Anti MNC Forum

Dadul's letter from prison (During Emergency)

2011-10-23T09:22:00.003+05:30

My dear Aflu,
I got letters from all four of you on the same day. It was very happy day for me in
my sad and solitary life here. I wish to thank you particularly for giving me some good
information about your new Math teacher and Raja Babu’s Brother*. I have not yet got
any news about Mamoo. Very likely, you have in the mean time heard from Gaga or
Mamna or Ami. Didoon has not written to me yet. I have written a long letter to your
mother and Mashi about how terribly I am missing Didoon. I am sure, she is doing so as
much if not more. She is trying to hide it from herself and others. How is your Bhabi
and how is your brother? Are they quite excited about the one who is to come very
soon? Honestly Munnoo should sit down and write a long and interesting letter about
life at home and outside. That suddenly brings to my mind – forgetful due to old age –
the terrible shock I had got on hearing from Baby about Surendra Bhai’s lovely little
son’s death! Of all the little ones to play with in the Sadhana Kendra, somehow, he was
perhaps the one whom I loved and admired most. I do not know how to console people.
I have never consoled myself. I live with my sorrows, however terrible they may be. That
is my philosophy. I think, if I do not suffer I cease to be a human being. Why is it that
the mother suffers the most for the lost child? The simple reason is she loves the most.
To lessen her sorrow would she like to be something less than a mother? In the animal
kingdom man is the only creature who suffers at the very sight of others suffering
because by nature he is capable loving others outside his kith and kin. Let us love more
and more and bear all the suffering that comes out of this game of love. Jesus perhaps
meant this and not what the pious Christians say, when he mounted the gallows which
used to be like cross in those days in his country.
Aflu, please tell your mother and Mashi that new rules have been made for the
security prisoners. One has to obtain the permission of the detaining authority
concerned (the Cuttack Dist. Magist. in my case) before interviewing me in the Jail. So,
Mashi should go to Cuttack and not Baripada. Please don’t forget to tell them before
Mousha and Mashi leave Varanasi. You should also immediately drop a card to Mamna
or Gaga. I can’t write to them now. I can write only two letters. My second letter I shall
write to Didi. What am I to do? You are all scattered over the whole country - Cuttack,
Bhubaneswar, Varanasi, Delhi, Bhopal, Angul, Ahmedabad and soon Ranchi. I don't know
yet where Mamu is. You all know how I never liked to write letters and even to reply to
others letters. But now see the fun! Give my love to Mousha and heaps of kisses for
you all, including my two daughters. My best wishes for all my young and grown up
friends on the campus - Moorti, Sheomangal and all.
Dadul
*Jayaprakash Narayan's younger brother's name was Rajababu(He not being as famous as his elder brother.)I had given some information about JP by referring to Raja Babu.

Corruption : An appeal / Samajwadi Janaparishad

2011-07-09T13:00:00.000+05:30

Niyamgiri : A First-hand Report by Miriam Rose

2011-05-21T22:06:00.000+05:30

Dear all,

The attached report (and lots of photos!) directly relates four important events at the longstanding Niyamgiri hills battle between tribal inhabitants and a bauxite mining company (Vedanta). On 16th May a red mud spill polluted a local village, while the next day a five day long protest walk was finished withy a meeting of 500 people, two blockades of landless people displaced by the alumina refinery took place, and a movement leader's funeral was held. He died of illnesses caused by the factory's emissions.

Please post this anywhere you can. It is breaking news, uncovered in the UK as far as I know, (though it was covered in Wall Street Journal USA) and very important in the run up to Vedanta's 2011 AGM- the first AGM since they lost permission for the bauxite mine at Niyamgiri, and the incredibly arrogant pursuit of a 1000 acre corporate university in Puri. The company is in its demise and now is the time to strike it hard.

I hope this is of interest. It was a huge honour for me to visit there finally, and more beautiful than I ever imagined. So much is at stake.

Having a very inspiring time here.

Hot and sweaty greetings from India...

xx Miriam

Open publication - Free publishing - More miriam rose

STOP THE DANGEROUS NUCLEAR VERSION OF THE ENRON’S DHABOL FIASCO

2011-05-07T12:20:00.000+05:30

ALL INDIA POWER ENGINEERS FEDERATION (AIPEF) and

NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONS OF

CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS (NCOA)

J 152 Saket New Delhi 110017 Tele 9868101640, 09878818702

PRESS STATEMENT FOR FAVOUR OF PUBLICATION - Dated 9^th May 2011

STOP THE DANGEROUS NUCLEAR VERSION OF

THE ENRON’S DHABOL FIASCO

Executive Summary of the Press Statement

The engineers of the power sector and the officers of the Central Public Sector have in a joint statement said “No sane power engineer, anywhere in the world, would envisage an almost 200 times increase in nuclear power within 41 years [from the present 3.8 Gigawatt (e) to 655 Gigawatt (e)]. Such an increase has not been achieved anywhere in the world”. The statement warns that “such a large expansion would be impossible without compromising quality and safety….. The Prime Minister has agreed to French reactor even without design and safety features being presented and approved by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board” The statement asks, “in the case of Jaitapur, where would the manpower be trained when there is no EPR nuclear power plant in operation anywhere in the world?”

The statement signed by Shri Padamjt Singh President, All India Power Engineers Federation and Shri K Ashok Rao President, National Confederation of Officers’ Associations has said that “when political decisions have already been taken at the level of the Prime Minister and Mr. Sarkosy the French President is himself pushing the French reactors no purposeful negotiations are possible at the official level. All that the officers can do is sign on the dotted line. Consequently, the French nuclear plant would cost upwards of Rs.22 Crores per MW against its Indigenous equivalent nuclear plant at Rs 8 Crores per MW”

The joint statement questions the fuel-energy policy. “who is determining India’s fuel-energy balance and the strategy for India’s energy security? Dabhol was intended to be a major customer of Enron 20-year contract for 2.1 million tons/year of Liquified Natural Gas LNG and the nuclear expansion, in the words of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, is meant for “Diversifying India's energy sector will help to alleviate the competition between India, the United States, and other rapidly expanding economies for scarce carbon-based energy resource”

Drawing a parallel with the Enron’s Dhabol Power plant the statement says, “It is the very same politicians in the Government and the opposition who facilitated ENRON’s Dhabol project and later absolved themselves of any responsibility for the fiasco. They would do the same in the case of Jaitapur nuclear power plant….while the Dhabol power plant left losses of few thousands of crores of rupees, a Jaitapur nuclear power plant will in addition leave behind a few lakh dead, injured and displaced Indians”

The Power Engineers and Officers of the Central Public Sector Undertakings have demanded a judicial enquiry, under the Commission of Enquiry Act, into the loss of thousands of crores of rupees due to the Enron sponsored Dhabol power plant and the summary rejection of the, nationally accepted, Homi Bhabha’s three stage development plan for nuclear power and its substitution with large scale import of high cost, nuclear power plants.

TEXT OF THE PRESS STATEMENT

The All India Power Engineers’ Federation (AIPEF) and The National Confederation Of Officers’ Associations Of Central Public Sector Undertakings (NCOA) Demand

A judicial enquiry, under the Commission of Enquiry Act to

1. Enquire into the loss of thousands of crores of rupees due to the Enron sponsored Dhabol power plant and fix responsibility for the loss.

2. Examine the reasons for the summary rejection of the, nationally accepted, Homi Bhabha’s three stage development plan for nuclear power and its substitution with large scale import of high cost, nuclear power plants

3. Review to ensure adequate safeguards so that no accidents threaten the environment and people in the country.

How did the Indian Prime Minister agree to a framework agreement?

How the Indian Prime Minister agree to a framework agreement being signed (commercial agreement is expected to be signed by Mid-June for Jaitapur) without

a) The design and safety features being presented and approved by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

b) Compliance with para 5.1 of the Tariff policy that mandates that all future requirement of power should be procured competitively. (Especially when it is known that the French nuclear plant would cost upwards of Rs.22 Crores per MW against its Indigenous equivalent nuclear plant at Rs 8 Crores per MW)

c) Creating adequate manpower (that too when no training opportunities exist anywhere in the world since there is no EPR nuclear power plants in operation anywhere)

Insane nuclear power policy

No sane power engineer, anywhere in the world, would envisage an almost 200 times increase in nuclear power within 41 years [from the present 3.8 Gigawatt (e) to 655 Gigawatt (e)]. Such an increase has not been achieved anywhere in the world. Even if such a programme were to be realised where is the trained manpower or qualified contractors? Without compromising quality and safety it would be impossible to have such a large expansion based on imports from different countries with reactors designed to different philosophies, practices and standards.

Who decides India’s fuel policy?

The question we would like to ask is who is determining India’s fuel-energy balance and the strategy for India’s energy security?

Enron had a 20-year contract for 2.1 million tons/year of Liquified Natural Gas LNG with two Middle Eastern suppliers and Dabhol was intended to be a major customer for that. And in the context of the Indo – United States Civil Nuclear agreement Dr. Condoleezza Rice the then US Secretary of State, asserted in the US Senate that “Diversifying India's energy sector will help to alleviate the competition between India, the United States, and other rapidly expanding economies for scarce carbon-based energy resource” And further, “Help India meet its rising energy needs without increasing its reliance on unstable foreign sources of oil and gas, such as nearby Iran”.

Whose interests are served?

For the Dhabol Power plant, violating Section 29 of the then Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) was directed not to give a techno-economic approval but to restrict its purview only to technical clearance, while Shri Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the then Finance Secretary, usurped CEA’s powers and gave economic clearance for the project. The very same Shri Aluwalia, now Vice Chairman, Planning Commission, has tailor-made an Integrated Energy Policy to justify large scale import of nuclear power plants including the one being set up at Jaitapur.

First an agreement at the highest level then sham negotiations

Not just in India, but nowhere in the world would there be purposeful negotiations at the official level when political decisions have already been taken at the level of the Prime Minister. All that the officers can do is sign on the dotted line. In the case of Dhabol almost the entire US government – from Commerce Secretary Brown, to Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Vice President Cheney (with the US Ambassador to India constantly threatening India with withdrawal of foreign investments) were involved. Mr. Sarkosy the French President was himself in India pushing the French reactors. Consequently, the French nuclear plant would cost upwards of Rs.22 Crores per MW against its Indigenous equivalent nuclear plant at Rs 8 Crores per MW”

Violation of human rights

Human Rights Watch produced evidence of ENRON lending the police its helicopters as well as direct payment to the police. Amnesty International found that local protests however peaceful were liable to “harassment, arbitrary arrest, preventive detention.” The National Human Rights Commission of India (Enquiry Report, July 1997) determined that the human rights violations committed by the police were due, in part, to an order given by the then Maharashtra Chief Minister Manohar Joshi “to deal with the situation...firmly or else the wrong signal would be conveyed to the business world” This time it’s a different Chief Minister but the cause being served, as well as the methods being used to suppress dissent are the same.

It is the very same politicians in the Government and the opposition who facilitated ENRON’s Dhabol project and later absolved themselves of any responsibility for the fiasco. They would do the same in the case of Jaitapur nuclear power plant.

There is no mystery about the nexus between the politicians and the foreign vendors. In the case of Enron it is well established that $20 million “education fund” was made available to prepare the way for the project. The equivalent figure for Jaitapur will come into public domain sooner or later.

In national interest, we professionals in the power industry, demand a proper enquiry and transparency in respect of energy policy and more specifically that relating to the nuclear issues that are agitating the minds of the people. We warn that while the Dhabol power plant left losses of few thousands of crores of rupees, a Jaitapur nuclear power plant will in addition leave behind a few lakh dead, injured and displaced Indians.

(Padamjeet Singh)

President , AIPEF (K Ashok Rao)

President, NCOA

Economic constitution of India / M.K. Gandhi

2011-05-03T08:39:00.000+05:30

According to me the economic constitution of India and for that matter of that of the world , should be such that no one under it should suffer from want of food and clothing . In other words everybody should be able to get sufficient work to enable him to make the two ends meet . And this ideal can be universally realized only if the means of production of elementary necessaries of life remain in the control of the masses . These should be freely available to all as God's air and water are ought to be ; they should not be made a vehicle of traffic for the exploitation of others . Their monopolization by any country , nation or group of persons would be unjust . The neglect of this simple principle is the cause of the destitution that we witness today not only in this unhappy land but in other parts of the world too .M.K. Gandhi , Young India , 15-11-1928 , p. 381.

DUTY OF DISLOYALTY / PART I / M.K. GANDHI

2011-04-18T21:46:00.000+05:30

There is no half-way house between active loyalty and active disloyalty . There is much truth in the late Justice Stephen's remark that a man to prove himself not guilty of disaffection must prove himself to be actively affectionate . In these days of democracy there is no such thing as active loyalty to a person . You are therefore loyal or disloyal to institutions . When therefore you are disloyal you seek not to destroy persons but institutions . The present State is an institution which , if one knows it , can never evoke loyalty . It is corrupt . Many of its laws governing the conduct of persons are positively inhuman . Their administration is worse . Often the will of one person is the law . It may safely be said that there are as many rulers as as there are districts in this country . These , called Collectors, combine in their own persons the executive as well the judicial functions . Though their acts are supposed to be governed by laws in themselves highly defective , these rulers are often capricious and regulated by nothing but their own whims and fancies . They represent not the interests of the people but those of their foreign masters or principals . These ( nearly three hundred ) men form an almost secret corporation , the most powerful in the world . They are required to find a fixed minimum of revenue , they have therefore often been found to be most unscruplous in their dealings with the people . This system of Government is confessedly based upon a merciless exploitation of unnumbered millions of the inhabitants of India . From the village headmen to their personal assistants these satraps have created a class of subordinates who , whilst they cringe before their foreign masters , in their constant dealings with the people act so irresponsibly and so harshly as to demoralize them and by a system of terrorism render them incapable of resisting corruption . It is then the duty of those who have realized the awful evil of the system of Indian Government to be diloyal to it and actively and openly to preach disloyalty . Indeed , loyalty to a State so corrupt is a sin , disloyalty a virtue .

The spectacle of three hundred million people being cowed down by living in the dread of three hundred men is demoralizing alike for the despots as for the victims . It is the duty of those who have realized the evil nature of the system however attractive some of its fetures may , torn from their context , appear to be , to destroy it without delay . It is their clear duty to run any risk to achieve the end .

But it must be equally clear that it would be cowardly for three hundred million people to seek to destroy the three hundred authors or administrators of the system . It is sign of gross ignorance to devise means of destroying these administrators or their hirelings . Moreover they are but creatures of circumstances . The purest man entering the system will be affected by it and will be instrumental in propagating the evil . The remedy therefore naturally is not being enraged against the administrators and therefore hurting them but to non-cooperate with the system by withdrawing all the voluntary assistance possible and refusing all its so -called benefits . A little reflection will show that civil disobedience is a necessary part of non-cooperation. You assist an administration most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees . An evil administration never deserves such allegiance . Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil . A good man will therefore resist an evil system or administration with his whole soul . Disobedience of the laws of an evil State is therefore a duty . Violent disobedience deals with men who can be replaced . It leaves the evil itself untouched and often accentuates it . Non-violent , i.e. civil disobedience is the only and the most successful remedy and is obligatory upon him would dissociate himself from evil .

There is danger in civil disobedience only because it is still only a partially tried remedy and has always to be tried in an atmosphere surcharged with violence . For when tyranny is rampant much rage is generated among the victims.It remains latent because of their weakness and bursts in all its fury on the sightest pretext. Civil disobedience is a sovereign method of transmuting this undisciplined life-destroying latent energy into disciplined life-saving energy whose use ensures absolute success . The attendant risk is nothing compared to the result promised . When the world has become familiar with its use and when it has had a series of demonstrations of its successful working , there will be less risk in civil disobedience than there is in aviation , in spite of that science having reached a high stage of development .

Young India , 27 - 3 - 1930,p.108 [ Quoted in Political and National Life and Affairs , Volume III ,By M.K.Gandhi , Compiled and Edited by V.B. Kher ,Navajivan Publishing House ,Ahmedabad-14,First Edition,August 1968 ]

A Review of "Out of this Earth'

2011-03-08T13:22:00.000+05:30

Open publication - Free publishing - More vedanta

UK-Aid agency on 'Sangathans and NGOs'

2011-03-08T13:15:00.000+05:30

Rajinder Chaudhary and Deepak Dholakia's Responses and Sunil's Rejoinder.

2011-02-10T20:14:00.000+05:30

Dear Sunil Bhai,

Please find pasted below my feedback to your thoughtful responce.

Regards,

Socialism of new century: Some Comments on Response

It goes without saying that your response has clarified many points, and at many places done it beautifully as well as sharply, e.g., on the issue of decentralization and security, reference to Iraq clinches the issue. Similarly, endorsing/accepting limited private ownership of the means of production while rejecting corporate ownership is an innovative and interesting formulation. Following your example, here I would not elaborate on points of agreement except when I have something to add to your argument. Mostly, I would focus on few remaining points of differences/points that still need to be worked on. This, of course, should not obscure the fact that basically I share your formulation. I more or less follow sequence of your response.

1. One of your crucial formulations is: “Government can not be pro-people and pro-corporate at the same time.” It implies you are taking government as a unitary, homogenous being akin to an individual. Even modern theories of firm do not look at firms as individuals with single objective function but rather treat these as coalition of various interest groups with multiple objectives. In fact even individuals have multiple and conflicting goals. Modern state can not certainly be looked at as an individual being with single well defined objective. It has multiple players and moreover they all have with multiple goals. To argue that some players and some goals may be dominant and others peripheral, is one thing, but to look at modern State as a monolith with a single goal is another matter all together.

This is not just an academic point; it has crucial implications in terms of how we relate to government/state structures as well as our action plan for social change. One formulation, if state is viewed to be that of the other, sets the goal of its destruction, no government policy or law can be any good for mass of people and can only confuse people; but if we view state as an agency of, however deformed/inadequately democratic, of society, then terms of our engagement with the state change. We oppose certain policies, even certain structures of state/governance and we may do it vigorously, shaking certain dominant sections controlling it, but we do not oppose every step of the government. Any further breakdown of law and order machinery, or school system for that matter, even when we know that it protects the interests of ‘others’ more than ‘ours’, hurts ‘us’. Rioting, curfew, mass cheating in examinations, out right corruption in appointments, hurt us further, and may be more than it hurts ‘ruling classes’. Moreover, we can not ipso facto rule out seeking ‘partial’ changes, what matters is how significant is that ‘partial’ change or of the two or more alternatives available which one is more far reaching as well as feasible. We need to get out of Reform or Revolution dichotomy.

2. Relatedly, there can be situations when we are faced with binary, either or choices but that is not always the case. We may vote a party and yet oppose some of its policies and similarly, we may vote against a party and yet may support it in some ways. We can not help doing it; life is like that. Pigeon holing may serve a purpose some times but not always.

Similarly, we need not do away with villages, even from dalit and gender perspective. Villages (as also family structures) can also be transformed. In general, a priory, we neither need to retain nor many others and discard some others.

3. Your emphasis on not only seeking alternative structures and alternative technologies, but also seeking alternatives values etc, is well taken. But it must not give the impression that these alternative values have to be all ‘new’ values. Some of the existing values, albeit minority values may just need to brought to prominence.

4. It is often noted, and you also do it, that ‘no one can go back in time’. This is off course literally obvious but it should not be interpreted to mean that some elements of past can not be recreated. Fashions often resurface! So can some past practices and structures if they can serve our purpose. You do note that not every thing modern is good and not every thing old is bad. I just want to add that we can even go back to some of the old things; let us not rule it out a priory.

5. To your response to Vipin Mahajan, I would like to add that we need to critically evaluate “high standards of living with modern amenities” and we have to do it in a democratic and participatory manner. Some of the ‘modern amenities’ may be/are doing more harm than good. And to your well rounded response to the claim that ‘knowledge is freely available on internet’, I would like to add that while internet may have added to free availability of knowledge, yet this freely available knowledge does not enable one to become a Doctor or a scientist etc.

