US India Nuclear Deal and Political Lame Ducks :
Dear All,
In my opinion, this certainly does not suggest a "lack of intellectual sophistication" as speculated by you.
The public reticence of the Indian PM all along has been very calculated.
And all along he has known clearly what he is doing.
If it were just so much, teams of British parliamentarians, Indian diaspora and Oxbridge graduates could have been airlifted to India on One Year lucrative academic contracts to offer crash sources in intellectual sophistication to Indian establishment.
It suggests merely the issue of the tail wagging the dog.
In the name of ill spelt out energy needs of India by the Oxbridge educated and World bank economists - it spells a predominance of economistic logic over basic political questions which still struggle to find elucidation in India.
ManMohan Singh and Montek Singh Ahluwalia are representative of Bretton Woods economists who have sought to smother legitimate political consensus.
Indeed the very logic of Nehruvian non alignment on a global stage has been disturbed due to a handful of economists turned politicians gaining ascendancy.
Mr Pranab Mukherjee's claims that India has not budged in its basic foreign policy objectives is very difficult to defend - indeed even he is now known for the hollow slogan of "bijli for aam aadmi " and "India's passport to nuclear trade", an industry purportedly of 100 billion dollars in the coming years.
The BJP led NDA, the other main opposition coalition is treading the same economic centralization doctrine and path though they claim that they still believe in the primary logic of the statement - "US is our natural ally ".
Whether the internal logic of the American military establishment and foreign policy will ever allow a stable and peaceful Middle Eastern and South Eastern Asia is an issue that BJP economic doctrinaires have not bothered to consider.
For this class of Indian elite, electoral success does not matter - they need control over the economic agenda - and for this they are CONTENT to LOSE political power in the states and regions of India, but SOMEHOW manage to RETAIN power at the centre in New Delhi in a curious mix of heavy handed American federal structure and British parliamentary democracy.
This central leverage is required by economists turned politicians to push through the economic agenda of rapid economic centralization in India without social equity.
It is also in this context that I judge the political immaturity of Prakash Karat and SitaRam Yechury in exiting the UPA coalition as against the political wisdom of Surjit Singh and Jyoti Basu, as regards the need for central leverage and fringe politics of the Left.
The US leaning Indian media almost forced out Prakash Karat from the UPA coalition in a well laid out trap.
In the present term, economic and intellectual reticence - as exemplified by the economists turned politicians at the helm in New Delhi - is the passport to economic heavy handedness and the preponderance of the economic elite over the political elite.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
-------------------------------
Indo-US nuclear deal
More embarrassing revelations have emerged.
The poor Indian PM, Manmohan Singh, has apparently failed to have grasped the fundamental provisions. Following the recent 26 pages of explanations provided by the Bush admin to the US Congress, Dr Brahma Chellaney (professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi) clarifies.
· The US has given no binding fuel-supply assurance to India. The Indian PM told the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007 that 'detailed fuel supply assurances by the US for the uninterrupted operation of our nuclear reactors are reflected in full' in the 123 Agreement’. But the Bush administration has denied this. Its letter to the House Committee states that the US will render help only in situations where 'disruptions in supply to India... result through no fault of its own,' such as a trade war or market disruptions. 'The fuel supply assurances are not, however, meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear explosive test or a violation of non-proliferation commitments, ' the letter said. The letter also reveals that the US has given no legally binding fuel-supply assurance of any kind.
· No US consent to India's stockpiling of lifetime fuel reserves for safeguarded power reactors. The prime minister had told the Lok Sabha on August 13, 2007 that, 'This Agreement envisages, in consonance with the Separation Plan, US support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply for the lifetime of India's reactors.' But the Bush administration' s letter to the House Committee makes clear that India will not be allowed to build such stocks as to undercut US leverage to re-impose sanctions.
· US civil nuclear cooperation is explicitly conditioned to India not testing ever again. The PM told the Lok Sabha as recently as July 22, 2008 that, 'I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing.'
Last year, he had told Parliament that, 'There is nothing in the Agreement that would tie the hands of a future Government or legally constrain its options to protect India's security and defence needs.' The Bush administration, however, has told the House Committee that India has been left in no doubt that all cooperation will cease immediately if New Delhi conducted a test.
