defense of Nehru, I would like to point out that at the time of Independence, India was in an abysmal state of poverty. We were not able to feed ourselves and we really had no large industries. Our manufacturing capabilities had been eroded by the British and even in agriculture, we were basically managing on subsistence farming. So one does have to credit Nehru for ushering in the green revolution whereby we were able to get agricultural surpluses such that today, we can provide a diet of at least 2000 calories to every Indian (although I understand that is has gone down recently with reverses in productivity).
In industry, while free market capitalism as espoused by Sabhlok is the ideal, it does not simply come into existence without concomitant financial resources and technological know-how. At the time of Independence we were cash poor and we really did not have many of the large industries in place. Also, the western countries were not exactly falling over themselves to help us—they were quite condescending of our national aspirations. In fact Russia was one of the few countries to respect our desire to be a nation and give us the necessary technology not only in major industries like steel etc. but also in our defense industries. Let us also not forget that Nehru was trying to urbanize India and remove her masses from dependence on land and farming and trying to employ her people in various productive endeavors. While we may laugh at the notion of a government wanting to make bread and cloth and other varieties of consumer goods, this for Nehru served as means to employ more people. So while we need not preserve such socialist ideas, let us give the poor man (Nehru) some credit.
Secondly with reference to using a punishing caste based reservation system to right the wrongs of the past, we do need some kind of affirmative action to give opportunities to backward classes. While we need not narrowly define backwardness by caste distinctions alone, we do need to recognize that some people continue to suffer because of the social structures that are in place.
There were a couple of areas where I found Sabhlok’s conclusions disingenuous and sometimes dangerous.
One of the key areas that Mr. Sablok feels that we should not meddle is the concept of a Uniform Civil Code which according to him if we create a uniform civil code “it would amount to an insidious way of imposing majority rule in a democracy: pure mobocracy. Either way, the whole thing of a UCC is incompatible with the tenets of freedom and democracy and must be scrapped.”
I found this statement extremely dishonest and hypocritical for two reasons: 1) the country that he extols for having a free society (the USA) has a uniform civil code (same laws for all regardless of religious affiliation and based mostly on Judaeo-Christian principles) and 2) that he himself resides in a country with a uniform civil code (Australia)
Now neither of these countries could be called a mobocrasy. So are we to understand that democracy, which itself is defined as rule by majority, will only become mobocracy if it follows Hindu principles?
In principle, all religions in India have their personal laws codified through an act of parliament, except the Muslims, whose personal laws are based on the Shari at. Now in a secular country, where there is a separation of government and religious institutions, is it not wrong to privilege the religious beliefs of one group alone. The Hindu law is not based on Hindu religious principles. It is based on commonly agreed concepts of fairness and justice. So why are the Muslims exempt from that? This contradiction in Sabhlok’s argument is especially glaring since he argues for the primacy of fairness and justice for all as the foundation for civil society.
The second, more disturbing conclusion of Mr. Sabhlok, in his blue print for a new constitution was the following recommendation.
“People in any geographical part of India can ask to form a new country if they are not happy with being part of India, through a 95% referendum in that part of India, with at least 90% of the people voting. Violence from the proponents of the new state will nullify the referendum”
This is an extremely dangerous proposal for two reasons. Firstly, every single group in India will want a state of their own and we could find ourselves splintered into a hundred pieces.
Secondly, either we believe in pluralism whereby individual and group differences do not constitute a reasonable reason to break away from the nation, or we don’t believe it.
He talks about India becoming more prosperous and thereby attracting more immigrants, the same way Australia does. However, he fails to take into account that both Australia and the United States have an underlying culture that forces and encourages certain conformity. Thus, most Indians who migrate there do change their behaviors to fit in with the society. For example, most immigrants to the USA celebrate Thanksgiving in their own way (often involving a turkey) and many non Christians have a Christmas tree during Christmas and don’t mind singing Christmas carols etc. So outwardly, the US, even though it is a plural society, is in fact Christian. Thus, the state can insist that people recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools etc. If Indians in India were to insist on using the US as an example, then everyone would have to sing Vande Mataram. (This would probably be opposed by Sabhlok as infringing on personal freedom).
Lastly, we need to recognize that we do have a great many freedoms in India. Before tinkering with the Indian Constitution, let us seriously examine it and figure out whether it can be rescued merely by reinterpreting its words rather than changing them.