6. Your argument about need to organize the ‘unorganised sector’ is well taken but one must not loose sight of the fact that today in spite of all talk of labour aristocracy, there are large number of people in the ‘organized sector’ who are working under pathetic conditions; even working conditions in multinational companies with lucrative packages, leave a lot to be desired. How many well paid executives have an eight hour working day and enough time for them selves?

7. Relatedly, there may be crucial issues of democratic rights of ‘non-poor’/non-marginalised sections, that need to be taken up. Let us not simply ignore the huge section lying between starving poor and super rich/upper class.

8. To your argument about decentralization, I would add that decentralisation has to go hand in hand with, actually is a part of, democratisation. Simple decentralisation of authority without democratisation of functioning will not serve much purpose. Decentralisation is sought as a part of deepening of democratisation not just by itself. Moreover, decentralisation does not necessarily imply separation, breakdown of society. Siblings can separate and yet be emotionally, physically close!

9. One often comes across anti- ‘funded NGOs’ stance amongst those working for social change. As some of the so-called forces working for social change can be doing more harm then good, or ‘forces working for social change’ can some times be undemocratic in their functioning, so can some of the funded NGOs, on the other hand, be contributing to the process of change. Let us take it on case by case basis on the merit of individual NGOs rather than take a generic stance against funded NGOs. Moreover, how does one deal with ‘partially funded’ organizations? Even forces of change seek funds, if not institutional then individual funds, and all of these funds do not come from collection of 5-10 rupees from marginalized sections. Let us neither be oblivious to sources of funding nor club all funding, even foreign funding under one rubric.

10. We often come across arguments which implicitly imply that the current development path is leading to absolute pauperization/deterioration for majority of the population. This may not be true. In spite of all the shortcomings of post-independence development paradigm, quality of life for vast majority may have improved. In fact a recent study of Kerala by an organization critical of New Economic Policy regime shows that over this period economic well being of large sections has improved. This does not rule out absolute pauperization of some sections/areas but it may not be true of vast majority. Ignoring this distinction makes our critique and consequent strategy implausible.

11. Lastly, I may add that some of our criticism of Trade Unions or even Communist parties is rooted in the fact that they did not critique content of development or technology developed under Capitalism; their/Marx’s critique was only in terms of relations of production. Communism was all set to provide to all what capitalism was providing to only few! Kind of critique of content of development that Gandhi did, and what you are suggesting, if accepted, then many shortcomings in functioning of trade unions, and one might add even in communist parties, may be taken care of. We need to underline this critique of content of development, of “high standards of living with modern amenities”. This is perhaps the crucial shift that is needed and it can bring many different strands together.

Any way, thanks for initiating the current exchange. Thanks are also due to all the other contributors.

Dear Rajinder Bhai,

I must thank you for your quick, but detailed, comments on my response. It shows that you have been really seriously applying your mind to these issues.

I have following to say on your comments (in the same order):

Character of State, Reform or Revolution?

[1 & 2]. Our society is heterogeneous and very much unequal. Therefore, there are always conflicting interests of various groups and classes in it. There are lobbies which try to promote and represent these interests. There is a ruling class also, however you may define it. Lohia, for example, defined ruling class of India by three characteristics: upper caste, upper class and English education. State, or a government, therefore does not function in a vacuum. It does represent certain interests, or a combination or a compromise of certain interests. Its policies and actions are informed and guided by them. You can, therefore, see coherence, a consistency and a direction in them, though there may be some aberrations. For example, if you analyse the policy changes, changes in laws and various actions of Indian government since 1991, there is a clear tilt towards being corporate-friendly, MNC-friendly and investor-friendly; towards free trade, privatisation, withdrawal of state, market fundamentalism, etc. Change of governments did not make much difference which shows that various mainstream parties in India essentially represent the same ruling class and share same ideology. Hence the attacks on the lives and livelihoods of people in various forms kept growing. Growth of corporate profits is based on the increasing exploitation, displacement and deprivation of people. A government cannot serve both the ends - corporate and people. It has to choose between them. It is in this sense that I said that a government could not be pro-people and pro-corporate at the same time. Yes, government is not an individual, it is a body. It is not a monolith organisation either. But a government has a character, an identity and an ideology (explicit or hidden) which one can see, identify and analyse.

We, therefore, should look at not a few isolated actions or a few steps of a government, but at the totality of its policies and its acts of omission and commission. We may appreciate or praise a particular act, but it should not blind us in looking at (and judging) the whole.

For the same season, gradual and partial reforms (reforming a particular law, policy or one aspect of life) will not do. We need a revolution. By revolution, I mean rapid, drastic, radical, all-out and simultaneous changes in all aspects of life. The various parts of the present-day system are all inter-connected and inter-dependent. Overthrowing one or attempting to change one without changing the others will not be successful.

[3 & 4]. I think that we have no disagreement. When I talk about alternative values, I mostly mean alternative to the dominant values of modern civilization. Our past, our tradition and our culture certainly will help us in search of alternative values for creating a new world. But we have to critically evaluate them also. Yes, we can go back to some of the old things. For example, I talked about animal power as a valuable source of energy. Or take organic farming. But when we adopt them today or in future, they will get new forms and new shapes.

[5] I agree. Your point about the knowledge availability is well taken.

[6&7]. Yes. Workers of organised sector and middle class people are also victims of the modern capitalist civilization. If they are made to see this and struggle against it, that will help in the overall crusade for change.

[8]. I must thank you for pointing out this deep connection between democracy and decentralisation. Like socialism and democracy, these two are also inseparable and incomplete without each-other. Moreover, as you have pointed out, decentralisation will not lead to disintegration of the nation or the society. Rather it will strengthen it by removing domination inherent in centralisation and resultant dissatisfaction.

Role of NGOs in Politics of Change

[9]. My response to this point is related to what I said in point 1 & 2. There may be good or bad NGOs. Some of them may be doing excellent work in their fields which we may appreciate. Their experience may be helpful in the construct of a new world. But if we require a total and radical change in the present-day system, it is a political task and cannot be accomplished through NGOs, especially foreign-funded NGOs. I find following problems with them --

(i) Generally they have a very limited perspective. They do not want to go beyond their immediate concern.

(ii) When dependent on external and institutional funding (please mind the two adjectives, which differentiate it from the collection of funds from individual supporters), they tend to be usually guided by the choice of issues, agenda, projects and nature of work which suits the funding agencies most and for which the funding is easily available.

(iii) Such NGOs are dominated and controlled by those who have the ability to fetch funds for them. Knowing English and manipulative skills become important and necessary qualities for the leadership of such NGOs. Self-confident local leadership from below cannot emerge from them. Local people also develop a different type of attitude towards them.

There may be some exceptions, but I feel that 90% of the NGOs suffer from these drawbacks. I am not condemning them. Nor I wish to pass an over-all judgment on them. My only contention is that, as far as the process and politics of change is concerned; they can't play main or a leading role in it.

In one sense, they are proving a hindrance. Earlier, many youth full with idealism used to join communist, socialist or Sarvodaya movements and devote substantial time of their lives in a selfless manner bravely facing many hardships. But these days many of them get an easy avenue of NGOs where they get a salary leading an easy and comfortable life as well as they can have a satisfaction of working for the society. But in this process the source of idealist youth for the movements devoted to total transformation of the system is drying up. One gets a doubt whether there was a hidden motive and design behind a sudden flood of funding from rich capitalist countries for last three decades, i.e. to influence, control and divert the forces of change in the poor world.

Improvement or Deterioration of Quality of Life?

[10] It is difficult to decide exactly about it due to problems in measurement and differences in perspective. But I would like to draw your attention to a few facts -

(i) Kerala (or Haryana) does not truly represent India. They are on the top of India. Kerala is also full of gulf money.

(ii) What do you say about the observation of Arjun Sengupta Commission that 77% of Indians are living on less than Rs. 20 a day? It was for the year 2004-05 based on NSS data. With inflation now this might have become Rs. 30 to Rs. 35 a day. Can you imagine what kind of life, with what quality, they must be living? (Rs. 35 includes all expenditures - on food, clothing, housing, education, health, transport, entertainment etc.)

(iii) Indicators of hunger, malnutrition, infant deaths, maternal deaths etc. show that the progress on these fronts is very unsatisfactory. We are unworthy of being called a civilised nation on these grounds.

(iv) Even though cash income has increased and some signs of prosperity are omnipresent (modern dress and shoes, mobile handsets, TVs, motorbikes, pucca houses), new deprivations have emerged whose negative impacts (generally not measured or reflected in monetary data) should be taken note of. A few examples are :--

Loss of common property resources (forest, grazing land, rivers, ponds, fish etc.); outflow of milk, vegetables, fruits, eggs, mutton etc. from villages depriving rural poor; privatisation and commercialisation of education and health increasing their costs manifold; power and water also becoming expensive; growing displacement and forced migration; growing job insecurity; growing pollution; growing tension and suicides; loss of open spaces and play grounds for children of the families migrating to urban slums; etc.

(v) Modern development not being sustainable, the gains may be temporary and soon the losses may take over and do a permanent damage for coming generations.

[11]. I broadly agree.

Thanks again for continuing this dialogue.

Sunil

Comments and Responses by the author : Socialism of 21st Century : Sunil

2011-01-25T15:04:00.001+05:30

After publication of my essay ‘Socialism of the New Century’ in Janata weekly, Independence day special issue, August 2010, posting of it on three blogs –‘Kafila’, ‘Anti-MNC Forum’ and ‘Gandhitopia.org’ and circulation by e-mail, I have received a number of comments. Most of them appreciated and agreed broadly with the contents. But they have also raised certain important doubts and questions. I thought it proper to identify and club them and respond to them collectively rather then answering them individually. The response is attached herewith. I have thought it not necessary to mention those points where there is an agreement or further elaboration. I have selected only disagreements, doubts and questions to respond to. I have taken some liberty in sorting and formulating the questions implied in them. But for those who wish to read the original comments, they are also attached .The original essay is also attached for those who have not read it or those who want to refresh it. I hope to continue this debate and dialogue.

I have received comments from following persons and I thank all of them for trouble they have taken:-

Felix Padel(UK), Sunil Deepak(Italy), Polly Dristas (Cubec, Canada), Dolly Daftary, Ashish Kothari(Pune), Suraendra Mohan(Delhi), Prempal Sharma(Delhi), Dipak Dholakia(Delhi), Arun Kumar Tripathi(Delhi), Uday Prakash(Delhi), Ravela Somayya(Hyderabad), Prof. Rajinder Chaudhary(Rohtak), Prof. T. Ramakrishnan (Chittoor), S.N. Nagarjan(Coimbatore), Rajesh Ramkrishnan, P. Vishwambharam, M. C. Dinakaram and Upen Mahajan.

I am sorry for the delay in responding, but I could not help it due to unavoidable circumstances.- Sunil.

Socialism of the New Century

Sunil

The tussle between capitalism and socialism as alternative visions of human society is not yet over. It is like the old fable of the race between a hare and a tortoise. At times one seems to be the winner. At other times the other seems to be leading. Capitalism is like the hare of the story. It looks fast, impressive and dynamic but after some time it is tired and resting with its own contradictions. In the end, we know, it is the tortoise of socialism which will prevail. But that end is yet to be arrived at.

Capitalism looked supreme and unchallengeable in the latter decades of the past century. With the disintegration of USSR, reverting of China, Vietnam and many other communist countries to the path of capitalism, and downfall of social democracy in Europe, there was no challenge to capitalism. Thus ‘end of history’ was arrogantly announced. Market fundamentalism of Reagan and Thatcher varieties started ruling over the world. But soon many crises arrived. Ecological crisis with the dangers of climate change and global warming on the one hand, and the global financial crisis with the worst recession since the thirties on the other, shook the faith in the supremacy and immortality of capitalist civilization. Added to these were the growing crises of hunger, malnutrition, homelessness, violence and war. The number of hungry people in the world kept growing and crossed the figure of 100 cores in the first decade of the twenty first century i.e. every sixth person on the earth today remain underfed and starved. This is perhaps the biggest and the most glaring failure of capitalism. Even after more than two centuries of the industrial revolution and miraculous progress of science and technology, it is unable to fulfill even the most basic need of the humankind.

The twenty first century therefore started with new doubts about the supremacy, desirability and invincibility of capitalism. Search of alternatives began with new vigor. The word ‘socialism’ once again gained currency and became a talking point. But what kind of socialism? What does it mean? How is it different from what was experimented with in the last century which apparently failed? There seems to be a lot of confusion.

In a way, we who want to change the world for a better tomorrow are more fortunate than our predecessors in the last century. We have a longer history of capitalism before us to understand its functioning better. We also have the experiences of communist–socialist experiments of the last century to learn from them. What are the main lessons? How do we look at them and analyze them? Are we wiser and clearer now? Do we have better insights now?

Observations and Lessons from the Twentieth Century

We may note certain developments and lessons of the last century.

1. Capitalism did not transform the whole world in the way its supporters claimed and even Marx expected. Rather, it transformed the different parts of the world in different ways. To some, it brought prosperity, luxuries and high levels of consumption. To others, it has brought misery, hunger, poverty and unemployment. Capitalism has been kind and benevolent to one set of people but discriminating and destructive to another. The adverse effects of capitalism in large parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America did not prove to be transitional as expected, but have persisted, continued and deepened. The industrial revolution that took place in Western Europe and later in North America and Japan could not be repeated in other parts of the world. Even where the state actively helped and planned industrialiasation could not take place to the extent of involving and employing a significant proportion of the population. That is true for USSR, China and India also. Even Marx was wrong when he saw in Western Europe the future mirror image of the rest of the world.

2. Revolution took place not in the most industrialized and capitalistically most developed countries of western Europe as was predicted by Marx, but in the countries that were relatively backward ( in capitalist sense ) and less industrialized. In countries like China, there was almost no industrial working class and it was totally a peasant revolution. This put a question mark on Marx’s expectation and prediction that industrial workers will be the ‘proletariat’ and the vanguard of the revolution.

3. Trade Unions of organized / industrial workers everywhere developed a kind of economism and lost revolutionary zeal and urge for radical change. In the setting of most of the developing countries, their wages and salaries were much more than the rest of the population. They felt privileged and did not identify themselves with the poor masses. A kind of ‘Labour aristocracy’ gradually developed in both rich and poor countries. The call of Marx and Engels for the workers of the world to unite did not materialize. It has to be redefined and reformulated in the new context.

4. Dictatorship of proletariat proved to be a misleading and dangerous concept that ultimately helped anti-socialist and opportunist elements. It arose from the mistaken belief that only industrial workers are capable of leading the revolution. Other sections of population such as peasants and artisans, not fully separated from their means of production, may have anti-revolutionary tendencies and at times may need to be disciplined to fall in line. This led to the enormous atrocities and repression on Russian peasantry in Stalin era. Such dictatorship and centralization of power was also necessary for the kind of industrialization (and military build up) the Soviet and Chinese rulers wanted to achieve requiring enormous level of capital accumulation and mobilization of resources. Another point to be noted is that violent revolutions have always led to some kind of dictatorship. Democracy could not be established after them.

5. Private ownership of property was considered to be at the root of the evils of capitalism. But abolition of private property in communist countries did not do the (expected) trick. It was not sufficient for establishment of an egalitarian socialist society. One, there remained an attraction in the minds of the rulers for the kind of development achieved in western capitalist societies, and an attraction in the minds of the people for its consumerist life style. This proved to be a major source of weakness of communist regimes. The institution of property was abolished, but not the ‘Moha’ or attachment to the property and consumerism. Two, new hierarchies developed and the old ones (such as patriarchy) persisted. A surprising level of ethnic conflicts also emerged.

6. The various experiments of social democracy in Europe, or mixed economy in countries like India, did not prove sustainable and suffered from many contradictions. A ‘welfare state’ without radically altering the basic structure of society and economy may not solve the problems and may not sustain for a long time.

7. The so-called ‘free trade’, attempts of industrialization and ‘export led growth’ in what are called ‘emerging economies’ such as China and India have brought new conflicts and crises. Many of them, at local, national and international level, relate to ‘Jal-Jungle-Jamin’ or minerals. In fact, for some time, natural resources have come to the centre stage. Major conflicts of the world relate to them. The impasse at WTO, for example, is mainly related to agriculture, a nature linked economic activity. Oil and natural gas are behind the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and threat to Iran. Peasant movements, movements against displacements, conflicts over land, water, oil and minerals etc. today make more news than workers’ strikes. Ecological problems of global warming and pollution are only one dimension of this crisis. Another equally important dimension (but ignored in the West-dominated discourse) is the continuous aggression against the people whose lives are still intimately linked to nature.

8. Imperialism did not come to an end with the independence of colonies after the Second World War. Rather it continued in neo-colonial forms through trade, aid and MNCs. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Asian Development Bank (and similar banks for different continents), World Trade Organization etc. actively promote, help and sustain this imperialist unequal world order. It is also effectively helped by the military power of USA and its allied countries. The USSR and China also tried, though not very successfully, to imitate the imperialist military ways of USA.

9. Globalization is another phase of this imperialism. It is another name for removing all restrictions, and enhancing command of capital over resources of the world. Capitalism has an unending and ever-increasing lust for exploiting labour and extracting natural resources at world level. It cannot survive without that. The globalization of finance is just another mechanism of fulfilling their lust. The latest financial crisis of capitalism should be seen in this perspective. It is wrong to regard it essentially an internal crisis of USA and industrial capitalist camp, as some Marxist scholars have tried to do. (See for example, John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, ‘The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences’, Monthly Review Press, 2009).

10. The latest experiments of socialism are from Latin America which do not fit orthodox framework of the left. They have not abolished private property nor have they driven out MNCs. But they have attempted redistribution of land, tried to cut MNCs and big business to size, and increased state control of national resources and strategic industries. These regimes have come in conflict with organized sector workers and established trade unions, and have relied more on the support of poor people belonging to the informal sector. They have focused on providing social services (education, health, ration etc.) to poor people and increased state budget significantly for them. They have opted for democracy and have successfully mobilized popular support for their reforms. Important experiments of local councils and workers’ management are also going on there. They have tense relations with USA. Natural resources, again, are at the root of this conflict and a rich endowment of oil, natural gas or minerals has proved a source of strength for them. An important development to note is about Cuba which has been forced, after the disintegration of USSR, to change its approach to modern technology and development. It has gone back from chemical to organic cultivation and from tractors to bullocks. This change has helped it in reducing its dependency and achieving self-sufficiency in food.

Analytical Implications and Insights

The purpose of outlining these events, developments, tendencies and lessons is not just to prepare a list of them. It will be a futile exercise if we do not link, interconnect and integrate them in order to analyse them and enhance our theoretical understanding of capitalism and its possible alternatives. We have to see how they reflect on the existing theories and assumptions and what corrections are needed. Some of them were already hinted by various thinkers such as Gandhi, Lohia, Rosa Luxemburg, Andre Gunder Frank etc. and lately re-emphasized by Indian socialist thinkers like Sachchidanand Sinha, Kishen Pattanayak and Bagaram Tulpule. They are further confirmed by later developments. A new vision of socialism in the twenty first century can only be based on such an analysis and updating of our understanding.

One: One important source of misunderstanding has been the single minded focus on exploitation of workers in factories by their capitalist owners and regarding it as the main (or the only) source of surplus value. It was like Arjuna of Mahabharat who focused only on the target of bird’s eye and did not see anything else. But the real dynamics of capitalism was never so simple. Another major source of surplus value, as pointed out by Lohia, has been the exploitation of colonial workers and peasants. Because of this exploitation, the workers of industrialized countries could get a share of it, albeit a small one and it became possible to postpone the conflict between workers and capitalists there indefinitely. Hence revolution did not take place there. This is also the factor behind labour aristocracy. Of course, Marx did take note of colonial plunder and loot and dwelt upon it in detail, but he did not integrate it into his analysis. It was like an after-effect of capitalism for him and not an integral and necessary element of it. One of his followers, Rosa Luxemburg, tried to draw attention towards this lacuna, but she remained mostly neglected and sidelined in the Marxist circles. Many of the Marx’s followers (like Paul Sweezy) still stick to this position that the main dynamic of capitalism is exploitation of workers within the capitalist society. But some Marxist economists from periphery like Andre Gunder Frank have, of course, challenged this orthodoxy.