· The US has retained the right to suspend or terminate supplies at its own discretion. The Bush administration letter plainly contradicts the prime minister's assertion in Parliament on August 13, 2007 that, 'An elaborate multi-layered consultation process has been included with regard to any future events that may be cited as a reason by either Party to seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the (123) Agreement.' The letter states that the US right to suspend all supplies forthwith is unfettered.
· The letter makes clear that the 123 Agreement has granted India no right to take corrective measures in case of any fuel-supply disruption. Rather, India's obligations are legally irrevocable. It further indicates there is no link between perpetual safeguards and perpetual fuel supply. Contrast this with what the prime minister claimed in Parliament on August 13, 2007 : 'India's right to take "corrective measures" will be maintained even after the termination of the Agreement.' Or the prime minister's repeated assurances to Parliament since March 2006 that India 's acceptance of perpetual international inspections will be tied to perpetual fuel supply.
· The Bush administration' s letter states that the 123 Agreement fully conforms to the Hyde Act provisions. In a press release recently, the Prime Minister's Office made the following claim on July 2, 2008 : 'the 123 Agreement clearly overrides the Hyde Act and this position would be clear to anyone who goes through the provisions.'
· The letter assures Congress that the 'US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies. ' That rules out not only the transfer of civil reprocessing and enrichment equipment or technologies to India even under safeguards, but also casts a shadow over the US granting India operational consent to reprocess spent fuel with indigenous technology. Under the 123 Agreement, India has agreed to forego reprocessing until it has, in the indeterminate future, won a separate, congressionally vetted agreement.
On one issue, the 123 Agreement had held out hope for India in the future by stating in its Article 5(2) that, 'Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement.' But the Bush administration' s letter to Congress states that the US government had no plan to seek to amend the deal to allow any sensitive transfers.
Contrast this with what the prime minister said in Parliament on August 17, 2006 -- that ‘India wanted the removal of restrictions on all aspects of cooperation and technology transfers pertaining to civil nuclear energy, ranging from nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors, to reprocessing spent fuel. We will not agree to any dilution that would prevent us from securing the benefits of full civil nuclear cooperation as amplified above.'
Going by the above, poor India seems to have been roundly hoodwinked by the US lawyers. Does it suggest a lack of intellectual sophistication?
The nuclear deal might well prove to be India’s nemesis.
Eddie
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Want American citizenship ? Fight American coalition Wars
Who are the people dying for the adventurous wars fought by old American men on Foreign Soils - while safely growing old, sittiing in Washington. Do they send their own children for dying for American glory, american brass trinkets, medals, and America's Fear and Awe Strategy ? The truth is far more sordid as the Cheneys and Bush's and the old white gentlemen fighting and scheming for American wars and defence sales equipments across the globe - would rather not tell us.
The Wars of White Old Men of Washington : from AP
A young, ambitious immigrant from Guatemala who dreamed of becoming an architect. A Nigerian medic. A soldier from China who boasted he would one day become an American general. An Indian native whose headstone displays the first Khanda, emblem of the Sikh faith, to appear in Arlington National Cemetery.
ADVERTISEMENT
These were among more than 100 foreign-born members of the U.S. military who earned American citizenship by dying in Iraq.
Jose Gutierrez was one of the first to fall, killed by friendly fire in the dust of Umm Qasr in the opening hours of the invasion.
In death, the young Marine was showered with honors his family could only have dreamed of in life. His sister was flown in from Guatemala for his memorial service, where a Roman Catholic cardinal presided and top military officials saluted his flag-draped coffin.
And yet, his foster mother agonized as she accompanied his body back for burial in Guatemala City: Why did Jose have to die for America in order to truly belong?
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who oversaw Gutierrez's service, put it differently.
"There is something terribly wrong with our immigration policies if it takes death on the battlefield in order to earn citizenship," Mahony wrote to President Bush in April 2003. He urged the president to grant immediate citizenship to all immigrants who sign up for military service in wartime.
"They should not have to wait until they are brought home in a casket," Mahony said.
But as the war continues, more and more immigrants are becoming citizens in death — and more and more families are grappling with deeply conflicting feelings about exactly what the honor means.
Gutierrez's citizenship certificate — dated to his death on March 21, 2003, — was presented during a memorial service in Lomita, Calif., to Nora Mosquera, who took in the orphaned teen after he had trekked through Central America, hopping freight trains through Mexico before illegally sneaking into the U.S.
"On the one hand I felt that citizenship was too late for him," Mosquera said. "But I also felt grateful and very proud of him. I knew it would open doors for us as a family."