However in defense of Nehru, I would like to point out that at the time of Independence, India was in an abysmal state of poverty. We were not able to feed ourselves and we really had no large industries. Our manufacturing capabilities had been eroded by the British and even in agriculture, we were basically managing on subsistence farming. So one does have to credit Nehru for ushering in the green revolution whereby we were able to get agricultural surpluses such that today, we can provide a diet of at least 2000 calories to every Indian (although I understand that is has gone down recently with reverses in productivity).
In industry, while free market capitalism as espoused by Sabhlok is the ideal, it does not simply come into existence without concomitant financial resources and technological know-how. At the time of Independence we were cash poor and we really did not have many of the large industries in place. Also, the western countries were not exactly falling over themselves to help us—they were quite condescending of our national aspirations. In fact Russia was one of the few countries to respect our desire to be a nation and give us the necessary technology not only in major industries like steel etc. but also in our defense industries. Let us also not forget that Nehru was trying to urbanize India and remove her masses from dependence on land and farming and trying to employ her people in various productive endeavors. While we may laugh at the notion of a government wanting to make bread and cloth and other varieties of consumer goods, this for Nehru served as means to employ more people. So while we need not preserve such socialist ideas, let us give the poor man (Nehru) some credit.
Secondly with reference to using a punishing caste based reservation system to right the wrongs of the past, we do need some kind of affirmative action to give opportunities to backward classes. While we need not narrowly define backwardness by caste distinctions alone, we do need to recognize that some people continue to suffer because of the social structures that are in place.
There were a couple of areas where I found Sabhlok’s conclusions disingenuous and sometimes dangerous.
One of the key areas that Mr. Sablok feels that we should not meddle is the concept of a Uniform Civil Code which according to him if we create a uniform civil code “it would amount to an insidious way of imposing majority rule in a democracy: pure mobocracy. Either way, the whole thing of a UCC is incompatible with the tenets of freedom and democracy and must be scrapped.”
I found this statement extremely dishonest and hypocritical for two reasons: 1) the country that he extols for having a free society (the USA) has a uniform civil code (same laws for all regardless of religious affiliation and based mostly on Judaeo-Christian principles) and 2) that he himself resides in a country with a uniform civil code (Australia)
Now neither of these countries could be called a mobocrasy. So are we to understand that democracy, which itself is defined as rule by majority, will only become mobocracy if it follows Hindu principles?
In principle, all religions in India have their personal laws codified through an act of parliament, except the Muslims, whose personal laws are based on the Shari at. Now in a secular country, where there is a separation of government and religious institutions, is it not wrong to privilege the religious beliefs of one group alone. The Hindu law is not based on Hindu religious principles. It is based on commonly agreed concepts of fairness and justice. So why are the Muslims exempt from that? This contradiction in Sabhlok’s argument is especially glaring since he argues for the primacy of fairness and justice for all as the foundation for civil society.
The second, more disturbing conclusion of Mr. Sabhlok, in his blue print for a new constitution was the following recommendation.
“People in any geographical part of India can ask to form a new country if they are not happy with being part of India, through a 95% referendum in that part of India, with at least 90% of the people voting. Violence from the proponents of the new state will nullify the referendum”
This is an extremely dangerous proposal for two reasons. Firstly, every single group in India will want a state of their own and we could find ourselves splintered into a hundred pieces.
Secondly, either we believe in pluralism whereby individual and group differences do not constitute a reasonable reason to break away from the nation, or we don’t believe it.
He talks about India becoming more prosperous and thereby attracting more immigrants, the same way Australia does. However, he fails to take into account that both Australia and the United States have an underlying culture that forces and encourages certain conformity. Thus, most Indians who migrate there do change their behaviors to fit in with the society. For example, most immigrants to the USA celebrate Thanksgiving in their own way (often involving a turkey) and many non Christians have a Christmas tree during Christmas and don’t mind singing Christmas carols etc. So outwardly, the US, even though it is a plural society, is in fact Christian. Thus, the state can insist that people recite the Pledge of Allegiance in schools etc. If Indians in India were to insist on using the US as an example, then everyone would have to sing Vande Mataram. (This would probably be opposed by Sabhlok as infringing on personal freedom).
Lastly, we need to recognize that we do have a great many freedoms in India. Before tinkering with the Indian Constitution, let us seriously examine it and figure out whether it can be rescued merely by reinterpreting its words rather than changing them.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Should Communist parties in India be banned
The killings at Nandigram and the reaction or non –reaction of the W. Bengal government throws light on the fundamental problem of having a communist state government in a Democratic country.