Two: Another important source of surplus value and capital accumulation is nature, again noted by Marx but not given importance. From the beginning, the edifice of capitalism has been built on large scale loot and destruction of nature and natural resources. Displacement and deprivation of people whose life are linked with nature has accompanied it from the beginning. Marx noted it, but, alas, called it ‘primitive accumulation of capital’. But the adjective ‘primitive’ is misleading. The process has been continuously going out throughout the history of capitalism, in one form or the other, in one or the other parts of the world. It is not primitive or preliminary. It is still going on. Capitalism has fed on it. It cannot grow or survive without it. Some scholars have also pointed out that various forms of rent, and not profit, have been the main forms of surplus extraction in the history of capitalism (See Pranab Kanti Basu ‘Political Economy of Land Grab’. EPW, vol. XLII, no. 14, 2007). Elements of force, barbarism, domination and state supported monopoly have always been present behind the façade of the market.

The role of nature has also been neglected in the ‘labour theory of value’ propounded by Marx. While this theory rightly emphasized the role of labour in creation of value and wealth, it does not account for the contribution of nature. In fact, the present ecological crisis cannot be explained by sticking to labour theory of value.

Three: There are other forms of exploitation and hegemony such as patriarchy, race, Indian caste system, which jointly work with class and colonial exploitation. It was expected by both liberals and Marxists that Indian caste system, being a feudal institution, would gradually decline and die with the growth of capitalism, industrialization and modernization. It did not. Caste, class and patriarchy are interwoven and strengthen each other. It is erroneous to regard one of them as primary contradiction and others as ‘superstructure’. All have to be fought jointly and simultaneously. Moreover, blindly applying categories of European history (such as feudalism) to the rest of the world may lead to misplaced assumptions, expectations and conclusions.

Four: Imperialism is not the last and the highest stage of capitalism as professed by Lenin. It is rather the first stage and an essential ingredient for the development of capitalism. Modern capitalist industrialization did not and cannot take place at any significant level without colonial or neo-colonial exploitation. Therefore, the option of modern industrialization is closed today for poor countries, unless one tries to build its own empire as China is currently trying to do.

It is futile to follow a similar path of industrialization and development in the non-industrial world. It will bring its own contradictions and crises. Colonial exploitation is so fundamental to modern industrialization that attempts to bring it about without external colonies have landed up creating internal colonies. But even they are not sufficient for it. It requires colonial or neo-colonial exploitation at global level, or at least a share of it. Internal colonies could sustain only a limited industrialization creating a few islands of development and prosperity in the vast ocean of poverty, misery and unemployment.

Industrial colonies can be of various kinds and are not necessarily geographical – backward and tribal regions, the countryside, agricultural sector, other primary sectors, the informal sector etc. Their relationship to the modern-urban-industrial sector of the economy is essentially a colonial one. The fact and concept of internal colony is also helpful in understanding many regional, ethnic and tribal conflicts of today.

This mutually reinforcing relationship between capitalism and colonialism-imperialism also implies that capitalism cannot grow (and cannot be looked at) in isolation within the boundaries of a single country. To use the phrase of Gunder Frank, ‘development’ in one part of the world is necessary linked to the ‘underdevelopment’ in large parts of the world. No underdeveloped country at the periphery can really develop unless it breaks away and frees itself from this capitalist-imperialist relationship.

Five: Modern economics teaches us that what is required for industrialization is capital and technology. Sometimes entrepreneurship is also added as a factor. It is argued that poor countries are lacking them and therefore they remain backward. Invitation to foreign capital and technology transfer will remove this lacuna. But the actual history showed that even that could not help many countries in transforming into industrial societies. Now, with growing conflicts, we get to know the industrialization also requires land, water, minerals and energy on a large scale. Such requirements and conflicts were earlier unnoticed because the adverse effects were outside the industrializing countries. The link was remote and not clear.

Actually, modern industrialization requires several things – (1) supply of raw materials at cheap rates, (2) large scale natural resources (land, water,

minerals, energy etc), free or at throw away price,(3) cheap food grain to keep the wages low, (4) cheap labour, (5) huge capital created by earlier exploitation and transfer of resources and (6) a large and growing market for its products. Many of these requirements go beyond the borders of a country. They are never fully met through pure market mechanism, though keeping terms of trade in favor of industries can be regarded as one. They are actually facilitated, subsidized and supported by the state, at times even police and military power. Displacing peasantry or other primary producers, as noted by Marx in the context of Enclosure movement in England of 16th and 17th century, serves two functions in the interest of industries. It makes land and raw material available on one hand, and provides cheap labour by creating reserve army of unemployed labour on the other. It is for these reasons that modern industrialization is necessarily linked to colonial (or neo-colonial or internal colonial) domination and exploitation.

Six: Modern industries are often justified, supported and promoted in the name of generating employment and removing unemployment. Followers of various political and ideological streams (except Gandhians and a few Lohiaites) have been holding this faith in modern industrialization. A model presented half a century ago by a western economist Arthur W. Lewis still dominates the economic discourse, which assumed that modern industrial sector will develop and absorb the surplus labour in agriculture. But this model ignores the historical fact that this surplus labour (i.e. unemployment) was precisely created by de-industrialization and destruction of traditional livelihood to support modern industries in other parts of the country or the world. Net effect of modern industries is not to create, but to destroy employment. It is more visible now with increasing mechanization, automation and modernization of industries.

It should also be noted that even industrial revolution did not solve the employment problem in Western Europe of those days. It was basically solved by large scale migration to the ‘new world’ and the other colonies. In India also, more than five decades of industrialization has been able to provide formal employment to not more than six percent of workforce of the country. How long will it take to provide respectable employment in industries to any significant proportion of the population? Isn’t it a mirage? Isn’t it a case of modern superstition?

Seven: A similar kind of blind faith is exhibited in case of technology. It is assumed that the technologies developed in western capitalist countries are suitable for the whole world, and everyone has to necessarily imitate and adopt them. Some kind of divineness and universality seems to be attached to modern technology and industrialization. Every country has to first go through capitalism and western kind of development. That will develop ‘productive forces’ and then only, it is argued, a transition to socialism can take place. (In this sense, development of capitalism was seen as a progressive event taking the country forward in the history). No one can bypass this stage. Even if countries like Russia and China have opted for communism, they have to go through the similar kind of industrialization. History of the rest of the world has to necessarily go the European way. A kind of historical determinism is behind this absurd, but persisting, faith. It is high time that it is reviewed, re-examined and corrected.

Eight: It is this kind of obsession with modern (western) technology, modern industrialization and modern development and its contradictions with equality and other socialist ideals that is mainly responsible for the failure of soviet and Chinese experiments of socialism. Most of the commentators have focused on and highlighted the fact of dictatorship, regimentation, development of ‘new class’ of bureaucrats, managers and party bosses etc. But these were not the fundamental reasons. They were only symptoms and by-product of a deeper disease that is, obsession with modern development and modern life style. But that could not be achieved without depressing and exploiting large sections of the population. Hence came Stalinism. Lakhs of Russian peasants - the partners of revolution till the previous day – were killed, evicted, tortured and sent to Siberia or forced work in mines, railways or factories because they resisted forced levy of their products at low prices. Such tragedies are inherent in modern development, whether it is a capitalist or a communist system. Alienation of workers, hierarchy and centralization of power are also inherent in modern industrial society. Any attempt to remove these evils has to look for alternative kind of industrialization and development.

Nine: Democracy and socialism are inseparable and complimentary to each other. One is incomplete without the other. The phrase ‘democratic socialism” is a bit odd and the adjective is redundant, because there can not be an undemocratic socialism. Democracy is implied and necessary for any real socialism and vice versa. Perhaps it is used to differentiate and distance oneself from the communist regimes of USSR and China. But, as is clear now, they turned out to be neither socialist nor democratic.

Ten: An important element to make democracy and socialism real is decentralization of power, both in economic and political spheres. Small is not only beautiful, it is the only equitable, feasible and sustainable form of economic activity for a socialist society. To make democracy meaningful, it has to be brought to the grassroots, closer to the people, facilitating their active participation and empowerment. It should not be confused with the present Panchayati Raj in India, which is actually an extension of bureaucracy raj without curtailing the power of those at the top in any significant way.

It is also necessary to stress on self - reliance and localization for breaking away from the chains of imperial – colonial process at various levels. A respect for diversity (diverse cultures, languages, traditions and religions as well as bio–diversity ) is also a must for building a better world.

Eleven: Unlimited growth, unending wants, high level of consumption and labour–less luxurious life style are some of the goals that have been idealized, glamorized and glorified by modern civilization. Private capitalists and corporations have promoted them through consumerist culture to boost their sales and profits. But even the communist rulers and intellectuals did not question these goals. There are at least three problems with them. One, this high consumption level cannot be available to the whole humanity. Rather it has been accompanied by growing disparity and deprivation of the masses. Two,even where available and achievable , it has not made the life and society happier and healthier. It has brought its own distortions and social crises. Three, it has brought the ecology and environment of the earth to the brink of disaster. The whole earth, for the first time, has become vulnerable for the luxuries of a few. It is estimated that if the whole population of the world is to achieve the US standard of life, we shall need at least five earths.

Twelve: While the debate of violence v/s non violence is never-ending (it has become more a matter of faith than logic based on actual experience), it is a historical fact that long armed struggles, it successful, lead to centralized dictatorial regimes. It is natural because they have to organize themselves on military pattern where there is no scope for debate and differences. They are always amidst a war where obeying the commander without questioning is necessary. As Gandhi pointed out, means start influencing and determining the ends. Thus, democratic and broadly non-violent means suit the goal of socialism, although one should guard against co-option and dilution. The worlds of ‘radical’ and ‘violent’ should not be confused. Non-violent movements can also be quite radical and revolutionary.

New Face of Socialism

With these observations and lessons from history, we can be now surer and confident about how the Socialism will look like in the new century. It will certainly be not like state capitalism of USSR. No one would like to repeat the mistakes and horrors of the Stalin era. Nor will it be like ‘market socialism’ of Chinese variety, where socialist principles have disappeared and what has remained is a total subservience to world market added by one of the worst dictatorships of modern times. It will also not be the social democracy of Europe that has little relevance for the poor underdeveloped part of the world. Socialism cannot also be equated to mere nationalization and establishment of public sector in an otherwise capitalist setup, as we have seen its limitation and failure in India.

Most of the leftists today reject all these past models of socialism, but they are not sure of what really ailed them? They are also not sure of what is the alternative path. There is a lot of discussion on forms of ownership and management. It is indeed important. But little attention is paid to the question of scale, technology, life style and development model, which have emerged as crucial factors. (See, for example , a recent book by Michael A. Lebowitz, ‘Build it Now : Socialism for the 21st Century’, Monthly Review Press, 2006 or a background note by Abhay Shukla prepared for a meeting on ‘Socialism in the 21st Century’, at Nagpur, in the last week of July 2010). The colonial question (with neo-colonial and internal colonial forms) also remains neglected and under-emphasized, and its full implications are not recognized.

It is clear now that socialism can be built only on an alternative model of development. We need radically different and alternative kind of industries, technology, life style and values than what have historically developed under capitalism. Small units, labor-intensive techniques, alternative energy, local management, respect for diversity and harmony with nature will be important elements of this development.

The state of neglect and exploitation of agriculture and other primary sector activities should be reversed. Assisted by nature, they are the activities that really produce and create values. Industries only reshape and reform them. Services only circulate and redistribute the values created by agriculture and industry. But, while giving prime place to primary activities, we need vibrant industries too. The present state of total dominance of (and dependence on) agriculture in village life is, in fact, a distortion. It is a colonial legacy, continued after independence and intensified further. A significant part of the village population has to be diverted to industries. But those industries will be small unit, labour-intensive and mainly village based. Villages and small towns have to be again made centre of development. Mega-cities with large slums are unmanageable and unsustainable. Some of the highly developed urban civilizations like Indus Valley and Maya could not sustain themselves and disappeared. If we want to avoid the same fate, a kind of de-urbanisation has to be planned and promoted by providing employment, prosperity and basic facilities to villages.

Dalit and women activists may not agree. They have a legitimate fear that they will never find an equal and respectable place in traditional village life. But then what is the option? Even after six decades of independence and planned development, large member of Dalits live in villages. In the cities, they are confined to slums. If we leave out reservations in jobs, which in any case can lift only a very small proportion of Dalit population and which are also now shrinking due to privatization, the place for Dalits in cities is only in slums and ill-paid informal jobs. At the time of independence, there were a number of factories in cities employing tens of thousands of workers such as textile mills of Mumbai. There was a hope that they would grow in number and Dalits and Shudras would get jobs in them and also a more egalitarian space. But even those hopes are shattered now. With growing mechanization, now there is no hope for providing respectable employment to Dalits and OBC in any significant number. There is no alternative but to struggle to transform the village society. Had Ambedkar been alive today, he would have perhaps reconsidered his call to Dalits to leave village. He would have certainly opposed the modern development and globalization which has destroyed village industry, handicrafts and traditional livelihoods affecting Dalits and Shudras the most.

Moreover, village in a socialist society will not be the same traditional village. Struggle to build a new society may get it transformed with less hierarchy, more equality and more freedom.

Each village and its Gram Sabha should be given autonomy and full powers to run the village administration and decide about their daily life matters including ‘Jal-Jungle-Jamin’, but adequate legal protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights of every resident including those belonging to weaker sections should be ensured. Most of the powers of central and state governments should be transferred to a district level elected government along with village and town councils. State will perhaps never wither away, but it can be radically decentralized, democratized, cut to size, and brought closer to people. Direct democracy should replace present indirect and incomplete democracy in India whose failures are too apparent to be ignored.

The dilemma of public v/s. private sector cannot be resolved without reference to the question of model of development. There is a third alternative of ‘people’s sector’ meaning ownership and management by community, but that is possible only when the structure of economy is decentralized and the forces of consumerism (promoting greed and individualism) are effectively banned. (1) If there are very few large units and the economy is mostly dominated by cottage, mini and small units of industries and services, they can be allowed to remain in private hands with strict discouragement to the tendencies of concentration and monopoly. An upper limit can be fixed to income, salaries, wealth and property as is done in India in case of agricultural landholding. There will be certainly no place for MNCs and big corporations and their harmful advertisements in a new society. Large units, if unavoidable, can be managed by workers with society retaining overall control. We can learn a lot in this matter from ongoing experiments of co-management and co-operation in Latin America. (2) In case of agriculture, collective farms and state ownership of land is not advisable but cooperation in various forms is. Collective use and ownership of natural resources (other than land) should be promoted, and we can learn from already existing (but now threatened) traditional forms of them. Absentee land ownership should be banned and ‘land to the tiller’ should be the norm. It should be noted that equal distribution of agricultural land among all rural families in India would be a foolish act making landholdings very small and uneconomic. (It may be a different case in other countries where population density is low and there are big landlords owning thousands of acres of land). Existing inequality in Indian countryside, conflicts over land, and the problem of high attachment to land can be removed and resolved only by industrializing the countryside and diverting a significant part of rural population to non-agricultural occupations.

After the experience of communism, we may not completely do away with market. It is also not necessary. Market may remain, but its powers should be taken away. It should serve as a servant of the society, and not the master. It should be controlled and guided in the interest of society. Markets should be more localized, competitive and equal. The poor countries of the world have to certainly break away from the present chain of international trade, investment and finance which is unequal, dominating, exploiting, crises-creating and a tool of imperialism. Trade and cooperation among the poor countries is preferable. ‘Exchange among the equals’ should be the guideline.

But there should be no market and no business of certain things like water, education and health. Allowing market for them means limiting access to them to the rich and denying the poor. It is inhuman and barbaric. Even if we allow a limited inequality of income (Lohia suggested that the ratio of maximum to minimum income should not be more than 10:1), there should be no discrimination in case of education, health, food, nutrition etc. A minimum of basic necessities should be ensured for everyone. Society and the state (including local governments) have to take up that responsibility. Cuba can be a modal for this. It has the best health service in the world, completely funded by the state. If a low-income, tiny island nation can do it, why not other countries?

If there are multiple sources of domination and exploitation in a capitalist system, the struggle against it also has to be fought by heterogeneous and diverse forces jointly. Unorganized and informal workers, peasants, artisans, fisherman, cattle growers, tribals, Dalits, coloured people, women, hawkers, displaced communities and such other victims of the system have to combine and fight together. It is not easy, but there is no other way. Because of this diversity and heterogeneity also, the struggle has to be democratic, participatory, non-dominating, broadly non-violent and with a collective leadership.

These are some of the broad principles, guidelines and hints for building a socialist society in the new century which emerge from the past experience. All details need not be chalked out in advance and should be left to the people to decide in the course of the struggle and construction.

‘Liberty, equality and fraternity’ were the ideals of French Revolution which inspired revolutionaries for last two centuries. Now in the twenty first century, other principles of decentralization, diversity, self-reliance, simple life and non-violence have to be added to them. And that will define the socialism of the new century.

(email: sjpsunil@gmail.com)

___________________

The author is the national vice-president of Samajwadi Jan Parishad and can be contacted at:

Postal address: Village & Post Kesla, Via: Itarsi, Dist: Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh, 461 111, India.

Phone: 094250 40452.

1

Felix Padel, felixorisa@yahoo.com, Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:23 PM
An excellent essay here by Sunil bhai, one of the most outspoken & articulate of India's grassroots activists, with the Samajvadi Jan Parishad [socialist people's forum], a political party whose integrity is respected across the political spectrum
felix

2
Sunil Deepak
Afloo ji, thanks for sharing this analysis of Sunil. I especially liked the second part of the analysis, where he draws conclusions and ideas for where to go next. I think that in general there is a crisis of ideas on what was traditionally called the "left" and thus, a serious attempt to go beyond the defensive/apologetic ideas that are usually paraded as "alternatives" is welcome.

I have a number of points regarding this article:
(1) Article uses phrases like "Capitalism versus socialism", end of communism, "communist-socialist experiments", which created a question in my mind, is Sunil considering socialism and communism, variations on same time, almost same and with neglible differences? Considering the positions of Lohia, JP and many others, how does this work out? If there are differences what are those? Is it time to go beyond words like "socialism" and "communism" to look at something new that explains better the final conclusions Sunil makes?
(2) The comments linking rise in hunger and malnutrition to capitalism sound a little too convenient. Probably they equally link or have greater links to dictators or other regimes? I would also like some other examples, where "socialism" experiments have led to better societies. The article gives some examples of Cuba and Latin America, but having been to some of them and appreciating what Cuba can achieve in terms of health, I feel such examples gloss over so many other negative aspects, including police control, lack of freedom, lack of expression, lack of choice, etc. Since Sunil clearly indicates preference for democratic society, isn't there some kind of contradiction between the aspirations of small industries, power in local communities, etc. and reality of controlling the society to achieve this?
To imagine that the alternate model can come by free choice of people because of change of mentality, isn't that day-dreaming? Or do we need higher goals, knowing they are not practical?
Countries like Reunion vote that they will prefer to continue as a colony of France rather than be independent. Everybody says the over-consumption life style is bad, but people who have the courage to actually refuse such a life style can be counted. The problem is also that not just rulers but all those "poor" as well, given a chance, would prefer to get better and more comfortable lives.
(3) For better or worse, globalization is part of our lives. Sunil tackles mainly economic globalization, but what about the rest of globalization - culture, society, internet .. and if the dream of "small and local is beautiful" can be realized in some communities, what kind of relationship are they going to have with rest of India and rest of the world? Technology that suits local needs, does not destroy environment and does not require resources, would that only mean going to bullock carts or it would also mean solar powered carts or something else that has still to be invented?

I am sorry for these long comments. It only means that the article did stimulate me into lot of reflections and most of the time, the present political thoughts fails to do that! :-)
3

Polly Dritsas <polly_dritsas@hotmail.com>to sjpsunil@gmail.com
date Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Dear Sir:
             My friend Mr. Dipak Dholakia sent me your article on socialism in the new century. I read it with great interest and want to congratulate you for your work. My English is not good enough to elaborate and I only wish to say that I appreciate the quality of your analysis as well as the new perspectives you propose in reference to what is happening in Latin America but without losing track of the particularities of Indian society. May we speak of "Gandhian socialism"? I wonder what you think of Gandhi's concept of trusteeship as a way to integrate wealth into a socialist economy and allow the rich to take an active part in society instead of having them flee away to some capitalist friendly haven. May I have your permission to translate the article in French for my friends?