"What use is a piece of paper?" cried Fredelinda Pena after another emotional naturalization ceremony, this one in New York City where her brother's framed citizenship certificate was handed to his distraught mother. Next to her, the infant daughter he had never met dozed in his fiancee's arms.
Cpl. Juan Alcantara, 22, a native of the Dominican Republic, was killed Aug. 6, 2007, by an explosive in Baqouba. He was buried by a cardinal and eulogized by a congressman but to his sister, those tributes seemed as hollow as citizenship.
"He can't take the oath from a coffin," she sobbed.
There are tens of thousands of foreign-born members in the U.S. armed forces. Many have been naturalized, but more than 20,000 are not U.S. citizens.
"Green card soldiers," they are often called, and early in the war, Bush signed an executive order making them eligible to apply for citizenship as soon as they enlist. Previously, legal residents in the military had to wait three years.
Since Bush's order, nearly 37,000 soldiers have been naturalized. And 109 who lost their lives have been granted posthumous citizenship.
They are buried with purple hearts and other decorations, and their names are engraved on tombstones in Arlington as well as in Mexico and India and Guatemala.
Among them:
• Marine Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez, 25, who fled Cuba on a raft with his father and brother in 1995 and dreamed of becoming an American firefighter. He was crushed by a refueling tank in southern Iraq on April 14, 2003.
• Army Spc. Justin Onwordi, a 28-year-old Nigerian medic whose heart seemed as big as his smiling 6-foot-4 frame and who left behind a wife and baby boy. He died when his vehicle was blown up in Baghdad on Aug. 2, 2004.
• Army Pfc. Ming Sun, 20, of China who loved the U.S. military so much he planned to make a career out of it, boasting that he would rise to the rank of general. He was killed in a firefight in Ramadi on Jan. 9, 2007.
• Army Spc. Uday Singh, 21, of India, killed when his patrol was attacked in Habbaniyah on Dec. 1, 2003. Singh was the first Sikh to die in battle as a U.S. soldier, and it is his headstone at Arlington that displays the Khanda.
• Marine Lance Cpl. Patrick O'Day from Scotland, buried in the California rain as bagpipes played and his 19-year-old pregnant wife told mourners how honored her 20-year-old husband had felt to fight for the country he loved.
"He left us in the most honorable way a man could," Shauna O'Day said at the March 2003 Santa Rosa service. "I'm proud to say my husband is a Marine. I'm proud to say my husband fought for our country. I'm proud to say he is a hero, my hero."
Not all surviving family members feel so sure. Some parents blame themselves for bringing their child to the U.S. in the first place. Others face confusion and resentment when they try to bury their child back home.
At Lance Cpl. Juan Lopez's July 4, 2004, funeral in the central Mexican town of San Luis de la Paz, Mexican soldiers demanded that the U.S. Marine honor guard surrender their arms, even though the rifles were ceremonial. Earlier, the Mexican Defense Department had denied the Marines' request to conduct the traditional 21-gun salute, saying foreign troops were not permitted to bear arms on Mexican soil.
And so mourners, many deeply opposed to the war, witnessed an extraordinary 45-minute standoff that disrupted the funeral even as Lopez's weeping widow was handed his posthumous citizenship by a U.S. embassy official.
The same swirl of conflicting emotions and messages often overshadows the military funerals of posthumous citizens in the U.S.
Smuggled across the Mexican border in his mother's arms when he was 2 months old, Jose Garibay was just 21 when he died in Nasiriyah. The Costa Mesa police department made him an honorary police officer, something he had hoped one day to become. America made him a citizen.
But his mother, Simona Garibay, couldn't conceal her bewilderment and pain. It seemed, she said in interviews after the funeral, that more value was being placed on her son's death than on his life.
Immigrant advocates have similar mixed feelings about military service. Non-citizens cannot become officers or serve in high-security jobs, they note, and yet the benefits of citizenship are regularly pitched by recruiters, and some recruitment programs specifically target colleges and high schools with predominantly Latino students.
"Immigrants are lured into service and then used as political pawns or cannon fodder," said Dan Kesselbrenner, executive director of the National Immigration Project, a program of the National Lawyers Guild. "It is sad thing to see people so desperate to get status in this country that they are prepared to die for it."