While most people do hold the correct view that communism’s organizing principles of collective ownership of property is the opposite of capitalism which favours individual ownership of property, communism is also opposed to democracy. Democracy is rule by the people. It is a form of representative government, where the individuals not only elect the leaders, but also have ownership of private property, and can decide to sell or not sell their property. The vanguards of democracy are both the freely elected government and a free press which keeps watch to make sure the public is informed of all those facts that affect it.
Here is where, the communist government of W. Bengal’s attempt to take away property forcibly for the “greater good” of industry runs into problem. The question is “can a communist state government’s policies usurp my rights as a free citizen in a democratic country.”
While democratic nations such as the U.S. do have the concept of eminent domain, whereby the state can demand your property for development purposes, this just becomes a legal battle, one fought in a court of law , not on the streets with gun battle.
The problem with communism is more fundamental than just another occasional episode of violence.The very basis of communist governments is based not only in collective ownership of property, but in a totalitarian control of all economic and political activity. So that, the citizens do not decide what is good for them, since there is no representative government, but rather a group people who come into power by whatever means decide the greater good. If the people then decide they want to get out of the totalitarian system, they find that they can’t opt out . A case in point would be the Tiananmen square fiasco, where the government which is supposed to protect the people ends up killing them. And this makes perfect sense in communism because the government is really is not of the people or even, for the people. Totalitarian regimes exist solely to self-perpetuate.
How does this translate to our own home-grown communist parties? Pretty much the same. They unfortunately react to protest in the same way that their counterparts in China do. Suddenly we find the party which was supposed to represent labor and the lower classes, wants to grab the land and give it to the bourgeois (or MNC s as maybe the case).
The problem of public ownership of all property is another contentious issue. Does this only relate to land, as in the land owned by farmers , or does it include all property. Thus, can the government just take away my home if they wish? How about my car? Where is the line between what is mine and what is everyones defined.
So, should a democratic nation have communist parties at state or local levels of government or should it ban such parties from existing. Now here is where I think most people would say that no, a democratic nation is one that allows freedom of political thought. This is problematic for two reasons. One is that it assumes a certain moral equivalence between rule of the people and rule by elite totalitarian parties. But there is no moral equivalence. A government representative of the people is one that is sensitive to the needs of the people and understands that its primary duty is to its citizens and not just its party. It is also one that owes its positions of power to the people and is truly a servant of the people. A totalitarian regime on the other hand has only a duty to its other party members and not to the ruled public.
The second problem is with the definition of democracy and freedom… What does it mean to be free? If I am free, does that mean I can choose to be a slave? For most of us, the answer would probably be yes, that makes sense. Freedom of choice means freedom to be a slave. But here’s the problem, once you enter slave hood, you end up renouncing your freedoms and therefore, once you become a slave, by definition, you have no free choice, so you can’t get out of that state. And this is the problem with communism. By definition, even when we elect it, it no longer becomes a representative government. It automatically becomes a government for its own self-perpetuating ideologies. Then, it becomes difficult to remove it from power. As is the case of China ( and perhaps Bengal yet again. )
.
While most people do hold the correct view that communism’s organizing principles of collective ownership of property is the opposite of capitalism which favours individual ownership of property, communism is also opposed to democracy. Democracy is rule by the people. It is a form of representative government, where the individuals not only elect the leaders, but also have ownership of private property, and can decide to sell or not sell their property. The vanguards of democracy are both the freely elected government and a free press which keeps watch to make sure the public is informed of all those facts that affect it.
Here is where, the communist government of W. Bengal’s attempt to take away property forcibly for the “greater good” of industry runs into problem. The question is “can a communist state government’s policies usurp my rights as a free citizen in a democratic country.”
While democratic nations such as the U.S. do have the concept of eminent domain, whereby the state can demand your property for development purposes, this just becomes a legal battle, one fought in a court of law , not on the streets with gun battle.
The problem with communism is more fundamental than just another occasional episode of violence.The very basis of communist governments is based not only in collective ownership of property, but in a totalitarian control of all economic and political activity. So that, the citizens do not decide what is good for them, since there is no representative government, but rather a group people who come into power by whatever means decide the greater good. If the people then decide they want to get out of the totalitarian system, they find that they can’t opt out . A case in point would be the Tiananmen square fiasco, where the government which is supposed to protect the people ends up killing them. And this makes perfect sense in communism because the government is really is not of the people or even, for the people. Totalitarian regimes exist solely to self-perpetuate.