                                  Regards,
                                  Polly Dritsas from Quebec, Canada
4

Dolly Daftary <ddaftary@gmail.com>to Sunil SJP <sjpsunil@gmail.com>
date Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:47 AM
Dear Sunil,
Just saw Ashish Kothari's email to you and felt I must give a response, though belated, to your wonderful piece posted on Kafila.
I think so many of your suggestions are concrete that they do give us a way to move forward.
Two or three things- I didn't understand why you said so vehemently that Dalits and women would never agree to a strategy of ruralization. From working with women in tribal eastern Gujarat, I know that urban lifestyle, forced migration, the pollution of cities and their excess is as abhorrent to women as men. Rural women want local prosperity for themselves as much as men do. If women's opposition stems from deep rural gender inequality, I think we need to see this as a challenge for the social transformation (not only economic transformation) of rural areas- and this includes supporting women's leadership in panchayats and women's land rights (for both of which there are formal provisions, and some heartening grassroots actions by groups like the Mahila Swaraj Abhiyan and Anandi in Gujarat.) In other words, both women and Dalits need to be seen as (and made) allies rather than foes. Secondly, Dalit opposition should not be seen as a deterrant either but like th eowmn's question, as a challenge for the social transformation of caste relations in rural areas, which are oppressive for Dalits, even in relatively 'egalitarian' tribal areas. No one should have to live under such a radical form of exclusion and humiliation. Rural industrialization could play a big role in changing Dalits' status, but only if we ensure that the landless (largely Dalit) who work in factories get property rights (shares) in those factories. They must have ownership of the means of produciton like everyone else.
Finally, I like your idea about rural production units but was curious about what kind of an ecological vision we had there- still production-and-consumption centric.
Your article showed you've been thinking about this question for many many years and it was one of the most comprehensive things I have come across in a long time, so thank you for it. There was much in it that was new and so apt for our times. Let's continue the dialogue.
My best to you, your family and SJP.
Regards,
Dolly
5
Ashish Kothari <chikikothari@gmail.com>

Dear Sunil,
Apologies for the late response. Your article is perceptive and important. I largely agree with your prescriptions for an alternative to today's capitalism/state socialism/'development' paths, which are ecologically and socially destructive. Interestingly, a colleague Aseem Shrivastava and I have just submitted a manuscript of a book critiquing globalisation in India, and positing an alternative we call "Radical Ecological Democracy", which has many many elements similar to the ones you point out for a new socialism (I've been hesitant to attach it to any 'ism' as I think all such ideologies have a tendency to get institutionalised, rigid, and self-defeating....but the basic ideas are v. similar). I am attaching a very early and brief article written last year, which was the starting point of the chapters written for the book (which should be out mid-2011).

I'd be happy to continue this dialogue...am also cc'ing Aseem.
Ashish

Ashish Kothari
Kalpavriksh
Apt 5 Shree Datta Krupa
908 Deccan Gymkhana
Pune 411004
India
Tel/fax: 91-20-25654239
Tel: 91-20-25675450
Email: ashishkothari@vsnl.com

6
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 23:59:10 +0530
Subject: Re: FW: Socialism of the new century
From: dipak.dholakia@gmail.com

Dear Sunil ji,

Courtesy a friend I had the opportunity to come across your article "Socialism of the New Century'. I liked it so much that I have copied it, made a pdf, added English versions of the terms in Hindi so that I can send it to a couple of my friends from abroad. I hope you would not mind this.

It is a thought-provoking analysis. While capitalism has failed people again and again, and for the last one hundred years we have been talking about the 'moribund capitalism' it re-emerges with the same vigour. Socialism came once and failed once - and yet it is not re-emerging though it is the only way the poor of the world can rely upon. Re-emerge if it does, it will be by default on the part of capitalism and scholars would come out with some 'I-told-you-so' type solutions. Every attempt of these scholars gives the impression that socialism was not a positive ideology capable of standing on its own, independent of capitalism.

Despite this, I am not inclined to call you a 'non-Marxist' socialist for the fact that it was Marx who put forward a consistent scientific theory of class struggle and social uplift. In fact, it would amount to moving backward from Marx's position.

You have analysed Marxism and its practical outcomes. Well, as far as the way the ruling socialist elite in soviet Union and other socialist states implemented it, you may have your own judgement and I tend to agree with you.

I, however, feel, you have missed an important point: Marxism, in the main, deals with the ownership of means of production. Though, it rightly highlights the role of the human labour in the development of the human society, transfer of ownership from the individual to society does not appear to have solved the problem. This is because, in my humble view, Marxism does not talk about how the process of production would undergo a change once it is in the hands of the collective, or the 'other class'. Moreover, a part of the surplus had to be kept apart for growth. During the lifetime of Marx the answer remained in the womb of the future. he could not test or adjust his predictions. He might have. in that case. spoken about the process of production. In the absence of this, the state, instead of whithering away became a powerful weapon - the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I would like to say that I had the opportunity to spend about three years in Moscow during the Brezhnev era. it was evident that the process of production had not changed. Although, the foodstuff, house-rents, public transportation, medical services - everything was cheap and affordable and people were well-dressed and happy. However, there was a problem of Alcoholism. Every Friday evening you could see women moving about looking for their husbands who might be lying somewhere fully drunk by the roadside.

There used to be long Qs and people would join Qs without even knowing what actually was being sold. One thing, people, at least in Moscow, had money, the ready cash, to join any Q. That was the positive sign. People did have purchasing power but that money had to chase goods all over Moscow from one shop to another. Money had inevitably to go to market for the people constantly felt the need to stock things.

Also, there was corruption. They would, for example, sell Indian tea - one packet along with two packets of Georgian tea which you never wanted to buy but had to, because you wanted to have a packet of the Indian tea.The compulsion to buy unwanted things was not a good sign. There was hardly any choice. In the late evening, you may again visit the same shop when the stock was officially sold out, ask the saleswoman about the stuff, give her a hint, go to their basement, pay some extra rubles and have your stuff in larger quantity. The control over production and marketing led to unhealthy society.

Moreover, as it struck my mind then, it was a monopoly market where the seller had a greater say. To put it corectly, it was not even market - it was a distribution system. And government enjoyed the privileges of a seller. At shop-floor level sales-people enjoyed that right.

I think it was a single-entity economy. If a company controls everything, from salt to missiles, it enjoys the freedom to adjust prices. Nothing wrong as such but this affordability was not genuine affordability. It was management that produced that trick. It was like a man selling horses and cats. You can have a horse for just Rs. 100 provided you agree to buy a cat for Rs. 10,000! But you never wanted to buy a cat. So the cost of the horse, for you, was Rs. 10.000. It is unfortunate that the Soviet economic system can be analysed using the terminology of capitalistic market. I mean to say that the very fact that the capitalistic terminology could be applied to Soviet economy shows that it was not radically different from the capitalist economy. Process of production is an important factor in deciding the nature of economy. This is how we distinguish between a handmade and a machine-made thing. it is the process of production.The Soviet Union had failed to provide an alternate system. And this is the crux of the matter.

The centralism of, even simple decisions regarding consumer items was another aspect of the system. By the time the responsible authorities approved a design for shirts and put them in the market, you find no takers. Because,they used to sell oil or armament to their East European partners and, in return, import consumer goods from them who had to concentrate on these items. Their consumer items used to be better manufactured than the Russian products.So, you may see thousands of people wearing the same type of shirts or pants bought from a particular shop that sold shirts or pants imported from Poland or Checkoslovakia or Germany, which, of course, specialised in consumer durables like moxie's and irons etc. The single-entity economy allowed them to manipulate prices, but it also became its nemesis.

During Moscow Olympic days I recall I had joined a Q to buy butter that was imported from France. Now, there were three differently coloured wrappers and they were selling only two packs to a person! The pity was, even I was wondering what colour of the wrappers should I choose. What was so special about the colour of the wrappers? But I too was caught in the psyche of scarcity. As I said, people did have money but what use? In fact,for the Olympics, they had opened the doors to Western goods, but could never control it.

Yes, basic needs were met but in the Brezhnev era it was the third generation after the October Revolution. The generation that saw the revolution was above seventy and had grandchildren in 1980s but the rulers still kept on saying that they had provided all basic needs to the people. Was socialism only for this limited purpose of providing basic needs? Could people not expect anything more than that? for the post-revolution third generation all basic amenities were 'given' things. They were expected to thank the CPSU for that! How long would you expect people to 'live on bread alone?" The dynamics of human life worked. Once the common people were free from the worries of basic needs, they wanted something more in terms of quality and quantity of those amenities - and also something different, such as right to speak, right to complain but they were totally depoliticised and did not even know how to do it.

The present democracy in India is a sham.What is the use of freedom of speech when the government is neither able nor willing to feed them? What is the use of the freedom of speech or freedom to follow one's own conscience in a country where Khap Panchayats are deciding the issues of who should or should not marry whom? But, was it correct in case of Soviet Union of 1980s too? While capitalist nations had vested interest in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the fertile ground was provided by the Soviet system itself. Most of the commentators have ignored this internal reality that existed in the first ever socialist state on the earth.

I agree with you that combination of Jal-Jangal-Jamin is the major problem today. You have pointed out that Marxism has not paid adequate attention to the importance of these as tools of capitalistic exploitation. In our country, as elsewhere including Russia, Governments working for the capitalists have taken upon themselves to crush the so called rebelions. as it happened in Gujarat in case of Nirma. Even the BJP MLA had to face the police atrocities. There is nothing like 'rule of Law" in existence. Tribal societies are under attack in the name of 'development'.

Actually, Marxism stopped growing after Russian Revolution. This theoritical problem could have been dealt with by the scholars after Lenin and Mao but everyone surrendered their brains to a monolith power without examining its credentials. Another thing responsible for this is the so called 'democratic centralism'. Everywhere communists perennially believe they were facing imminent battle and support this principle. Prakash Karat justifies it in his article in MARXIST (Jan-March 2010 issue). In a quixotic tone he gives the impression as if their party was on the verge of leading a final assault on capitalism and talks about 'democracy in decision-making' and 'centralism in action'. Guessing what they collectively thought is not likely to fetch a prize. This kind of thinking amongst communists has actually isolated them from the reality. For them scripture remained more real than the reality itself. Communists are not in a position to give a lead, not only in India but elsewhere too. Dialectical process of thinking stopped long ago among communists.

I share your views on decentralisation as an essential ingredient of socialism. But, my worry is : what do we expect to gain from decentralisation in our country where the upper castes are ruling and now with venom they are asserting themselves. Without abolishing the existing caste hierarchy, 'socialist village' is not going to come up.It will not be proper to draw a rosy picture of a village where everyone enjoys economic progress as equal partners. Villages are caste-ridden, much more than cities. I do not think Dr. Ambedkar would have required to modify his advice to the Dalits to leave villages and settle in cities. Situation in villages is worse than what it was in Dr. Ambedkar's time. They would Like to wait till you succeed in translating your idea of a socialist village into reality.

You also seem to be making some concession to violence when you use the term "broadly non-violent' mass movements. Are they going to be 'narrowly violent' ones? Even during the freedom struggle, armed revolutionary movement faded into oblivion with Shahid-e- Azam Bhagat Singh. Ram Prasad Bismil openly advised against clandestine movements and called upon the youth to openly join the mass movement led by Congress. Gandhian non-violence had direct link with his efforts to involve masses who could never be fully armed. His adherence to non-violence had political background too although, he sincerely believed in non-violence. But more than anything he believed in mass mobilization which the computer-savvy, electronicalised communists of the day have given up. Maoist violence has not come up out of nowhere. They have filled a vacuum left by these radical sections of the political life.

At some point I thought you prefer agriculture to industry but you seem to suggest that the vast majority of the people depending on the land has to be shifted to industry. I think a better plan has to come from you. In the same way, you also leave some scope for private sector. Well, to what extent and for what reason? How are we going to restrict market and Private sector? I am confident you must be working on these issues.

The Latin American examples are heartening, no doubt, and I watch them with interest and hope,but basically it is a response to a situation resulting from the rampant exploitation by MNCs. It is more an anti-American voice, a rebellions, but not a clear voice of the Left. I admit the Latin American experiment contains germs for more systematic approach towards social and economic issues.I agree that they offer a lesson but I have my own doubts about there viability in India. You feel why cannot India do what Cuba could do. I feel India cannot do it precisely because of the size. Moreover, people here have not tasted the benefits of socialism. What they have had so far was slogans and bureaucratic statism that actually worked to strengthen private sector and consumer industries. The vast middle class favours capitalistc pattern of growth and governments are working for that class. We need to experience the exploitation that small countries in Latin America have!

On the whole your diagnosis is correct but prescription is somewhat vague. Yes, you say they are broad principles - and obviously, the write-up cannot cover the entire plan of action, but thoughts must provide some idea how you are going to achieve your goals. People may support your analysis but they want, and they need, more.

I wish you very bright days ahead in your mission.

Regards

Dipak Dholakia

7
Surendra Mohan surendramohan1@gmail.com
Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Dear Sunil Bhai,
It is an excellent article, anysing past experience, discussing recent new trends and focussing on the essentils which would be the basis for building socialism in the 21st. Century. Hearty congratulations.
As Editor of the Janata, I express my gratitude to you for sending the aricle to Janata.
surendra

8
arun tripathi <atripathi@hindustantimes.com>to Sunil SJP <sjpsunil@gmail.com>
date Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:42 PM
sunilbhai,
Your article is excellent, specially the last leg titled as new face of socialism. You have described about the strucure of future indian village. that is fine but seeing the enormous tensions in village on caste and class basis there should be a new movement either to transform the old village or set up new villages. villages of new centuary needs more detailed discussion and elaboration. please guide us in this uncharteted territory. thanks and regards.

Arun K tripathi

9
Uday Prakash <udayprakash05@gmail.com>
Date: 2010/9/4
अत्यंत प्रिय अफ़लातून जी,
सुनील जी का लेख कल सुबह कई बार पढ़ गया। रुक रुक कर। सचमुच बहुत अच्छा, व्यवस्थित तरीके से लिखा गया, हमारी अपनी चिंताओं को आज के संकटों और संदर्भों में समझने ही नहीं, उनका समाधान या विकल्प तलाशने की बहुत संलग्न ईमानदारी के साथ लिखा गया महत्वपूर्ण आलेख है। शायद हममें से बहुत से लोग लगभग इन्हीं निष्कर्षों तक पहुंचते लगते हैं। उन तक मेरी बधाई पंहुचाएं। यह पत्र मैं आपको ही लिख रहा हूं क्योंकि आपसे ही मेरा संवाद और अदेखा ही सही एक लगाव-सा बन गया है। लेकिन एक प्रश्न आज दो दिन के बाद मेरे मन में उठ रहा है कि क्यों मुझे ऐसा लग रहा है कि जब हम आज के चोअम्स्की, माइकेल अलबर्ट, स्व. हार्वर्ड जिन, ज़ाइज़ेक, स्व. रामचंद्र गांधी, हेनरी ज़ेरो या ऐसे बहुत से बौद्धिकों-समाचिंतकों को पढ्ते हैं, या पहले के गांधी, हक्सले, आइंस्टीन, ताल्सताय जैसों को पढ़ते हैं तो लगता है जैसे वे 'राजनीति' से अलग, उसकी निर्धारित सीमाओं को पार करते हुए, किसी एक अपरिलक्षित मानवीय-नागरिक-सामाजिक वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था की खोज़ में हैं। बहुत पहले, १९८२-८३ में मैंने रोम्यां रोलां की भारत पर लिखी डायरी के अनुवाद पर काम किया था। आप तो जानते हैं कि वे टैगोर और गांधी जी दोनों के प्रशंसक थे बाद में टैगोर के आलोचक भी हुए। उनकी चिंताएं भी किसी 'राजनीतिक-बौद्धिक' या 'राजनीति-कर्मी' की चिंताएं नहीं थीं। वे अंग्रेज़ों की औपनिवेशिक गुलामी से मुक्ति के बाद, गांधी जैसे 'सामाजिक-विचारकों' की अगुआई में पूरब के इस देश से कुछ उसी तरह की नयी सामाजिक-व्यवस्था के सूर्योदय की प्रतीक्षा कर रहे थे, जो अब तक के इतिहास में सिर्फ़ एक 'राजनीतिक' ही नहीं, एक सभ्यतामूलक परिवर्तन (civilizational turning point) सिद्ध हो, जैसा फ़्रांस की राज्यक्रांति के बाद 'लोकतंत्र' का जन्म था। उस समय लोकतंत्र और इससे जुड़ी राजनीति अब तक की मानव-समाज-व्यवस्था में सिर्फ़ ऐतिहासिक ही नहीं, एक सभ्यता-मूलक मूलगामी बदलाव के कारक थे।
जाने मुझे क्यों लगता है कि पिछली सदियों के बहुत से विचारकों और राजनीतिक-सामाजिक व्यक्तित्वों को १९८०-९० के दशकों के बाद, तीसरी प्रविधि के युग में प्रवेश के बाद, हम सबको, (भले ही हमारे पास उतना बड़ा इतिहास न हो, लेकिन हमारे अनुभव तो हैं, जो निश्चित ही आज के समय के हैं) थोड़ी 'सापेक्ष्य' तटस्थता और खुलेपन के साथ देखना होगा। और इसमें मार्क्स और गांधी ही नहीं, उनके परवर्ती व्यक्तित्व भी शामिल है।
मेरा कहने का संक्षिप्त और सरलीकृत आशय यही है कि सुनील जी जैसे सामाजिक-बौद्धिक, समाजकर्मी, जिनके पास इतनी गहरी समझ, संवेदना, दृष्टि और सबसे ऊपर स्पृहणीय ईमानदारी है, उन्हें अब तक की 'राजनीति' द्वारा परिसीमित, निर्दिष्ट और सत्ता-संकुचित सीमा-रेखा का अतिक्रमण करना चाहिए। वे एक अप्रतिम व्यक्ति हैं और आज ही मैंने कोलकाता के एक मित्र से उनके इसी आलेख का ज़िक्र किया है, हेनरी ज़ेरो और उनके आलेखों की लगभग समान 'चिंताओं' के बारे मेम बताया है और उनसे वह आलेख पढ़ कर उन्हें दिसंबर में आयोजित होने वाले किसी कार्यक्रम में आमंत्रित करने का आग्रह किया है। इसे अधिक से अधिक लोगों तक पहुंचना चाहिए, ऐसा मुझे लगता है।
आपका आस-पास होना अच्छा लगता है। मुहे भी आप अपने आस-पास ही मानें।
सादर सप्रेम
उदय प्रकाश

10

Prempal Sharma <prempalsharma@yahoo.co.in>to Sunil SJP <sjpsunil@gmail.com> date Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Dear Sunil ji, Accha lekh hai. Kuch batein jaise Labour Aristocracy............. Bahut acche hain. No doubt, your suggestion that there is no alternative but to struggle to transform the village society is the right solution but how to achieve it ? What will be model for effective implementation ? Let us hope your ideas are implemented in new century. Best wishes, Prempal

11
Rajinder Chaudhary <rajinderc@gmail.com>

Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM
Dear Sunil Bhai,
I have read your piece on socialism of new century with interest. I almost fully share your vision of what new society shall look like. However, I have some queries about the earlier, analytical part. I understand that your vision of future has space for elements of Social Democracy, welfare state and mixed economy. After all economy is going to be a mixed one though off course it will not be just a repeat of mixed economy that we have seen. Similarly, society ensuring that basic needs of all are met is not very different from welfare state. So, rather than rejecting all these categories, may be we can say that we will have elements of these systems with significant differences as well.
Another aspect, I missed was that you have not sought to define socialism though the term has been repeatedly used.
While I intuitively share ‘broadly non-violent’ bit, could you please elaborate on it.
Would you rule out private medical practitioners by definition or focus on extensive provision of state provided health services and regulation of private sector?
You refer to labour aristocracy. Do you believe that regulation of conditions of service conditions of school or for that matter University teachers is not required? Or that unionized industrial workers have got wages which is over and above value created by them? While I fully agree with you about wide gap between formal and informal sector wages and working conditions but from this one can not conclude that provision of regulated working hours or maternity leave etc is unwarranted. Unions may have often protected unproductive workers or made unreasonable demands, but to reduce labour movement to this may be going to another extreme. Please do throw more light on this issue.
Lastly, I for one have argued against possibility of abolition of classes as such at least in foreseeable future or that social structure that we seek to create can not be a hierarchy/class less society. You are silent about it.. May be that is the right thing to do. But by the way, what do you think about it?
On the whole, as I said at the outset, I almost fully share your vision.
With warm regards,
Rajinder Chaudhary,
Professor, Department of Economics,
M. D. University, Rohtak (Haryana) 124001
Ph: 09416182061
12
From: thambisetty ramakrishna <drtramakrishna@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: Socialism of the New Century
To: Ravela Somayya <ravela.somayya@gmail.com>

Dear Sri Somayya garu

Thankyou for forwarding the thought provoking article
My comments are as follows :

Towards the end of the article, I see the author veering round the
ancient cocept of "JANAPADAS" ( sort of local republics such as
Lichchavi, Vaishali and Varanashi)
They are supposed to have flourished well, and I dream of " returning
' to them !