Others question whether non-citizens should even be permitted to serve. Mark Krikorian of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, argues that defending America should be the job of Americans, not non-citizens whose loyalty might be suspect. In granting special benefits, including fast-track citizenship, Krikorian says, there is a danger that soldiering will eventually become yet another job that Americans won't do.
And yet, immigrants have always fought — and died — in America's wars.
During the Cvil War, the Union army recruited Irish and German immigrants off the boat. Alfred Rascon, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, received the Medal of Honor for acts of bravery during the Vietnam war. In the 1990s, Gen. John Shalikashvili, born in Poland after his family fled the occupied Republic of Georgia, became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
After the Iraq invasion, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico fielded hundreds of requests from Mexicans offering to fight in exchange for citizenship. They mistakenly believed that Bush's order also applied to nonresidents.
The right to become an American is not automatic for those who die in combat. Families must formally apply for citizenship within two years of the soldier's death, and not all choose to do so.
"He's Italian, better to leave it like that," Saveria Romeo says of her 23-year-old son, Army Staff Sgt. Vincenzo Romeo, who was born in Calabria, died in Iraq and is buried in New Jersey. A miniature Italian flag marks his grave, next to an American one.
"What good would it do?" she says. "It won't bring back my son."
But it would allow her to apply for citizenship for herself, a benefit only recently offered to surviving parents and spouses. Until 2003 posthumous citizenship was granted only through an act of Congress and was purely symbolic. There were no benefits for next of kin.
Romeo says she has no desire to apply. She says she couldn't bear to benefit in any way from her son's death. And besides, she feels Italian, not American.
Fernando Suarez del Solar just feels angry — angry at what he considers the futility of a war that claimed his only son, angry at the military recruiters he says courted young Jesus relentlessly even when the family still lived in Tijuana.
His son was just 13, Suarez del Solar said, when he was first dazzled by Marine recruiters in a California mall. For the next two years Jesus begged the family to emigrate and eventually they did, settling in Escondido, Calif., where the teen signed up for the Marines before he left high school.
Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez Del Solar was 20 when he was killed by a bomb in the first week of the war. He left behind a wife and baby and parents so bitter about his death that they eventually divorced.
Today, his 52-year-old father has become an outspoken peace activist who travels the country organizing anti-war marches, giving speeches and working with counter-recruitment groups to dissuade young Latinos from joining the U.S. military.
"There is nothing in my life now but saving these young people," he says. "It is just something I feel have to do."
But first he had to journey to Iraq. He had to see for himself the dusty stretch of wasteland where his son became an American. In tears, he planted a small wooden cross. And he prayed for his son — and for all the other immigrants who became citizens in death.
The Wars of White Old Men of Washington : from AP
A young, ambitious immigrant from Guatemala who dreamed of becoming an architect. A Nigerian medic. A soldier from China who boasted he would one day become an American general. An Indian native whose headstone displays the first Khanda, emblem of the Sikh faith, to appear in Arlington National Cemetery.
ADVERTISEMENT
These were among more than 100 foreign-born members of the U.S. military who earned American citizenship by dying in Iraq.
Jose Gutierrez was one of the first to fall, killed by friendly fire in the dust of Umm Qasr in the opening hours of the invasion.
In death, the young Marine was showered with honors his family could only have dreamed of in life. His sister was flown in from Guatemala for his memorial service, where a Roman Catholic cardinal presided and top military officials saluted his flag-draped coffin.
And yet, his foster mother agonized as she accompanied his body back for burial in Guatemala City: Why did Jose have to die for America in order to truly belong?
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who oversaw Gutierrez's service, put it differently.
"There is something terribly wrong with our immigration policies if it takes death on the battlefield in order to earn citizenship," Mahony wrote to President Bush in April 2003. He urged the president to grant immediate citizenship to all immigrants who sign up for military service in wartime.
"They should not have to wait until they are brought home in a casket," Mahony said.
But as the war continues, more and more immigrants are becoming citizens in death — and more and more families are grappling with deeply conflicting feelings about exactly what the honor means.
Gutierrez's citizenship certificate — dated to his death on March 21, 2003, — was presented during a memorial service in Lomita, Calif., to Nora Mosquera, who took in the orphaned teen after he had trekked through Central America, hopping freight trains through Mexico before illegally sneaking into the U.S.
"On the one hand I felt that citizenship was too late for him," Mosquera said. "But I also felt grateful and very proud of him. I knew it would open doors for us as a family."