How does this translate to our own home-grown communist parties? Pretty much the same. They unfortunately react to protest in the same way that their counterparts in China do. Suddenly we find the party which was supposed to represent labor and the lower classes, wants to grab the land and give it to the bourgeois (or MNC s as maybe the case).
The problem of public ownership of all property is another contentious issue. Does this only relate to land, as in the land owned by farmers , or does it include all property. Thus, can the government just take away my home if they wish? How about my car? Where is the line between what is mine and what is everyones defined.
So, should a democratic nation have communist parties at state or local levels of government or should it ban such parties from existing. Now here is where I think most people would say that no, a democratic nation is one that allows freedom of political thought. This is problematic for two reasons. One is that it assumes a certain moral equivalence between rule of the people and rule by elite totalitarian parties. But there is no moral equivalence. A government representative of the people is one that is sensitive to the needs of the people and understands that its primary duty is to its citizens and not just its party. It is also one that owes its positions of power to the people and is truly a servant of the people. A totalitarian regime on the other hand has only a duty to its other party members and not to the ruled public.
The second problem is with the definition of democracy and freedom… What does it mean to be free? If I am free, does that mean I can choose to be a slave? For most of us, the answer would probably be yes, that makes sense. Freedom of choice means freedom to be a slave. But here’s the problem, once you enter slave hood, you end up renouncing your freedoms and therefore, once you become a slave, by definition, you have no free choice, so you can’t get out of that state. And this is the problem with communism. By definition, even when we elect it, it no longer becomes a representative government. It automatically becomes a government for its own self-perpetuating ideologies. Then, it becomes difficult to remove it from power. As is the case of China ( and perhaps Bengal yet again. )
.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Gandhi Revisited
Sixty years of Independence. Look what we have to show for it. We have gone from one of the poorest nations in the world to an economic powerhouse. Our economy and productivity are booming we are often told. We are becoming land of a billion consumers who represent an important marketplace for the world’s industries. We now are not only an economic success story, but also a political success story—one of the few developing nations in the world to successfully implement a democratic form of government and still retain it after sixty years. Before we start patting ourselves on the back, let us reflect on what success really means to the individual and the country as a whole.
Does success mean that as a consumer, I have the widest access to all sorts of consumer goods, but no real access to clean, safe water on a continual basis. Does success mean that I can have the most expensive imported car, yet not a single decent highway comparable to Singapore (forget comparing to Europe). Does success mean that I as a middle-class person will have access the best universities in India and be able to garner funds to go abroad for higher studies via bank loans etc. yet my compatriots who are not as wealthy as me will go through life with minimal or no education—not even a primary school education.
What does success really mean to the country? Does it imply becoming self-reliant in food production so that we can feed our people, or does it mean having to import grains and food stuffs because we forgot to plan ahead. Do we step up to the plate and safe guard our environment, whether it is rivers, land quality, or do we mortgage our future to private interests which may not coincide with our collective national good. Are we interested in using the millions who are unemployed to work for their own betterment , either by encouraging their traditional skill sets, or teaching them new skills, or are we going to go down the path of increased mechanization.
Let us revisit some of Gandhi’s ideas, which are so often dismissed as quixotic. What does swadeshi mean? My belief is that Indians all over India can lead productive and prosperous lives if every Indian is actively involved in the economic activity of the community.
Does success mean that as a consumer, I have the widest access to all sorts of consumer goods, but no real access to clean, safe water on a continual basis. Does success mean that I can have the most expensive imported car, yet not a single decent highway comparable to Singapore (forget comparing to Europe). Does success mean that I as a middle-class person will have access the best universities in India and be able to garner funds to go abroad for higher studies via bank loans etc. yet my compatriots who are not as wealthy as me will go through life with minimal or no education—not even a primary school education.
What does success really mean to the country? Does it imply becoming self-reliant in food production so that we can feed our people, or does it mean having to import grains and food stuffs because we forgot to plan ahead. Do we step up to the plate and safe guard our environment, whether it is rivers, land quality, or do we mortgage our future to private interests which may not coincide with our collective national good. Are we interested in using the millions who are unemployed to work for their own betterment , either by encouraging their traditional skill sets, or teaching them new skills, or are we going to go down the path of increased mechanization.
Let us revisit some of Gandhi’s ideas, which are so often dismissed as quixotic. What does swadeshi mean? My belief is that Indians all over India can lead productive and prosperous lives if every Indian is actively involved in the economic activity of the community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)