However I dread the prospect of not having a strong enough " CENTRAL
"command/ authority which can protect the country ( if any country can
, for that matter! ) against the staggeringly superior tecnology which
goes into making the destructive weapons which are in the posseession
of the capitalist countries ( or must I say country?)

My own , call it, conjecture if you wish, is that while the local
"republics" ( JANAPADAS) flourished based on the decentralized
decision making which was vested in the people, and also based on the
" DHARMIC" ( call it righteousness if you wish ) principles of caring
and sharing, I am afraid India slowly but surely fell an easy prey to
the organized gangs with weaponry , due partly because of the lack of
such authority as was exerted by the emperor Asoka, for example. I am
no votary of monarchy, my concern merely is :

Small is beautiful, no doubt, but what about the security in this
complex world ?
Can we start with reforms in the UN and make it a democratic gaurdian
of the entire world?
And enable the peoples, the world over to organize their own economy
and the necessary political systems with out fear of interference?
I think in the fast changing scenario, of security concerns, we need
to have a "TOP DOWN APPROACH " .

How do we proceed?

I was happy to see the reference to Prof. Sachchidananda Sinha.
Is he the same who was elected as the first and interim president of
our constituent assembly, as proposed by Acharya J B Kripalani ?

I would like to know more about him.

Regards
Professor T Ramakrishna
Head, Dept of Biotechnology and Bioinformatics
Dravidian University,
Kuppam, Chittoor Dt, A P, India

13

Vipen Mahajan vmahajan9@gmail.com
Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:53 AM

Hi,

I am not an economist, nor a politician or an academic. However the future interests me. We are heading for BIG changes. Significant "progress" or shall we say innovation has been made during the industrial era, or, as I prefer Industrial wave, thanks to Alvin Toffler, three wave theory. This century we see the evolution of the Third, or Knowledge/Information wave. Each wave has its own "eco-system", societies, structures, laws etc. (Refer to Toffler's Future Shock, Third Wave, Power Shift, and his recent book (2005 era), Revolutionary Wealth). The notable thing about the Third Wave is that the driving force behind it is Knowledge, or Information. While earlier Waves drivers, force, capital, land etc were limited, and could onl be enjoyed/used by one person, and hence most attempts were made to optimise/rationalise their distribution or usage, so effectively economics became the science of shortages or scarcity. Now, if I have a certain knowledge, I am "rich" in the Third Wave context, if I share my knowledge with anyone else, my Knowledge does not depreciate, or diminish in any way. So Knowledge is not a scarce commodity like money, force, land etc which are owned or consumed by one person at a time only, and if consumed cannot be used by another, thereby creating shortages. (I am NOT a writer etc, for a better and more comprehensive explanation pl. read Third Wave).

Also the industrial wave, changed the First (agricultural wave's), production systems, which were prosumer (Toffler speak= producer + consumer) based and separated the producer from the consumer. Industrialization and cheap, fossil/oil based energy, spurred by mass production economies, gave a tremendous flip to productivity and the standard of living shot up. So an average American (and fast catching up Chinese or an Indian) could live the lifestyle even better than that of Emperor Akbar To integrate them you introduce trade. However this has come at a BIG cost, to the planet, global warming, extinction of species, forests cover etc. In fact it has changed the basis of human existence, which had evolved in the First wave, and associated social structure, beliefs, culture religion thoughts etc. To gain the "benefits" of Industrialization you had to go in for the factory production system. This meant a total overhaul of the earlier First wave eco-system. Now that was painful and disruptive to say the least. So when the colonies, which were in the First Wave, were "liberated", they all, including India rushed into industrialization, with disastrous social and civilizational effects, which we can see all around the developing countries, and the tug of war between developed and developing countries, in WTO, trade, global warming, raw materials, oil etc.

Today, with Knowledge the production systems have changed significantly. Technology allows you to de-massify production. To produce electricity economically you do not need a capital intensive, 5000 MW super thermal, coal based power generating system, located in Jharkand, or wherever, linked by miles of transmission lines (with their attended losses, and thefts), to supply electricity to say Delhi, as well as the villages, their pump sets etc. Instead you can have smaller, home or village level and capacity power generation, which can be affordably built by the people with local capital and effort.This creates the prosumer. It empowers him. Shall we say it is a much more powerful innovation than Gandhi ji's charkha. Today, with Open Source software, Creative Commons writing and ideas, and Open Source Ecology, these technologies/knowledge are available freely to anyone who can access the Internet. With Cloud computing, even a monk, sitting in a remote corner, in the Himalayas, or a villager in any part of the globe, has access to this Knowledge. If he has a good idea, say a Google, or a Facebook's, Zuckerberg (spelling??), can with outsourced application/sw development, create a new wprld changing business, in a few years. So innovation etc is not limited to big, capital intensive MNCs etc. It is essentially new knowledge, ideas etc. So you can have Gandhi jis "villages" which will not only be self contained, and sustainable, like the villages of the First wave, but also have a very high standard of living./lifestyle.

Unlike the West, or more recently, China, which has successfully embarked on massive industrialization, I feel that we , in India should adopt the Third Wave model, skip the Industrial phase (70% of India still lives in the villages), and NOT have to undergo the gut wrenching trauma of change, because the Third Wave production systems can be sustainable, and NOT need to uproot all the people from the villages, into urban centers for mass production, followed by an elaborate, and energy intensive, global distribution system and trade.

In my own small way, I am working on sustainable, hi-tech villages, for India, which can have a high standard of living, with "modern" amenities, abundant "free" energy, from the sun, IT enabled information economies, so we move information, and not goods, and can work literally from home. The infra structure and social civilizational disruption of this leap frog from First to Third Waves will be far easier,, less disruptive, and painful for our country men. We could transition in a few decades. BTW, for an industrial economy, to transition from the Second Wave, to an Knowledge economy of the Third Wave will be MUCH more difficult and disruptive, than for a First Wave to the Third Wave.

Can our ""planners', policy makers and dream merchants/emperors, who have given New Delhi the on coming Common Wealth games, or all the sleaze of the mining barons, stop and re-think ? I think that is where India's Power Shift will start. It already has probably started, Vedanta, Naxalism , J&K etc ?

I am an Engineer, who went into Information technology, Management Consulting and developing "Software Factories". I have returned, after learning more about Industrialization where else, but the USA. I think India has a better chance into the 21st century. See link for more:
http://indiaahead.net/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=A+Journey+Home

Vipen Mahajan

Note:-- Shri P. Vishwambharan commented on this essay in an article published in ‘Janata’ weekly.

Socialism of the New Century

Response to the Doubts, Disagreements and Questions

Definition, Nomenclature

Question/doubt : You have not sought to define socialism (Rajinder Chaudhary). Are you considering ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ as almost the same? Isn’t it time to go beyond words like socialism and communism? (Sunil Deepak)

Response : The word ‘socialism’ is used here for a system that will be an alternative to capitalism and free from its evils, distortions and crises. Communism is used to denote the experiments that took place on Marxist lines in the last century in search of socialism. They might have failed and one may not like to call them socialist, but still one has to concede that they were inspired by noble goals. We may analyze and learn from them.

Anyway, I do not insist on any particular words. One may use other words. Ashish Kothari, for example, has informed that in their forthcoming book (written along with Aseem Shrivastava) critiquing globalization in India, they have used the word ‘radical ecological democracy’ for an alternative system which has similar elements of the new socialism suggested in this article.

If by definition, you mean describing the basic characteristics, the whole essay is an attempt to define socialism and discover its essential features in the new contest. That is how it concludes with a clear statement. Traditionally, equality and liberty were regarded its central elements. I have argued that simple life, alternative technology, decentralization, diversity, localization, non-violence, direct democracy and harmony with nature are equally important principles and should be added to them. They are not necessarily separate elements, but listed here to convey full dimensions of an alternative system.

Q/D:- Do we want to build a classless, hierarchy less society? But classes cannot be abolished. (Rajinder Chaudhary)

Response:- Yes, if we are using the word ‘class’ in the Marxist sense. There are exploiter classes and exploited classes and some are in between. We want to end all kinds of exploitation in the society and thus want to abolish this division between exploiters and exploited ones. Not only classes, we are against all other kinds of hierarchies and inequalities such as those based on caste, race, gender, ethnicity, language, region, rural-urban gap etc. It is one of the defining characteristic and a yardstick of socialism. Even if we are not able to achieve complete abolition of inequalities and hierarchies, we should continuously aim and try to move forward in that direction.

But where we differ from the orthodox Marxists is that we do not believe that world will be polarized and reduced into only two classes of capitalists and workers and that the exploitation takes place only (or mainly) in the form of underpayment of wages to workers. There will always remain heterogeneous and diverse classes and sections of population. Peasants, fishermen, informal workers, hawkers, artisans, Dalits, Tribals, women etc. are the various sections of population which, when they jointly strive for a just place in the society, will be instrumental in building a new society.

One should also not confuse equality with uniformity. Diversity (as emphasized in the essay also) and respect for it will be one of the fundamental pillars of building a new civilization. Moreover I have suggested in the essay that we can tolerate a bit of inequality of income, property, and landholdings. It can not be a mechanical or arithmetical equality in the sense of allocating equal amount of bread to each. Even for Marx equality meant—‘To each according to his/her need, from each according to his/her capacity’. For practical reasons, limited inequality (say 5:1 or 10:1 ratio of maximum and minimum income) can be allowed to begin with. Some scope of earning more is also necessary for a limited incentive to work hard until we are able to fully develop non-income incentives.

Mixed Economy, Social Democracy, Welfare state, Private sector, Trusteeship, Comfortable Life

Q/D:-- Doesn’t your vision of future have space for elements of social democracy, welfare state and mixed economy? (Rajinder Chaudhary) What do you think of trusteeship as a way to integrate wealth into a socialist economy and allow the rich to take an active part in society instead of having them flee away to some capitalist friendly haven?

Response:-- Yes, the economy will be mixed in the sense that private sector, public sector, co-operative sector, community sector etc. (but not the corporate sector) will co-exist. No, if by mixed economy you mean what existed in India since independence. It will be radically different from that. The development model will be different. The production will mostly take place in small units owned and run by family or small entrepreneurs. If big units are necessary in some exceptional cases, they will be in public/ cooperative sector with some shares and control going to local community. There will be limits beyond which no one can amass property and assets. Property beyond a limit will belong to the society. I am not sure whether Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship will work for such a surplus property. While individual can change and get de-classed, it is difficult to transform the heart of the whole class. The exploiter class has to abolished, in a non-violent democratic manner. Public opinion and people’s force has to be mobilized for that. Legislative measures are also necessary. Vinoba’s ‘Bhudan’ in India failed in changing of exploitative relationship in Indian villages and transforming them because it relied only on change of heart without radically changing the whole system.

‘Social democracy’ is used to denote the various kinds of social democrat regimes in European countries. But they are of little relevance for us in poor countries and cannot be our model. One, the kind of prosperity they achieved became historically possible due to colonial exploitation of the rest of the world. Most of them have their own MNCs. Directly or indirectly, they share the loot and benefit from imperialism. That is why, even when ruled by social democrats, they remained in the US camp. Because of this imperial prosperity, they could temporarily resolve and postpone the kind of conflicts which are inherent in modern industrial capitalism. The ‘welfare state’ could co-exist with it for a long time without altering the basic feature of it. But lately, with growing contradictions, it is giving way to the neo-liberalism. The other poor parts of the world have to adopt a different strategy and a different development model.

Moreover, many other problems such as social and environmental, as well as recent deep recession have come up in the western capitalist world including those countries ruled by social democrats. But still we can learn from these experiences, specially about public provision of basic necessities and social service (e.g. Scandinavian countries) and decentralized administration (e.g. Switzerland).

About ‘welfare state’. Yes, if it means a proactive and more responsible state in an alternative set-up. No, if it means simply taxing a bit more and spending a little more on social services without altering the basic structure of the economy and the society. It should not become a substitute to the basic change.

Take, for example, recent moves of present UPA government in India to pass a number of “pro-people” laws and to run programs like MNREGA along with adopting anti-people neo-liberal policies. These legislations (MNREGA, Forest Rights Act, Right to Education Act, Domestic Violence Act, proposed Food Security Bill, etc.) may look progressive and create an impression of a welfare state. But they fail to achieve their avowed objective because the full-fledged neo-liberal attack on the livelihood and lives of the people and public institutions is doing much more harm. Government can not be pro-people and pro-corporate at the same time. In such a situation, these legislations and moves become a farce and cover-up and serve only to create confusion.

Q/D: -- Would you rule out private medical practitioners? (Rajinder Chaudhary)

Response: -- One model in this regard is Cuba which has no private medical practitioner and has a completely state-funded, excellent (one of the best in the world), medical services. What is important is the state taking up the responsibility. Even if we allow some small and local private practitioners (who may also represent diverse pathies and medical systems), big business and profiteering should not be allowed. The elitist and expensive hospitals like Apollo and Escorts should not find a place in a socialist society. Otherwise, the influential and powerful sections of population will go to them and the public facilities will be neglected and get deteriorated. Like common school system, we should have a common medical system serving all sections of society without discrimination.

Q/D: -- Is socialism for providing basic needs only like former Soviet Union? Are people expected to live on bread alone? (Dipak Dholkia) Very few people are ready to refuse modern life-style. Poor people as well, given a chance, want comfortable lives. What about lack of choice? (Sunil Deepak)

Response: -- There is a famous and beautiful statement of Gandhi –‘There is enough in the nature for everyone’s need, but not for a single person’s greed.’ Basic needs for all should be the first task and priority. Once that is ensured, people can use their leisure time for arts, literature, music, entertainment, pursuit of knowledge and other such activities. But physical comforts and luxuries beyond a point boomerang and bring new problems.

They do not make individual and social life better and happier. Initially people may get mesmerized and hypnotised by their glamour, added by aggressive advertisements and fuelled consumerism. But there is a growing realisation that such luxuries are not only unsustainable and inequitable, the life full of them is also hollow, unhealthy and unworthy. Growing use of bicycles and organic food in West is an example. Growing environmental crisis is also forcing people to rethink about modern life-style.

Consumer's choice is a myth created by modern capitalist economics. For majority of people who are poor and deprived, there is no choice. Looking from the angle of the society and humanity, we have no choice but to seek an alternative of modern civilization. This alternative civilization will be based not only on alternative production relations and alternative technology, but also on alternative values, alternative culture and alternative philosophy of life. The change has to take place at the levels of both: matter and mind.

Technology, Globalisation

Q/D:-- Would that (alternative technology) only mean going back to bullock carts, or it would also mean solar powered carts or something else that has still to be invented ? (Sunil Deepak)

Response : If we try to evolve an alternative technology for a new society in the twenty first century, it will never be the same as it was in the nineteenth or twentieth century. No one can go back in time and re-create the past. But we can learn from the past and try to correct the distortions in the present to create a new future. Specially the distortions brought by modern capitalist civilization have to be addressed. It is also necessary to emphasize that everything modern is not necessarily good and everything old is not necessarily bad.

Bullock cart may not be the dominant mode of transport in a new society, but nor will be the private cars. Bicycles may be the dominant mode of local transport. Bullocks and bullock carts still may be useful. In these days of energy crises, when we are searching for alternative sources, let us not forget that animals are an excellent source of renewable energy. Solar power, wind power etc. may also be tapped. Once the ethos and priorities of society change and are freed from the corporate control, many new techniques and sources of energy may be discovered and invented which are appropriate for an alternative society.

A few guidelines for alternative technology may be listed as follows (which is not an exhaustive list) :-

1. It should minimise energy (specially non-renewable) use.

2. It should be more labour-intensive, but degrading and dehumanising labour should be avoided.

3. It should be based on small machines and small units, as far as possible.

4. It should be decentralised and local, based on local goods, local skills and local knowledge.

5. It should have a harmonious relationship with nature and environment. It should be less demanding, less polluting, less waste- creating and less aggressive.

6. It should be available and accessible to common men and women.

7. It should promote social mixing and collective participation rather than individualistic isolation. (Modern methods of entertainment, for example, are going in the opposite direction).

Q/D :-- In today's world of globalisation (not only economic, but of culture, society, internet...), what will be the relationship of local communities with the rest of India and the rest of the world? (Sunil Deepak).

Response : There is no conflict between local and global, if the relationship is based on equal footing. What is happening today in the name of globalisation is a kind of invasion at both economic and cultural levels. A kind of colonial relationship is still maintained in a new form. Again it is helpful to look to Gandhi (who was modern in many respects) for guidance. He wrote in a rejoinder to the criticism by his friend and great poet Rabindra Nath Tagore -

"I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. I refuse to live in other people's houses as an interloper, a beggar or a slave."

Q/D: -- Please refer to Alvin Toffler's 'Three Wave Theory'. First was agricultural, second was industrial and the third is knowledge and information wave. Knowledge is now not a scarce commodity likes money, land etc. and freely available on Internet. India can skip the industrial phase and enter directly into the third phase. Third Wave production systems can be sustainable and do not uproot people from the villages. So we can have high-tech villages with high standards of living with modern amenities and abundant free energy from the sun. (Vipin Mahajan).

Response : Sorry, I have not read Toffler, but I do not share your enthusiasm about the Third Wave. One, access to Internet is still limited to a very small part of the world population. It requires at least large number of computers, large network of telecommunication and knowledge of English. Expanding these facilities to each village and family will require much more spending on infrastructure, which will further divert the limited resources from basic needs of the people. Two, the Internet, like newspapers and TV, is also financed by the advertisements of companies, which are playing havoc with people's lives, society and environment. Three, the third wave is therefore not free and independent of the second wave. High standards of living with modern comforts for all (and not for few) will require more of modern industrialisation, and therefore more neo-colonial exploitation, destruction of nature, diversion of resources and deprivation of local communities on a much larger scale, in one part or another of the earth. Four, solar energy is still quite expensive and it is not going to be available free of cost. In fact, beyond a point, everything comes with increasing costs. Bio-fuel was also presented as a panacea, but increasing use of it has brought new crises and disasters such as adverse impact on world food supply. There is no alternative to the pressing need of saving energy and reducing the consumption by affluent sections of population. Finally, there cannot be technological solutions to the problems, which are essentially social, economic, political, ecological and systemic. Let us not forget this important truth.

Please do not mistake me. I am not against Internet. As you can see, I am using it. If a public access to Internet for all in their own languages in villages can be ensured (which is not an easy task and comes only after basic needs in priority list), it may help in decentralisation and building enlightened village life. But I don't see it a panacea to all the pressing problems before the humanity.

Trade Unions, Labour Aristocracy

Q/D :-- Do you think that there is no place for unions? There may be some weaknesses in labour movement, but calling it labour aristocracy is going to another extreme. It is unfair to reduce the whole labour movement to this. (Rajinder Choudhary)

Response : Certainly, each and every section of the society (including factory workers, government employees and university teachers) has a right to organise itself and agitate for its problems. That is a fundamental right and a must for any democracy to function effectively. Otherwise, there will be no check and control on the arbitrariness and misuse of power by those in authority. This right should be protected and recent attacks on it in India should be resisted.