"What use is a piece of paper?" cried Fredelinda Pena after another emotional naturalization ceremony, this one in New York City where her brother's framed citizenship certificate was handed to his distraught mother. Next to her, the infant daughter he had never met dozed in his fiancee's arms.
Cpl. Juan Alcantara, 22, a native of the Dominican Republic, was killed Aug. 6, 2007, by an explosive in Baqouba. He was buried by a cardinal and eulogized by a congressman but to his sister, those tributes seemed as hollow as citizenship.
"He can't take the oath from a coffin," she sobbed.
There are tens of thousands of foreign-born members in the U.S. armed forces. Many have been naturalized, but more than 20,000 are not U.S. citizens.
"Green card soldiers," they are often called, and early in the war, Bush signed an executive order making them eligible to apply for citizenship as soon as they enlist. Previously, legal residents in the military had to wait three years.
Since Bush's order, nearly 37,000 soldiers have been naturalized. And 109 who lost their lives have been granted posthumous citizenship.
They are buried with purple hearts and other decorations, and their names are engraved on tombstones in Arlington as well as in Mexico and India and Guatemala.
Among them:
• Marine Cpl. Armando Ariel Gonzalez, 25, who fled Cuba on a raft with his father and brother in 1995 and dreamed of becoming an American firefighter. He was crushed by a refueling tank in southern Iraq on April 14, 2003.
• Army Spc. Justin Onwordi, a 28-year-old Nigerian medic whose heart seemed as big as his smiling 6-foot-4 frame and who left behind a wife and baby boy. He died when his vehicle was blown up in Baghdad on Aug. 2, 2004.
• Army Pfc. Ming Sun, 20, of China who loved the U.S. military so much he planned to make a career out of it, boasting that he would rise to the rank of general. He was killed in a firefight in Ramadi on Jan. 9, 2007.
• Army Spc. Uday Singh, 21, of India, killed when his patrol was attacked in Habbaniyah on Dec. 1, 2003. Singh was the first Sikh to die in battle as a U.S. soldier, and it is his headstone at Arlington that displays the Khanda.
• Marine Lance Cpl. Patrick O'Day from Scotland, buried in the California rain as bagpipes played and his 19-year-old pregnant wife told mourners how honored her 20-year-old husband had felt to fight for the country he loved.
"He left us in the most honorable way a man could," Shauna O'Day said at the March 2003 Santa Rosa service. "I'm proud to say my husband is a Marine. I'm proud to say my husband fought for our country. I'm proud to say he is a hero, my hero."
Not all surviving family members feel so sure. Some parents blame themselves for bringing their child to the U.S. in the first place. Others face confusion and resentment when they try to bury their child back home.
At Lance Cpl. Juan Lopez's July 4, 2004, funeral in the central Mexican town of San Luis de la Paz, Mexican soldiers demanded that the U.S. Marine honor guard surrender their arms, even though the rifles were ceremonial. Earlier, the Mexican Defense Department had denied the Marines' request to conduct the traditional 21-gun salute, saying foreign troops were not permitted to bear arms on Mexican soil.
And so mourners, many deeply opposed to the war, witnessed an extraordinary 45-minute standoff that disrupted the funeral even as Lopez's weeping widow was handed his posthumous citizenship by a U.S. embassy official.
The same swirl of conflicting emotions and messages often overshadows the military funerals of posthumous citizens in the U.S.
Smuggled across the Mexican border in his mother's arms when he was 2 months old, Jose Garibay was just 21 when he died in Nasiriyah. The Costa Mesa police department made him an honorary police officer, something he had hoped one day to become. America made him a citizen.
But his mother, Simona Garibay, couldn't conceal her bewilderment and pain. It seemed, she said in interviews after the funeral, that more value was being placed on her son's death than on his life.
Immigrant advocates have similar mixed feelings about military service. Non-citizens cannot become officers or serve in high-security jobs, they note, and yet the benefits of citizenship are regularly pitched by recruiters, and some recruitment programs specifically target colleges and high schools with predominantly Latino students.
"Immigrants are lured into service and then used as political pawns or cannon fodder," said Dan Kesselbrenner, executive director of the National Immigration Project, a program of the National Lawyers Guild. "It is sad thing to see people so desperate to get status in this country that they are prepared to die for it."