What I have tried to impress upon in this essay is small role of such trade unions of organised sector workers or white-collar government employees in the politics of change. This is not a mere theoretical proposition, but is the actual experience. And this is because of their objective situation in poor developing countries.

Take, for example, the utter failure of Indian trade union movement to resist the policies of LPG (liberalisaiton, privatisation and globalisation). It did organise occasional strikes and Bharat Bandhs. But even the big unions (such as postal, telecom, bank, insurance, railway) have failed to block the moves of privatisation, entrenchment, outsourcing and contractualisation of labour in their respective departments which threaten their own existence. Teachers' unions (with, of course, some exceptions) have shown little inclination to oppose (or even debate) the moves to demolish and destroy the public education system and open the sector for commercialisation. Their concerns are mostly limited to their salary hike, promotion etc.

The Indian rulers in post-1991 phase have cleverly exploited this situation to serve their purpose by implementing 5^th and 6^th Pay Commission recommendations. The high and sudden raise in salaries, especially of class 1, 2 and 3 employees, served two purposes. It gave a boost to the consumer goods market. The sale of cars, motorbikes, refrigerators, washing machines, computers, cameras, TVs, DVDs, flats etc. suddenly went up benefiting many MNCs, and Indian companies. Secondly, it bribed Indian middle class and intelligentsia to become silent and subservient.

But still I have full sympathy with the struggle of workers (specially at lower ranks). I also do not insist on any word. The word 'labour aristocracy' is generally used for the current condition of workers movement. But if it is offending, I may withdraw it. The substance of my arguments is more important than any word.

Q/D:-- The challenge is how to organise the huge unorganised sector. That is the lesson, to learn from the Latin American experience, but specific conditions of India should not be lost sight of. (Rajesh Ramakrishnan).

Response: I agree, and that is where I put my hopes. But being divergent and scattered groups, it is more difficult. Their demands are also not limited to wages, but include housing right, hawking right, ration cards, social security, etc.

Decentralisation, Village Society

Q/D:-- Small is beautiful, no doubt, but what about the security in this complex world ? I dread the prospects of not having a strong enough 'central' command/authority which can protect the country against the staggeringly superior technology which goes into making the destructive weapons which are in the possession of the capitalist countries. (T. Ramakrishna)

Response: A strong center of power and a strong military are no guarantee of protection, as is clear in Iraq's case. The superpowers, especially the US, have a military power, which is many times stronger than other countries. No other country can match it, and if any country tries to match, it will have to put all its resources into it. Even that is not sufficient and one has to put others' resources also, i.e. grow into an empire itself. That is neither a feasible nor a desirable option. Moreover, such an arms race is ultimately benefiting the US and other capitalist countries, increasing their sale of armament and aircrafts.

The real strength lies in the people, which will grow several times in a socialist society. And that will be the real deterrent. Cases of Vietnam and Cuba have shown that if people are solidly behind a nation, no superpower can enslave it. On the other hand, a strong centre and misuse of its powers has only served to aggravate and complicate the problems in Kashmir and North-East in India, weakening the nation. A nation can grow stronger if and only if there is a real decentralisation of power and empowerment and enrichment of its people.

But it is also important that the poor countries of the world come together to resist the imperialist designs and onslaughts. International attempts of mobilisation and building a socialist solidarity can go side by side with the internal mobilisation for change.

Q/D:-- I share your views on decentralisation as an essential ingredients of socialism. But villages are caste-ridden. I do not think Dr. Ambedkar would have required to modify his advice to Dalits to leave villages and settle in cities. Situation in villages is worse than what it was in Dr. Ambedkar's time. (Dipak Dholakia) Seeing enormous tensions in villages on caste and class basis, there should be a new movement either to transform the old villages or set up new villages. Village of new century needs more detailed discussion and elaboration. (Arun Kumar Tripathi) Why do you say so vehemently that Dalits and women would never agree to a strategy of ruralization ? If women's opposition stems from deep rural gender inequality, I think we need to see this as a challenge for the social transformation (not only economic transformation). Same is the case with Dalit question. Rural industrialisation can play a big role in changing Dalit's status, but they should get ownership of those industries too. (Dolly Daftary).

Response: Dalit and feminist activitists have a legitimate doubt about getting a respectful and equitable place in a village society. It is the duty of others to come forward to find solutions and assure them. Yes, indeed, it is a real challenge. I only want to draw attention to the fact that migration to cities, even if it brings some sense of relief from caste atrocities and gender discrimination, is no solution. Seventy per cent of Dalits still live in villages. Job opportunities are shrinking and available only in unorganised sector with no security. Majority of these migratory are forced to live in miserable conditions in slums.

We have no option but to transform the villages. It may require multi-pronged actions for changes at economic, social, cultural and political levels. Some of them which come to my mind are as follows :-

1. A social reformist movement attacking the caste system and the gender disparity (including dowry and parda);

2. Abolition of absentee land ownership and land to the tiller;

3. A drive of rural industrialisation, with ownership going to actual workers;

4. Common school system with special emphasis on educaiton of girls and Dalit and tribal children;

5. Constitutional and legal guarantees for prevention of atrocities against Dalits, tribals and women and for their minimum human rights and opportunities; in spite of an all-out decentralisation of power, centralised authorities may be necessary at district, state and centre for this purpose.

6. A special drive to generate leadership from Dalits, tribals, women and other downtrodden sections of population in people's movements.

Means, Roadmap

Q/D:-- How do you achieve the desired changes? Isn't there a contradiction between democratic society and controlling the society? Isn't it day-dreaming to imagine that alternative model can come by free choice of people because of change of mentality? (Sunil Deepak).

Response: These changes will be brought by the people themselves when they are convinced about them and they struggle for them. No such changes can be imposed from above. What we have done is only on attempt of hinting at the roots of the problem and possible solutions. Creating awareness is, of course, necessary. Thus there is no contradiction between democracy and change. Please do not think in Soviet or Chinese framework only, where violence, force, centralisation, control and dictatorship were used for change. Change can also be brought through democratic and non-violent methods. People's conciousness, people's democratic movements, satyagraha (civil disobedience), constructive work, change of power along with change of the state structure, etc. will be important tools for such a change. But let us also note that it is a political task to be undertaken by politically conscious movements with clear goals. Funded NGOs or present status-quoist (and degenerating) mainstream political parties cannot do it.

Q/D : What do you mean by 'broadly non-violent'? (Rajinder Chaudhary, Dipak Dholakia)

Response : Sometimes there may be spontaneous violence by an agitated crowd, but the strategy should be to promote non-violent and democratic means of struggle. Organised and armed violence should be shunned because of its inherent evils.

Prof. M.D.N. Nanjunda Swamy, the late farmers' leader of Karnataka, forwarded a principle - 'we shall not harm the human beings but we may destroy the property and that is not violence.' The farmers-activists under his guidance attacked Mcdonold's outlets in Bangalore and uprooted the experimental crops of American MNC Monsanto. This distinction is also worth considering.

While talking of non-violence, I want to distance myself from certain Gandhians, who preach peace and non-violence without addressing the root cause of the conflicts which lead to violence and wars. For example, the problem of wars and terrorism is very much linked to US imperialism, but they won't talk of it. Nor would they oppose capitalist forces and the state representing it. They are generally close to the establishment. Let us not forget that it is the injustice and oppression in the system, which lead to violence. It cannot be wished away without removing (or at least reducing) such injustice and oppression.

Idealist, Impractical, Vague

Q/D:-- Cuba is a very small country. I doubt whether India can repeat what Cuba could do, because of the huge difference in size. (Dipak Dholakia).

Response: Cuba, being a very small country, was not self-sufficient in many respects. Disintegration of USSR created a crisis for it, because certain important supplies were from USSR. Economic blockade by USA and its allied counters further aggravated the situation. Still, with its resolve to protect the gains from its revolution, Cuba could find a way out and more or less continue with its socialist system. Compared to it, India is a large country with an inventory of almost all kind of natural resources, trained and skilled manpower, and a long history and cultural roots. It should be, therefore, easier for it to do new experiments of socialism. In fact, capitalising on these advantages, it can take a lead in showing a new path to the world.

Bigness in size may appear a problem, if we wish to organise people at national level. But a beginning can be done in any part of it, with the movement gradually spreading to other parts.

Q/D:-- Even in Gandhi's time, many elements of the vision of Swarajya were considered not practical and too idealist. Today the world has changed further and his vision may be even more idealist and impractical. (Sunil Deepak).

Response: We need not follow Gandhi blindly in every respect. Let us take the essence of his teachings, which is becoming more relevant day-by-day. Then let us decide how to transform the society, and what is practical and what is not. The symbols of Gandhi (Charkha, for example) were suitable for his time. A century later, we have to choose new symbols. But the vision of Gandhi is as relevant today as it was then. Gandhi was a great critic and rebel of modern capitalist civilization. And a rebellion against it is still the need of the hour.

Q/D:-- Your diagnosis is correct, but prescription is somewhat vague. You must provide some idea how you are going to achieve your goals. (Dipak Dholakia) More elaboration is required, especially in respect of non-economic aspects like education, culture, health etc. (P. Vishwambharan).

Response: You must have found more elaboration and further concrete suggestions about diagnosis, prescription and process of change in preceding pages. But you may still find it incomplete and lacking in details. As I said in the essay, everything need not be ready-made and decided in advance. If that is done in minute details, it may hinder rather than help the process of change. Our task is to analyse the historical developments and past experiences, learn from them, and chalk out broad outlines for the feasible and desirable change. The exact shades and colours in this picture may be left to the people to fill up in the process of change. They may be specific to the time, space and situations and may not fit everywhere.

Still, a clearer picture of possible, feasible and desirable alternative system helps in the struggle. I invite all of you to join in this project of getting more clarity about it. Let us jointly work for it. And let the dialogue continue.

E-mail: sjpsunil@gmail.com

Only a total transformation can save the nation : Sunil , Vice President , Samajwadi Janaparishad

2010-11-29T10:33:00.000+05:30

Press Statement

Only a total transformation can save the nation

Indian nation, while completing 10 years in the 21st century, is undergoing through many crises. It is marked with growing degeneration of politics, corruption reaching unprecedented heights, growing disparity, food crisis, growing unemployment, continuing large scale suicides of farmers and weavers, growing conflicts over natural resources (land, water, forest, minerals, fish, etc.), persisting and growing communal and ethnic conflicts, social tensions and the problems of terrorism and extremism. It is strange and tragic that in spite of a total failure in addressing and coping with these crises, the Indian rulers are boasting of becoming a superpower.

The roots of this decay, degeneration and crises are basically to be found in the departure and divergence from the ideals, policies and goals of the independence movement by the rulers of Independent India. Another point of departure came in 1991 when they further drifted away in the name of economic reforms and globalization.

The unprecedented growth in the volume and number of scams involving corruption, for example, is as much related to the policies of privatization, liberalization and deregulation as it is to the growing commercialization and monetization of Indian politics. Scandals and scams linked to Commonwealth games, Adarsh Housing Society in Mumbai, allocation of 2G telecom spectrum, allocation of land in Karnataka, etc. are only tip of the iceberg. The loot has been growing at all levels, as common Indians have been witnessing helplessly. It is an ugly face of unregulated and uncontrolled corporate capitalism. Growing hunger, malnutrition, unemployment, suicides, incidence of diseases etc are another face of it. Only an alternative socialist system with an alternative development model can save this nation. Samajwadi Jan Parishad calls for a democratic people’s movement for a total transformation of Indian society, polity and economy.

The problem of growing communal and ethnic tensions and intolerance can also be resolved only in such an alternative set-up. A respect for and recognition of diversity of language, culture and religious beliefs, an alternative development paradigm, and a decentralized governance system will be essential ingredients of this alternative system. The problems of Kashmir, North-East and Maoist violence have been aggravated by the use of military force, repressionary measures and misuse of power by central government. We also can not afford to ignore the fact that there can not be any military solution of the problems which are essentially political and systemic.

Recently, the historical fast by Ms. Irom Sharmila of Manipur has completed 10 years protesting against the repression and violation of human rights. It is a shame for our democracy. A nation of Gandhi does not have any concern and respect for Satayagraha and democratic means of protest. It is no surprise that people’s frustration is leading to violence and armed conflicts. It calls for an urgent need of democratic reforms. Plagued with high centralization of powers, huge gape between the people and the centres of power and growing use of money and muscle in politics, the current democratic set-up is unable to deliver the results. A radical decentralization, creation of direct democracy and other democratic reforms are the need of the hour.

Only with such radical transformation, we can build a new India, which will be able to fulfill the basic needs and aspirations of its people and solve the various crises. Only then it can again rise to the status of a global leader and guide (and not the superpower).

-Sunil
National Vice-President
Samajwadi Jan Parishad

November 26 , 2010.
Kannur ,Keralam.

The bauxite mountains of Orissa : Sanjay Kak

2010-09-23T10:39:00.000+05:30

Open publication - Free publishing - More vedanta

Review published in Economic and Political Weekly.Courtesy -Economic and Political Weekly .

Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression : Statement

2010-08-30T13:38:00.000+05:30

Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression (WSS) is deeply
concerned and disturbed by the news report *Raped repeatedly, Naxal
leader quits Red ranks* that appeared on page 1 of the Times of India,
dated August 24, 2010.
We unequivocally condemn any such violence and sexual assault
inflicted on women, irrespective of the perpetrator(s), whether state
or non state, in any situation, anywhere in the country. If the story
reported by a leading daily Times of India is correct, it is very
serious and condemnable and the woman is not safe; the law should take
its course and action should be taken against the accused. And if the
story has been planted or used by the state and establishment as some
seem to believe, we still fear for her safety from the police and
security forces now that she has surrendered. It needs to be ensured
that she will not be put under any pressure and that she will get
access to lawyers and family.
However, we question the responsibility of the media and its
credibility. Such reporting has serious implications and we as
feminists and women’s groups wish to draw the attention of TOI and its
readership to the following points in the interest of the privacy,
security and safety of women:
Firstly, the woman’s name and position have been revealed in the
report, which is against the norms of reporting of rape. The picture
in the newspaper is very clear and does little to hide her identity.
TOI’s concern for the woman in this respect is lacking.
Secondly, the report appears to be interested more in highlighting
such cases in a loose and highly sensational way rather than sticking
to facts with rigor. The report has conflated the very serious issue
of rape and sexual violence with issues of sexual choices. In fact,
the report uses statements like `she is caught in an ideology that she
cannot understand’ but makes no attempt to engage with her at an
intellectual level, even though she is reportedly an experienced
person and not merely a woman among men.
Thirdly, the story has not been substantiated as per journalistic
obligations. Why has the reporter not made any effort to get any
version of other sources- of perhaps differing hues?
Fourthly, TOI needs to be more impartial in its reporting of cases of
rape, irrespective of who the rapist is. We find that sexual violence
by the army, police and paramilitary forces, in the ongoing military
operations, is routinely ignored by the TOI as well as other media
sources. This continues to place innumerable women across the country
in extremely vulnerable situations; rapes and sexual assault of women
by police and paramilitary in Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, with
the inordinate and suffocating presence of the police and
paramilitary, has risen so high that fear and intimidation of women is
high too. It has become impossible for an assaulted woman to even
lodge an FIR. Many such survivors of rape in these regions have been
harassed and forced to withdraw their complaints.
Finally, the Home Minister has chosen to comment on the TOI story and
claim there are more such cases - whereas he has been studiously
silent on the many well documented instances where adivasi and poor
women have tried to pursue cases of rape against police, paramilitary
and SPOs. A recent example is that of an eighteen-year old girl in
Gajapati district of Orissa, allegedly Maoist, who was picked up from
her village in February along with another person, during combing
operations by security forces, gang-raped and is now languishing in
jail. No charge sheet has as yet been filed even after6 months. We
urge TOI to bring such stories to its readership across the country so
that these women also get some justice. We urge the entire media and
the government to break its silence on the miscarriage of justice in
the Khairlanji case.
As a national forum against sexual violence and state repression, we
assert that violence against women cannot and should not be used as
weapons of war, by the warring sides to score points against each
other. We are equal citizens of India- our sexuality cannot be used
against us. The state should allow free movement in these areas so
that it is possible to conduct impartial investigations of reports of
sexual violence against women. *
Committed to the struggle against sexual violence and state
repression,
Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression

WSS is a network of women's rights, dalit rights, human rights and
civil liberties organizations across India. It is a non-funded
grassroots effort by women to stem the violence being perpetrated upon
our bodies and on our societies by the State’s forces, by non-state
actors and by the inability of our government to resolve conflict in a
meaningful, sustainable and effective manner.
AIPWA (Delhi), AISA (Delhi), APDR (West Bengal), Action India, All
Deori Women Association (Assam), All Tiwa Women Association (Assam),
All Tripura Indigenous and Minority Association, Alternate Law Forum
(Karnataka), Ananya (Karnataka), Anhad (Delhi), Baiga Mahapanchayat
(Chhattisgarh), Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Udyog Sangathan, Boro Women
Justice Forum (Assam), Borok Women Forum (Tripura), CAVOW, CPDR
(Maharashtra), Campaign for Justice and Peace (Karnataka),
Chhattisgarh Mahila Adhikar Manch, Chhattisgarh Mahila Mukti Morcha,
Dalit Adivasi Manch (Chhattisgarh), Dalit Stree Shakti (Andhra
Pradesh), HumAnE (Orissa), HRLN (Jammu & Kashmir), HRLN (Madhya
Pradesh), Hengasara Hakkina Sangha (Karnataka), Human Rights Alert
(Manipur), IRMA (Manipur), Indigenous Women’s Forum For North East
India, Jagori (Delhi), Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan (Madhya
Pradesh), Jan Jagruti Manch (Chhattisgarh), Karbi Nimso Chingthur
Asong (Assam), Kuki Women Union (Manipur), Lalgarh Mancha (West
Bengal), Lokayata (Maharashtra), MARAA (Karnataka), Madhya Pradesh
Mahila Manch, NAPM (Karnataka), NBA (Madhya Pradesh), Naga Mothers’
Association, Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights, Naga Women’s
Union (Manipur), Namma Manasa (Karnataka), Nari Mukti Sanstha (Delhi),
Navsarjan (Gujarat), Naya Chhattisgarh Mahila Sangh, Nirantar (Delhi),
PSSK (Chhattisgarh), Patel Pat Chaunki (Chhattisgarh), Pratidhwani
(Delhi), PUCL-India, Rachna Manch, Rohidas Mahila Kalyan Samiti
(Chhattisgarh), Saheli (Delhi), Sahmet (Madhya Pradesh), Samajwadi Jan
Parishad (Madhya Pradesh), Samata Vedike (Karnataka), Samanatha Mahila
Vedike (Karnataka), Sangini (Madhya Pradesh), Vanangana (Uttar
Pradesh), Vidyarthi Yuvjan Sabha, Women’s Right Resource Center
(Madhya Pradesh), Yuva Samvaad (Madhya Pradesh), Stree Adhikar
Sanghatan (Uttar Pradesh), Stree Jagruti Samiti, Trade Union
Solidarity Committee (Maharashtra), WinG-India, Women Against
Militarization and State Violence (The Other Media, Delhi), Women’s
Right Resource Center, Women’s Education Forum (Chhattisgarh), Zomi
Mothers' Association (Manipur), and individuals.

Oppose and boycott Commonwealth Games 2010

2010-08-26T14:18:00.002+05:30

An appeal

Oppose and boycott Commonwealth Games 2010,

A Symbol of British Empire, Loot, Misplaced Priorities and a Skewed Sport Culture.

The gross anomalies, pilferage of the funds, scams and corruption in the name of the Commonwealth Games are coming out in the open almost every day. It’s probably the biggest scam in India’s history, the whole extent of which is yet to be established. Suresh Kalmadi is not the only culprit either, probably Sheila Dikshit and her associates have also made a big profit out of it. But the real culprit is the Indian Government which has thrown away people’s money shamelessly for the last few years for organizing the games.