Others question whether non-citizens should even be permitted to serve. Mark Krikorian of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies, argues that defending America should be the job of Americans, not non-citizens whose loyalty might be suspect. In granting special benefits, including fast-track citizenship, Krikorian says, there is a danger that soldiering will eventually become yet another job that Americans won't do.
And yet, immigrants have always fought — and died — in America's wars.
During the Cvil War, the Union army recruited Irish and German immigrants off the boat. Alfred Rascon, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, received the Medal of Honor for acts of bravery during the Vietnam war. In the 1990s, Gen. John Shalikashvili, born in Poland after his family fled the occupied Republic of Georgia, became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
After the Iraq invasion, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico fielded hundreds of requests from Mexicans offering to fight in exchange for citizenship. They mistakenly believed that Bush's order also applied to nonresidents.
The right to become an American is not automatic for those who die in combat. Families must formally apply for citizenship within two years of the soldier's death, and not all choose to do so.
"He's Italian, better to leave it like that," Saveria Romeo says of her 23-year-old son, Army Staff Sgt. Vincenzo Romeo, who was born in Calabria, died in Iraq and is buried in New Jersey. A miniature Italian flag marks his grave, next to an American one.
"What good would it do?" she says. "It won't bring back my son."
But it would allow her to apply for citizenship for herself, a benefit only recently offered to surviving parents and spouses. Until 2003 posthumous citizenship was granted only through an act of Congress and was purely symbolic. There were no benefits for next of kin.
Romeo says she has no desire to apply. She says she couldn't bear to benefit in any way from her son's death. And besides, she feels Italian, not American.
Fernando Suarez del Solar just feels angry — angry at what he considers the futility of a war that claimed his only son, angry at the military recruiters he says courted young Jesus relentlessly even when the family still lived in Tijuana.
His son was just 13, Suarez del Solar said, when he was first dazzled by Marine recruiters in a California mall. For the next two years Jesus begged the family to emigrate and eventually they did, settling in Escondido, Calif., where the teen signed up for the Marines before he left high school.
Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez Del Solar was 20 when he was killed by a bomb in the first week of the war. He left behind a wife and baby and parents so bitter about his death that they eventually divorced.
Today, his 52-year-old father has become an outspoken peace activist who travels the country organizing anti-war marches, giving speeches and working with counter-recruitment groups to dissuade young Latinos from joining the U.S. military.
"There is nothing in my life now but saving these young people," he says. "It is just something I feel have to do."
But first he had to journey to Iraq. He had to see for himself the dusty stretch of wasteland where his son became an American. In tears, he planted a small wooden cross. And he prayed for his son — and for all the other immigrants who became citizens in death.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
हमारी अग्यानता की जड़ें गहरी व मज़बूत हैं ?
- अगर हमारी अग्यानता की जड़ें गहरी व मज़बूत हैं ? -
- तो क्या आगे का पथ सरल व आसान हो सकता है ?
- शुरुआत कहाँ से की जाय ?
-------
१ - किसके लिए ? -
२ - मसीहा या पथ ? -
३ - लक्षण क्या अौर कैसे ? -
४ - आधुनिक, सरल व साधनों के अनुरूप ? -
५ - ग्यान की कमी, साधनों की कमी, या विश्वास की कमी ? -
- तो क्या आगे का पथ सरल व आसान हो सकता है ?
- शुरुआत कहाँ से की जाय ?
-------
१ - किसके लिए ? -
२ - मसीहा या पथ ? -
३ - लक्षण क्या अौर कैसे ? -
४ - आधुनिक, सरल व साधनों के अनुरूप ? -
५ - ग्यान की कमी, साधनों की कमी, या विश्वास की कमी ? -
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Social Production of Hierarchy
Dear All,
I find this post very interesting because it critiques the question "what is the agenda of edu-factory".
Hierarchies have always been an integral part of non Western societies but the Western world in the last 400 years has had very specific agendas in categorizing non Western societies, for political and business purposes.
This extends to non Western education, non Western values, non Western cultural mores, non Western elites and non Western society at large.
Western universities, education models and education institutions of the Oxbridge variety have played along with that agenda and portrayed themselves as physical / virtual sites and locations for a "disinterested search for knowledge and rational critique", riding on the back of what are self defined as "Western cultural values" of freedom, discussion, open debate, sound models of higher education, vis a vis, non Western hierarchies in knowledge and education.