The question is not limited to corruption only. The whole event raises some deeper questions which have been raised by SJP and VYS in the last 1 year. The biggest issue is of the colonial legacy and its celebration. The Commonwealth is a group of countries which were a part of the British Empire. Even after independence from the British why do we keep on being a member of it and celebrate the colonial relic? The “Queen’s Baton Relay” of the Games started with our president receiving the baton from the Queen of England in her palace and after going through other Commonwealth Countries is touring India’s various parts. Why? Is the British Queen still ‘our’ queen too? Does our government consider the 200 year period of British rule (and 200 years of destruction, loot, famines and poverty) a glorious chapter and therefore organizes lavish celebrations to honour its memory? We want an answer from Indian Government and the Indian National Congress.

The second question which arises is of the priorities of the government of this poor country. The budget allotted for the CWG has crossed 35,000 crores starting from the amount of Rs. 767 crores (7.67 billion), but if we include the spending on various projects passed in and around Delhi in name of the Games (including many flyovers, expressways, parking lots, metro expansion, new terminal at the airport, beautification and repair/renovation works) the amount crosses a whopping Rs. 1 lakh crore (1 trillion)! Do the resources of this poor country belong solely to Delhi’s super-rich? In Delhi itself the slum-dwellers, street vendors, Rickshaw-Tonga-pullers, the poor, helpless, labouring people are being driven out. Even students have been forced to vacate their hostels so that foreign ‘guests’ and tourists can stay there. The workers engaged in the construction of Game sites are also living in inhuman conditions. On the other hand, just like the Asian Games held earlier, this event is also being used to build a number of 3 star-5star hotels on valuable land. The Govt. always says it doesn’t have enough funds for the common man’s education, healthcare, nutrition, housing, electricity and development of villages According to its own figures 10 lakh (1 million) posts of teachers are lying vacant in Government schools. Despite increasing hunger and malnutrition, the govt. refuses to provide subsidized rations to the people. Then where has this obscene amount of money to spend on this 12 day charade has come from?

The third major question is of the sports culture which events like these promote. The event is being organized in name of improving the condition of sports in

India

. But after the Asian Games (1984) did the sport scenario in

India

improve, did our pitiable place in international medal tallies get better? The huge stadiums under construction with astonishing amounts of money will lie unused and will be a burden after the 12 day Games. Their maintenance will cost millions every year. If the Government had instead spent and paid attention on building playgrounds and sport-infrastructure in our villages, small towns, schools and colleges, the country’s sports would have benefited in reality.

The politicians and bureaucrats sitting on top of the sports institutions in

India

are hand in glove with multinational companies, capitalists and middlemen, and therefore are determined to commercialize sports fast. It is being converted into a money making machine. The IPL, the CWG, even the football World Cup are symbols of a new sport culture. Sports are fast becoming expensive, thus out of reach of the poor and common people. Companies, firms, middlemen and money-makers are acquiring an almost absolute control over sports. If the family of

India

’s only gold medallist in the last Olympics, Abhinav Bindra, spent millions of rupees on building a private shooting range for him and getting him trained in

Germany

, how many families in

India

can afford that? Actually the need of the day is to begin a new sport policy and culture, in which sports are cheaper, down to earth so that more people can participate in them. They should be freed of the claws of the companies and capital. Instead of cut-throat competition (which gives birth to evils like doping and match-fixing) real sportsmanship has to be promoted.

Vidyarthi Yuvjan Sabha and Samajwadi Jan Parishad appeal to the youth, athletes and fellow citizens to oppose the Commonwealth Games with all their might, because they represent our colonial past, imperialism, loot of resources and misplaced priorities. We voiced our protest through a sit-in at Jantar Mantar and through entering the CWG office building at Cannaught Place on 23^rd February, 2010. (Around 500 people were arrested for the protest). We’ll oppose the ‘Queen’s Baton’ and ‘Commonwealth express’ in their path and appeal all likeminded people to oppose and boycott them.

We’re planning a big protest on 30^thSeptember, 2010 when the Queen’s Baton Relay reaches Delhi, please do join us in large numbers.

Vidyarthi Yuvajan Sabha, Siddiki Building, Bada Hindurao, Delhi. Phone: 09868617785 (Arman)

Samajwadi Jan Parishad, vill.& post Kesla, via Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad, M.P. Phone: 09425040452 (Sunil)

Joshy Jacob arrested while opposing Queen's Batton at Thiruananthpuram

2010-08-26T12:15:00.000+05:30

Joshy Jacob , National Secretary of Samajwadi Janaparishad was arrested this morning in Thiruananthapuram.He was leading a dharna against Commonwealth Games.The dharna was organised on the occasion of Queen's Batton arrival.
CPIM leaders Sitaram Yechury and Prakash Karat have never been to jail throughout their political carrier !

Socialism of the New Century / Sunil

2010-08-25T18:16:00.000+05:30

Socialism of the New Century

Sunil

[ Dear friends,
This is an article I prepared for a special issue of Janata weekly. Please read it and let me have your comments, criticism, suggestions etc. I will be happy if a fresh debate and discussion can be held on the issues and propositions laid out in this article. you may find some propositions too general or sweeping. some of them may need further elaboration and need to be substantiated further. There are limitations of a short essay. But I feel they are important and can't be rejected out-rightly. please forward it to others, if you feel so.
Yours sincerely,
Sunil ]

The tussle between capitalism and socialism as alternative visions of human society is not yet over. It is like the old fable of the race between a hare and a tortoise. At times one seems to be the winner. At other times the other seems to be leading. Capitalism is like the hare of the story. It looks fast, impressive and dynamic but after some time it is tired and resting with its own contradictions. In the end, we know it is the tortoise of socialism which will prevail. But that end is yet to be arrived at.

The twenty first century therefore started with new doubts about the supremacy, desirability and invincibility of capitalism. Search of alternatives began with new vigor. The word ‘Socialism’ once again gained currency and became a talking point. But what kind of socialism? What does it mean? How is it different from what was experimented with in the last century which apparently failed ? There seems to be a lot of confusion.

In a way, we who want to change the world for a better tomorrow, are more fortunate than our predecessors in the last century. We have a longer history of capitalism before us to understand its functioning better. We also have the experiences of communist–socialist experiments of the last century to learn from them. What are the main lessons? How do we look at them and analyze them ? Are we wiser and more clear now ? Do we have better insights now?

Observations and Lessons from the Twentieth Century

We may note certain developments and lessons of the last century.

1. Capitalism did not transform the whole world in the way its supporters claimed and even Marx expected. Rather, it transformed the different parts of the world in different ways. To some, it brought prosperity, luxuries and high levels of consumption. To others, it has brought misery, hunger, poverty and unemployment. Capitalism has been kind and benevolent to one set of people but discriminating and destructive to another. The adverse effects of capitalism in large parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America did not prove to be transitional as expected, but have persisted, continued and deepened. The industrial revolution that took place in Western Europe and later in North America and Japan could not be repeated in other parts of the world. Even where the state actively helped and planned, industrialiasation could not take place to the extent of involving and employing a significant proportion of the population. That is true for USSR, China and India also. Even Marx was wrong when he saw in Western Europe the future mirror image of the rest of the world.

3. Trade Unions of organized / industrial workers everywhere developed a kind of economism and lost revolutionary zeal and urge for radical change. In the setting of most of the developing countries, their wages and salaries were much more than the rest of the population. They felt privileged and did not identify themselves with the poor masses. A kind of ‘Labour aristocracy’ gradually developed in both rich and poor countries. The call of Marx and Engels for the workers of the world to write did not materialize. It has to be redefined and reformulated in the new context.

6. The various experiments of social democracy in Europe, or mixed economy in countries like

India

, did not prove sustainable and suffered from many contradictions. A ‘welfare state’ without radically altering the basic structure of society and economy may not solve the problems and may not sustain for a long time.

7. The so-called ‘free trade’, attempts of industrialization and ‘export led growth’ in what are called ‘emerging economies’ such as China and

India

have brought new conflicts and crises. Many of them, at local, national and international level, relate to ‘Jal-Jungle-Jamin’ or minerals. In fact, for some time, natural resources have come to the centre stage. Major conflicts of the world relate to them. The impasse at WTO, for example, is mainly related to agriculture, a nature linked economic activity. Oil and natural gas are behind the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and threat to Iran. Peasant movements, movements against displacements, conflicts over land, water, oil and minerals etc. today make more news than workers’ strikes. Ecological problems of global warming and pollution are only one dimension of this crisis. Another equally important dimension (but ignored in the West-dominated discourse) is the continuous aggression against the people whose lives are still intimately linked to nature.

9. Globalization is another phase of this imperialism. It is another name for removing all restrictions, and enhancing command of capital over resources of the world. Capitalism has an unending and ever-increasing lust for exploiting labour and extracting natural resources at world level. It cannot survive without that. The globalization of finance is just another mechanism of fulfilling their lust. The latest financial crisis of capitalism should be seen in this perspective. It is wrong to regard it essentially an internal crisis of USA and industrial capitalist camp, as some Marxist scholars have tries to do. (See for example, John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, ‘The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences’, Monthly Review Press, 2009).

10. The latest experiments of socialism are from Latin America which do not fit orthodox framework of the left. They have not abolished private property nor have they driven out MNCs. But they have attempted redistribution of land, tried to cut MNCs and big business to size, and increased state control of national resources and strategic industries. These regimes have come in conflict with organized sector workers and established trade unions, and have relied more on the support of poor people belonging to the informal sector. They have focussed on providing social services (education, health, ration etc.) to poor people and increased state budget significantly for them. They have opted for democracy and have successfully mobilized popular support for their reforms. Important experiments of local councils and workers’ management are also going on there. They have tense relations with USA. Natural resources, again, are at the root of this conflict and a rich endowment of oil, natural gas or minerals has proved a source of strength for them. An important development to note is about Cuba which has been forced, after the disintegration of USSR, to change its approach to modern technology and development. It has gone back from chemical to organic cultivations and from tractors to bullocks. This change has helped it in reducing its dependency and achieving self-sufficiency in food.

Analytical Implications and Insights

One: One important source of misunderstanding has been the single minded focus on exploitation of workers in factories by their capitalist owners and regarding it as the main (or the only) source of surplus value. It was like Arjuna of Mahabharat who focussed only on the target of bird’s eye and did not see anything else. But the real dynamics of capitalism was never so simple. Another major source of surplus value, as pointed out by Lohia, has been the exploitation of colonial workers and peasants. Because of this exploitation, the workers of industrialized countries could get a share of it, albeit a small one and it became possible to postpone the conflict between workers and capitalists there indefinitely. Hence revolution did not take place there. This is also the factor behind labour aristocracy. Of course, Marx did take note of colonial plunder and loot and dwelt upon it in detail, but he did not integrate it into his analysis. It was like an after-effect of capitalism for him and not an integral and necessary element of it. One of his followers, Rosa Luxemburg, tried to draw attention towards this lacuna, but she remained mostly neglected and sidelined in the Marxist circles. Many of the Marx’s followers (like Paul Sweezy) still stick to this position that the main dynamic of capitalism is exploitation of workers within the capitalist society. But some Marxist economists from periphery like Andre Gunder Frank have, of course, challenged this orthodoxy.

Actually, modern industrialization requires several things – (1) supply of raw materials at cheap rates, (2) large scale natural resources (land, water,

Eight: It is this kind of obsession with modern (western) technology, modern industrialization and modern development and its contradictions with equality and other socialist ideals that is mainly responsible for the failure of soviet and Chinese experiments of socialism. Most of the commentators have focused on and highlighted the fact of dictatorship, regimentation, development of ‘new class’ of bureaucrats, managers and party bosses etc. But these were not the fundamental reasons. They were only symptoms and by-product of a deeper disease that is, obsession with modern development and modern life style. But that could not be achieved without depressing and exploiting large sections of the population. Hence came Stalinism. Lakhs of Russian peasants - the partners of revolution till the previous day – were killed, evicted, tortured and sent to Siberia or forced work in mines, railways or factories because they resisted forced levy of their products at low prices. Such tragedies are inherent in modern development, whether it is a capitalist or communist system. Alienation of workers, hierarchy and centralization of power are also inherent in modern industrial society. Any attempt to remove these evils has to look for alternative kind of industrialization and development.

Ten: An important element to make democracy and socialism real is decentralization of power, both in economic and political spheres. Small is not only beautiful, it is the only equitable, feasible and sustainable form of economic activity for a socialist society. To make democracy meaningful, it has to be brought to the grassroot, closer to the people, facilitating their active participation and empowerment. It should not be confused with the present Panchayati Raj in India, which is actually an extension of bureaucracy raj without curtailing the power of those at the top in any significant way.

Eleven: Unlimited growth, unending wants, high level of consumption and labour–less luxurious life style are some of the goals that have been idealized, glamorized and glorified by modern civilization. Private capitalists and corporations have promoted them through consumerist culture to boost their sales and profits. But even the communist rulers and intellectuals did not question these goals. There are at least three problems with them. One, This high consumption level cannot be available to the whole humanity. Rather it has been accompanied by growing disparity and deprivation of the masses. Two, even where available and achievable , it has not made the life and society happier and healthier. It has brought its own distortions and social crises. Three, it has brought the ecology and environment of the earth to the brink of disaster . The whole earth, for the first time, has become vulnerable for the luxuries of a few. It is estimated that if the whole population of the world is to achieve the

standard of life, we shall need at least five earths.

New Face of Socialism

With these observations and lessons from history, we can be now surer and confident about how the Socialism will look like in the new century. It will certainly be not like state capitalism of

USSR

. No one would like to repeat the mistakes and horrors of the Stalin era. Nor will it be like ‘market socialism’ of Chinese variety, where socialist principles have disappeared and what has remained is a total subservience to world market added by one of the worst dictatorships of modern times. It will also not be the social democracy of Europe that has little relevance for the poor underdeveloped part of the world. Socialism cannot also be equated to mere nationalization and establishment of public sector in an otherwise capitalist setup, as we have seen its limitation and failure in

India

Most of the leftists today reject all these past models of socialism, but they are not sure of what really ailed them? They are also not sure of what is the alternative path. There is a lot of discussion on forms of ownership and management. It is indeed important. But little attention is paid to the question of scale, technology, life style and development model, which have emerged as crucial factors. (See, for example , the recent took by Michael A. Lebowitz, ‘Build it Now : Socialism for the 21st Century’, Monthly Review Press, 2006 or a background note by Abhay Shukla prepared for a meeting on ‘Socialism in the 21st Century’, at Nagpur, in the last week of July 2010). The colonial question (with neo-colonial and internal colonial forms) also remains neglected and under-emphasized, and its full implications are not recognized.

The state of neglect and exploitation of agriculture and other primary sector activities should be reversed. Assisted by nature, they are the activities that really produce and create values. Industries only reshape and reform them. Services only circulate and redistribute the values created by agriculture and industry. But, while giving prime place to primary activities, we need vibrant industries too. The present state of total dominance of (and dependence on) agriculture in village life is, in fact, a distortion. It is a colonial legacy, continued after independence and intensified further.A significant part of the village population has to be diverted to industries. But those industries will be small unit, labour-intensive and mainly village based. Villages and small towns have to be again made centre of development. Mega-cities with large slums are unmanageable and unsustainable. Some of the highly developed urban civilizations like Indus Valley and Maya could not sustain themselves and disappeared. If we want to avoid the same fate, a kind of de-urbanisation has to be planned and promoted by providing employment, prosperity and basic facilities to villages.

Moreover, villages in a socialist society will not be the same traditional village. Struggle to build a new society may get it transformed with less hierarchy, more equality and more freedom.

Each village and its Gram Sabha should be given autonomy and full powers to run the village administration and decide about their daily life matters including ‘Jal-Jungle-Jamin’, but adequate legal protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights of every resident including those belonging to weaker sections should be ensured. Most of the powers of central and state governments should be transferred to a district level elected government along with village and town councils. State will perhaps never wither away, but it can be radically decentralized, democratized, cut to size, and brought closer to people. Direct democracy should replace present indirect and incomplete democracy in India whose failures are too apparent to be ignored.

The dilemma of public vs. private sector cannot be resolved without reference to the question of model of development. There is a third alternative of ‘people’s sector’ meaning ownership and management by community, but that is possible only when the structure of economy is decentralized and the forces of consumerism (promoting greed and individualism) are effectively banned. (1) If there are very few large units and the economy is mostly dominated by cottage, mini and small units of industries and services, they can be allowed to remain in private hands with strict discouragement to the tendencies of concentration and monopoly. An upper limit can be fixed to income, salaries, wealth and property as is done in

India

in case of agricultural landholding. There will be certainly no place for MNCs and big corporations and their harmful advertisements in a new society. Large units, if unavoidable, can be managed by workers with society retaining overall control. We can learn a lot in this matter from ongoing experiments of co-management and co-operation in Latin America. (2) In case of agriculture, collective farms and state ownership of land is not advisable but cooperation in various forms is. Collective use and ownership of natural resources (other than land) should be promoted, and we can learn from already existing (but now threatened) traditional forms of them. Absentee land ownership should be banned and ‘land to the tiller’ should be the norm. It should be noted that equal distribution of agricultural land among all rural families in

India

would be a foolish act making landholdings very small and uneconomic. (It may be a different case in other countries where population density is low and there are big landlords owning thousands of acres of land). Existing inequality in Indian countryside, conflicts over land, and the problem of high attachment to land can be removed and resolved only by industrializing the countryside and diverting a significant part of rural population to non-agricultural occupations.

After the experience of communism, we may not completely do away with market. It is also not necessary. Market may remain, but its powers should be taken away. It should serve as a servant of the society, and not the master. It should be controlled and guided in the interest of society. Markets should be more localized, competitive and equal. The poor countries of the world have to certainly break away from the present chain of intentional trade, investment and finance which is unequal, dominating, exploiting, crises-creating and a tool of imperialism. Trade and cooperation among the poor countries is preferable. ‘Exchange among the equals’ should be the guideline.

Cuba

can be a modal for this. Is has the best health service in the world, completely funded by the state. If a low-income, tiny island nation can do it, why not other countries?

If there are multiple sources of domination and exploitation in a capitalist system, the struggle against it also has to be fought by heterogeneous and diverse forces jointly. Unorganized and informal workers, peasants, artisans, fisherman, cattle growers, tribals, Dalits coloured people, women, hawkers, displaced communities and such other victims of the system have to combine and fight together. It is not easy, but there is no other way. Because of this diversity and heterogeneity also, the struggle has to be democratic, participatory, non-dominating, broadly non-violent and with a collective leadership.

(email: sjpsunil@gmail.com)

___________________

The author is the national vice-president of Samajwadi Jan Parishad and can be contacted at:

Postal address: Village & Post Kesla, Via: Itarsi, Dist: Hoshangabad, MP 461 111.

Phone: 094250 40452.

E-mail: sjpsunil@gmail.com

Vedanta's very embarrassing silence

2010-07-31T22:10:00.000+05:30

Peter Popham: Vedanta's very embarrassing silence

Friday, 30 July 2010

OLI SCARFF/GETTY IMAGES

Protesters demonstrate on Wednesday against the plan by Vedanta to mine for bauxite on a sacred mountain in the western Orissa region of India

ENLARGE

Decision to grant mining licence to Posco set aside

2010-07-15T09:06:00.000+05:30

Correspondent

CUTTACK: In a setback to the Rs.51,000-crore Posco steel plant planned at Paradeep, the Orissa High Court on Wednesday set aside the State government's recommendation for granting the South Korean steel major a licence for prospecting in the Khandadhar iron ore mines in Sundargarh district.

Allowing a writ petition filed by Geomin Minerals and Marketing (P) Ltd, a Bhubaneswar-based company, a Division Bench of Justices B.P. Das and B.P. Ray directed the State government to take a fresh decision on the licence giving preferential right of consideration to the petitioner. In January 2009, the government recommended that the Centre grant Posco a licence for prospecting on 2,500 hectares of the Khandadhar mines. The recommendation was based on Section 11(5) of the Mining and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act.

Terming the decision “arbitrary” and “illogical,” Geomin Minerals challenged it in the High Court, claiming that it had made the first application for a mining lease in the area way back in August 1991.

The Bench said that the preferential right for consideration was available to the petitioner, and the recommendation made in favour of Posco was not valid.

Urging the court to restrain the government from considering applications for mineral concessions filed by the latter applicants until its application was disposed of, Geomin Minerals also sought an order to dispose of all its applications pending with govt.

Holding that the writ petition was not premature and was maintainable as there was no alternative remedy, the High Court directed the government to dispose of all pending applications of the petitioner in four months.

A dozen other petitions, including an intervention petition filed by Visa Steel Ltd, were tagged to the petition of Geomin Minerals. The Bench, however, rejected Visa Steel's contention and asked it to file an independent writ petition if it had any cause of action.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu

Inside The Murky World Of The Uk's Make Poverty History Campaign: Stuart Hodkinson

2010-03-19T17:06:00.000+05:30

For a sun-soaked Friday in late May, there was an unusual air of panic at the British Trade Union Congress (TUC) for the monthly members' assembly of Make Poverty History (MPH). Officials hurriedly briefed reception with some last-minute security instructions: "You must make sure that only assembly members are let in," one instructed. "The meeting is open to the public, but only public members of Make Poverty History."
The nerves were understandable. Two damning stories about MPH were about to break in the British national press. The cover story of British centre-left weekly, New Statesman, 'Why Oxfam is failing Africa', had exposed deep anger among members of the MPH coalition at Oxfam's 'revolving door' relationship with UK government officials and policies, accusing it of allowing Britain's two most powerful politicians, Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown, to co-opt MPH as a front for New Labour's own questionable anti-poverty drive.
The right-wing Sunday Telegraph, meanwhile, had given notice of its shocking exclusive on how large numbers of the ubiquitous MPH white wristband - the very symbol of the campaign - had been knowingly sourced from Chinese sweatshops with Oxfam's blessing.

Inside MPH, however, the embarrassing revelations were no surprise. For the past six months, some of the UK's leading development and environmental NGOs have been increasingly vocal in their unease about a campaign high on celebrity octane but low on radical politics. One insider, active in a key MPH working group, argues there "has often been a complete divergence between the democratically agreed message of our public campaign and the actual spin that greets the outside world". He is angry:
"Our real demands on trade, aid and debt, and criticisms of UK government policy in developing countries have been consistently swallowed up by white bands, celebrity luvvies and praise upon praise for Blair and Brown being ahead of other world leaders on these issues."
This is surely not what campaigners had in mind back in late 2003 when Oxfam initiated a series of informal meetings with charities and campaigning organisations to consider forming an unprecedented coalition against poverty in 2005 to coincide with the UK presidency of both the G8 summit and EU, the first five year evaluation of progress on the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) agreed in 2000, the 6th WTO Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong, and the 20th anniversary of Live Aid.
In September 2004, the Make Poverty History coalition was officially launched as the UK mobilisation of an international coalition, the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (G-CAP), led by Oxfam International, Action Aid and DATA - the controversial Africa charity set up by U2 frontman, Bono and multi-billionnaires, George Soros, and Microsoft's Bill Gates, the world's second richest person with a fortune of just under $50 billion.
Since then, MPH has become an impressive campaigning coalition, boasting over 460 member organisations including all the major trade unions and the TUC, development NGOs, charities, churches as well as several faith and diaspora groups. Its successful mix of celebrity backers and anti-poverty message has captured the attention of both politicians and mass media, encapsulated in the near-hysteria following the annoucement by veteran rock star and Africa campaigner, Bob Geldof, that a series of free concerts in London, Paris, Philadelphia, Rome, and Berlin would take place under the banner 'Live 8' to coincide with the MPH campaign to lobby the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland in July.
But despite the success, there is widespread unhappiness within the coalition over the campaign's public face and its cosiness to Blair and Brown. Critics argue that on paper at least, MPH's policy demands on the UK government are fairly radical, especially its calls for "trade justice not free trade", which would require G8 and EU countries, notably the UK, to stop forcing through free market policies on poor countries as part of aid, trade deals or debt relief. MPH also says rich countries should immediately double aid by $50bn per year and finally meet 35-year old promises to spend 0.7 per cent of their national income in development aid. More and better aid, meanwhile, should be matched by cancellation of the "unpayabale" debts of the world's poorest countries through a "fair and transparent international process" that uses new money, not slashed aid budgets. With additional calls for the regulation of multinationals and the democratisation of the IMF and World Bank, John Hilary, Campaigns Director of UK development NGO, War on Want, has a point when he asserts that MPH's policies "strike at the very heart of the neo-liberal agenda."
The problem, however, is that when these policies are relayed to a public audience, they become virtually indistinguishable from those of the UK government. This was brought home back in March this year when Blair's deeply compromised Commission for Africa set out its neoliberal proposals for the corporate plunder of Africa's human and natural resources under the identical headlines used by MPH - 'trade justice', 'drop the debt' and 'more and better aid'. In return, most MPH members, led by Oxfam and the TUC, warmly welcomed the report's recommendations. As Ghana's Yao Graham makes clear in July's Red Pepper, African civil society is far less enamoured with the Commission's report, which he argues lays out a brueprint for "the new scramble for Africa".
Thanks to the New Statesman exposÃ©, much of the blame is placed on the leadership of Oxfam - the UK's biggest and most powerful developent agency. Despite its pro-poor image around the world, over the last two decades, Oxfam has become a feeder school for government special advisers and World Bank officials and has a particularly close relationship with New Labour. Blair's special advisor on international development, Justin Forsyth, was previously Oxfam's campaigns manager. Forsyth's opposite number at the Treasury is Oxfam board member, Shriti Vadera, a former director at the US bank, UBS Warburg, and specialist in public-private partnerships, a policy that litters the Africa Commission's report. Less well known is John Clark, who left Oxfam for the World Bank in 1992 to join the World Bank where he was responsible for the Bank's co-optation strategy with civil society before advising Tony Blair in 2000 on his "Africa Partnership Initiative" that directly led to the New Parternship for Africa's Development (NEPAD) in 2001. At the heart of MPH is Oxfam's Sarah Kline, a former World Bank official who champions the organisation's 'constructive dialogue' approach with the IMF and World Bank.
Oxfam's political independence from neoliberal governance is also compromised by the £40m or so of its annual income that comes from government or other public funds. Nearly £14m alone originates from the Department for International Development (DfID), which is a major champion of privatisation and its benefits for UK companies in developing countries. In this, Oxfam is of course by no means alone - almost every development NGO in Britain is on DfID's payroll. While it is possible to take and use government money progressively while being critical of the donor's policies, such large amounts of government funding inevitably influence how far Oxfam will stick its neck out politically and risk future funding cuts.
Oxfam's unrivalled financial resources and existing public profile make it by far the most powerful organisation in the MPH coalition. Last year, Oxfam's annual income surpassed £180m - three times the amount received by its nearest rival, Christian Aid, and dwarfing more social movement-oriented development NGOs like WDM and War on Want who punch way above their weight on just over £1m each. Such wealth disparity inevitably translates into the direction taken by the coalition, especially its public image. Oxfam's army of press officers, researchers and campaign officers can naturally take advantage of the huge media opportunities generated by the campaign.
But making Oxfam the scapegoat for MPH's co-optation by New Labour misses the key role played by Comic Relief and its celebrity co-founder, the film director, Richard Curtis. As one of Britain's most prolific and brilliant comedy writers, Curtis shot to fame in the 1980s with the TV series Blackadder, and his since penned hits like Mr Bean, The Vicar of Dibley, and the blockbuster movie, Four Weddi
...

How Genuine Are NGOs? - By Joseph Mudingu

2010-03-19T17:04:00.000+05:30

By Joseph Mudingu

August 7, 2006

The term Non-Governmental Organisations is actually a misnomer. The NGOs are financed and directed by the various imperialist agencies, the imperialist governments and the comprador regimes. They act as the liaison between the people and the governments. They are the vehicles through which the exploiters seek to influence the opinions of 'civil society'.

They are the servants of imperialist capital. Almost all the NGOs are directed by the invisible hand of the imperialists who set them up or fund them in accordance with their strategic goals.

Huge funds are thus poured into the coffers of the NGOs in the name of development, social justice, human rights, grassroots democracy, etc. In the past decade the World Bank and other UN agencies have been insisting that funds should be utilised through the NGOs. So do the various governments. With such huge funds at their disposal the NGOs act as elitist organisations completely divorced from the masses. Yet they present themselves as benefactors for the people. It is estimated that hardly 10-15 percent of the allocated funds reach the needy people while most of it goes for the maintenance of the NGO establishments and the running expenditures of the so-called volunteer workers.

There are three categories of NGOs according to the type of functions they perform. The first category of NGOs are those that provide immediate relief to the victims of war, natural calamities, accidents, etc. These were the most prominent form of NGOs until the time of European reconstruction in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The second category of NGOs focus their concentration on long-term social and economic development. These came into prominence in Europe from the 1960s. In the Third World countries these NGOs are engaged in imparting technical training, in the construction of schools, hospitals, toilets, etc. They claim to promote self-reliance, development of local productive resources, development of rural markets, people's participation in development activities, etc. They encourage self-help groups, micro-credit societies, and so on.

The third category of NGOs concentrate on social action. They talk of strengthening people's capacities, releasing their inherent potentialities, enhancing the social awareness of the masses, overcoming the influence of pre-capitalist social systems, etc. These NGOs negotiate with the World Bank, IMF, WTO, and other UN agencies and suggest reforms, mobilise people peacefully and build pressure on these imperialist agencies and the governments to bring reforms and changes in policies.

The first category of NGOs comprise mainly of Christian religious institutions like the Churches, though these are also present in the second and third categories of NGOs. Broadly, we can characterise the first category of NGOs as charity organisations; the second category as developmental organisations; and the third as participatory and globalist organisations. The first category of NGOs characterise the period of direct colonial rule, the second dominated the period of the 'cold war', and the third are active in the period of globalisation. Though there is an overlapping of functions in the case of some NGOs, their categorisation is made based on the dominant activity.

It must be kept in mind that the functions of the NGOs in different periods are decided by, and accord with, the changing needs of the donors in different periods. NGOs came onto the scene mainly in the 20th century though a handful existed in the 19th century. There were 344 NGOs in the West at the time of the First World War. The main purpose for which NGOs were formed was for propagating and spreading the culture and values of the colonial powers in the colonies along with collecting the necessary information and indulging in espionage activities. Hence they received the support from the colonial governments. The Missionary institutions like the Church were the main form assumed by the NGOs at that time. (Do you remember the Church Missionary Society that sent Speke and Grant in East Africa? Or the White Fathers?) These extended all sorts of support to the colonial rulers.

In the next phase following the end of direct colonial rule, i.e., the phase of neo-colonialism, there was a spurt in the number of the NGOs throughout the world. The role of American NGOs surpassed that of the European ones during this period. Since America did not have colonies, and since there was generally hatred for the other colonial powers in their former colonies, America could easily penetrate into these countries after the end of direct colonial rule. The strength of the US vis-í -vis the other imperialist powers that got weakened during WWII was an advantageous factor for the American imperialists. Hence along with American capital the NGOs too entered almost every country of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The most important factor that had acted as a catalyst for the proliferation of the American NGOs was the need to contain the 'threat of communism' that seemed to loom large over several countries. The ideological, political and military leadership to counter the 'communist threat' was taken over by the US imperialists. It may surprise us to hear that America had sent its NGOs to the Soviet Union during the famine in 1921 supplying food, clothes, medicines, and other items worth over half-a-billion dollars. The American Relief Administration (ARA) was the NGO most actively involved in relief work in post-revolutionary Russia. This was done after all the efforts of the American imperialists to quell the Russian revolution by supporting the counter-revolutionaries failed miserably.

The American NGOs had also supplied food grains to Austria and Hungary after WWI to check the advance of revolutions in those countries and to wean them away from Bolshevism. The aim of the imperialist aid passed on through the NGOs in the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe was to strengthen the capitalist forces, push those economies toward liberal economic policies, and to create a good impression about US imperialism. There was, of course, the economic factor. For instance, the 540,000 tonnes of American food grains that were shipped to Russia by the ARA helped stabilise the prices of food grains in the American market while acquiring the label of philanthropy in exchange. The American NGOs also served as important vehicles for transferring the surplus food grains of the United States to the Third World countries through such schemes as 'Food for Work', 'Midday Meals', etc.

There was a proliferation of the second category of NGOs in the United States especially since the time of John F Kennedy. He declared that socio-economic development and political democracy were the two pillars of US foreign aid, as he considered these to be the real guarantee against communism in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Hence programmes of self-help, community development, technical training to the youth, literacy programmes, agricultural development schemes, etc were initiated. The success of the Cuban revolution in 1959 in the very backyard of American imperialism and its tremendous influence on the countries in Latin America gave a sense of urgency to this task. The then Pope too called upon the Church in Europe to send at least ten per cent of the missionaries to Latin America to 'help the people overcome poverty and misery' so as to counter the spectre of communism.

The way the NGOs operate in the countries invaded by, or attacked by the imperialist powers, that makes a mockery of the humanitarian aid, should open anyone's eyes. In Vietnam, for instance, even as the United States dropped bombs creating deaths and destruction on a massive scale, it deployed its NGOs such as CARE (Co-operative Assistance for Relief Everywhere), CRS (Catholic Relief Services), WV (World Vision), IVS (International Voluntary Services), American Red Cross, Vietnam Christian Service, and so on to provide relief and rehabilitation to the war victims in Vietnam. And in Afghanistan and Iraq we have seen how the most savage bombing by the US-led imperialists was accompanied by humanitarian aid. Bombs and bread were dropped simultaneously. As soon as a country is ravaged and people are killed, maimed and uprooted from their homes, the NGOs would step in giving the 'healing touch'.

What is more ironic, the US Congress had amended its Act concerning foreign assistance in 1975 stipulating that aid can be stopped in countries where human rights were being violated. It was a time when the most notorious dictators were being nurtured by the US imperialists in almost every continent-a Pinochet in Chile, a Marcos in the Philippines, a Suharto in Indonesia, a Mobutu in Zaire, an Amin in the neighbouring Uganda, to cite a few. And the US itself was guilty of the worst violations of human rights through acts of direct aggression. The direct offshoot of this new policy was the rise of human rights NGOs which talk of human rights even as their masters impose fascist dictatorships. The American NGOs act as sub-contractors for the government projects in the Third World. They serve as tools of American policy when compared to their European counterparts, the simple reason being the huge funding they obtain from the government, which has been more than 80 per cent of their total spending. They work to spread the American influence, the American world outlook and the Western ideology in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America through education and training.

Charity is the smokescreen under which funds from the Fords, Rockfellers, Carnegie and other foundations flew to these regions.

Aren't NGOs a New Form of Colonialism?

In the phase of globalisation, particularly after the collapse of the regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the NGOs have taken up as their main task the neutralisation of the ill-effects of globalisation and liberalisation. They are not against globalisation but want it to be implemented by involving the people or 'participatory globalisation' as a UN official put it. They campaign for globalisation with a human face, sustainable development, and so on. They create the illusions among the people that it is possible to reform the imperialist agencies such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, ADB and others. Thus they try to dilute the wrath of the masses against imperialism and veer them to reformist ideology.

These NGOs that we think to be friendly, channel the popular discontent along constitutional, peaceful and harmless ways by acting as 'safety valves'. They seek to divide the oppressed people into sections and identities thereby preventing the development of class unity of the oppressed classes. They further seek to obliterate and obfuscate the class divisions and distinctions within the social groups and sections by advocating the unity of the oppressors and the oppressed on the basis of identity alone such as gender/women, caste, ethnic and nationality.

Indeed, NGOs try to instill the false belief among the oppressed that there is no alternative to capitalism and that capitalism has finally triumphed. They proclaim that Marxism has become outdated and communism is dead, and hence one should strive to improve the contemporary world by democratising civil society and promote 'globalisation with a human face'. They take up an anti-state stand, which looks outwardly attractive to progressive circles too. However, they try to accomplish privatisation at the micro-level what their masters do at the macro level. That is, while international capital lashes out at the role of the state in regulating the economy and wants the market to operate freely without state intervention (how false this is in reality is a different thing), the NGOs talk of self-help, co-operation, community development, and so on. The state is thus absolved of all its social responsibilities towards the people in matters such as providing education, health care, clean drinking water, sanitation, irrigation, employment, etc that are placed in the hands of individuals and private groups.

Thus the NGOs make common cause with the imperialists with regard to privatisation. And they concentrate particularly among the poverty-stricken masses in the backward rural areas and urban slums. The backward areas are given priority for their so-called charitable work and development schemes. Through this they strive to neutralize the wrath of the deprived masses. They seek to depoliticise the masses by talking in terms of non-Party activism. They claim that they are apolitical and call upon the masses to stay away from all political parties; that they should solve their problems themselves through self-help, cooperation etc. Thus, by advocating such a seemingly apolitical strategy the NGOs actually work to preserve the status quo and to retain the influence of ruling class ideology and politics on the masses. They pose themselves as alternatives to the political parties and try to replace the revolutionary parties by projecting themselves as the champions of the poor.

They seek to demobilise the masses by diverting them from the path of struggle and coopting the best elements into the establishment and reformism. They have succeeded to a large extent in rallying the left intellectuals to the side of capital while maintaining a progressive and even radical posture. With huge funds at their disposal, the NGOs have been able to attract and coopt the left intellectuals by funding them for attending seminars, workshops, conferences and involving them in projects and Institutes for research and policy studies. Hundreds of projects and Institutes are set up by imperialist capital all over the world that manufacture these as per the requirements of the imperialists. By associating themselves with these projects intellectuals lend credibility to them and create illusions among the people.

NGOs serve as a medium to mould the opinions of the people, to create the ideology and illusions needed for the perpetuation of capitalist exploitation. They can influence the ideas of the people in a way that the state and the ruling class parties directly cannot. By trying to project themselves as selfless philanthropists and committed to people's welfare, they seek to win the sympathy of the people. Their radical, anti-imperialist rhetoric and talk of development, modernisation, and grassroots democracy, democratisation of the civil society, social justice, anti-statism, humanitarianism and human rights, empowerment and so on, can dupe the progressive and even some revolutionary sections. Thus they create ideological mystification among the masses and pave the way for the smooth plunder by imperialist capital.

Some people have urged that they act as tools of international capital for the colonisation of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. They prepare the ground for the penetration of imperialist capital into these countries and create the conditions for the smooth operation of capital and extension of the market. By selecting the most backward areas for their work, the NGOs have succeeded in introducing market relations in these areas in the name of community development, promoting self-help groups, etc and actively promoting the imperialist-aided development schemes. They are actively involved in so-called development projects in almost all the countries of the world and particularly in backward tribal areas.

Post-modernists, who believe more in individual enterprise than the collective, talk in terms of identities such as gender, caste, ethnic and national entities and reject the very concept of class unity. The NGOs are apologists for imperialism who cloak themselves in attractive language. They trade in people's dire poverty and secure funds from imperialist donors or individuals abroad by showing the poverty-stricken masses from the Third World. Like parasites they live on funds acquired in the name of the impoverished women, children and disabled people; in the name of development; in the name of empowerment, and so on.

They serve as ideologues for imperialism by justifying the penetration of imperialist capital into the countries of the Third World, and promote the vice-like grip of the imperialists over the economies of these countries. That is why the imperialists, selfish blood-suckers as they are, pour in huge amounts to form and nurture these organisations. Ford Foundation, Rockfeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Heinrich Boll Foundation, and a host of other imperialist institutions pump in millions of dollars every year to maintain these NGOs. They fund every type of project, institute, study etc. For instance, the Ford Foundation has granted funds to numerous organisations and projects in almost every country in the world that had reached an astronomical figure of $ 8 billion since its formation in 1936. It had commissioned research scholars and intellectuals to undertake studies on subjects that are of relevance for the imperialists.

Also known as Non-Profit Organisations, these NGOs actually work for increasing the imperialist profits. Without a consistent and relentless struggle against these disguised imperialist agents and apologists, revolutionaries cannot bring the masses out of reformist and constitutional illusions. Lack of vigilance will lead to the weakening of the revolutionary parties and movements as witnessed in several countries especially in Latin America