Globalization is now seeing the business models of many such educational institutions clutching for ways and means to retain their global influence. So often, the Western educational fringe raises the questions of corporatism, wage rates, exclusion etc.
This whole model of discussing cleavages in education is suspect, because it presumes the continued domination of Western cultural values and educational institutions.
I sometimes feel, 400 years of domination over the world is enough, is it not. Let others also talk.
So when one raises the issue in terms that Xiang Biao has raised, it immediately strikes some forgotten chords in people like me - brown from the outside, white from the inside.
Xiang Bao - "Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical"
That it need not be so, is a purely Western idea of the last 400 years.
So I feel it would be good to see the numbers of people who have traditionally been in higher education in previous times and the numbers who are now seeking entry into so called "democratic / liberal institutes of Westernized higher education".
-- However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. --
As Xiang Bao goes on to discuss the numbers entering education in Asia, maybe we need some comparative analysis with the numbers in Europe and America and how these scale up in comparison with overall population. He has suggested the numbers from Far East.
I would be very interested in similar data regarding other Asian countries.
But somehow the colonial agendas would never make this a fashionable topic for study, and Indian TV shows are well known for advertising one or two scholarships to Oxbridge.
Imagine, Indian media gets British professors to conduct third rate quiz shows and millions of students go through rounds and rounds of elimination to emerge as victors.
What for ? For a one or two seats in Oxbridge !! From a pool of millions of aspirants.
Needless to say, among the millions other who are left out, a few thousands force their skeptical middle class parents to shelve out money and foreign currency for "paid education and degrees", convincing their sceptical parents that after their education they will be given residence / work permits in EU and America and will not be thrown back to native countries.
So, the competition for marketing and corporate funds for attracting this few thousands of Chinese and Indian students becomes an industry by itself.
Native students in Western countries, who see themselves as disinterested pristine academics, feel, suddenly shortchanged by the struggle for Chinese and Indian students, by the managers and corporate staff, marketeers and racketeers, of Western universities, which they think are "their own" by definition and by birth.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
------------------
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about it : Notes from Asia
Here is Xiang Biao scheduled contribution.
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about
it: Notes from Asia
XIANG Biao
Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical. One is supposed to progress from a “lower” level of learning to the “higher”; “average” kids study in mediocre schools, and the “outstanding” go to top colleges; and finally, “degree” is by definition hierarchical. Recent discussions on higher education have focused on the
governmentalization /corporatization (roughly meaning tightened administrative management in order to make university managerially accountable) and the marketization of universities. This essay explores the logic of hierarchy making in a larger, societal context. It is beyond dispute
that established institutions have deeply vested interest in maintaining exclusive and hierarchical systems, and it is also true that hierarchy, particularly in the form of the
ranking tally, is imposed top down by the establishment.
However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. Nor should we reduce the public acceptance to merely an example of false consciousness. Most people know much better than us (university nerds) how to deal with the world. There are ethnical and moral dimensions to the socially produced
hierarchy. Instead of aiming to eradicate hierarchy altogether (which cannot be a feasible agenda despite the ideological appeal), this post wishes to explore room in the social process of hierarchy making which may enable realistic action agendas.
Precarious Hierarchy and the Ethnics of Hierarchy :
In the modern time in general, higher education become less exclusive, and educational hierarchy become much less absolute. In colonial Asia, for example, formal English education had such a magic power that it directly contributed to the creation of the institution of modern
dowry in India. It is also safe to say that, in Asia at least, higher education become less hierarchical in the so-called neoliberal era. (I use neoliberal era with some reluctance. By this term I am referring to the period starting at the end of 1970s for China, the beginning of
1990s for India, the early 1990s for Japan, and the late 1990s for South Korea).
China launched a new, unprecedented round of university expansion in 1998. The number of newly admitted students jumped from 1.08 million in 1998 to 2.5 million in 2001. By 2007, the planed intake reached 5.67 million!
Similar to Japan and South Korea, entering universities is no longer a crucial life event—it is not difficult to get in, and furthermore getting in does not guarantee good job prospects. Students have more freedom in choosing universities according to location, subject or campus “culture” instead of a single system of hierarchical evaluation.
But hierarchy certainly does not go away. Universities become ever more concerned about hierarchical ranking.
Shanghai Jiaotong University produces one of the best known tallies in the world. This reflects the fact that previously fixed hierarchy is replaced by more dynamic and unstable
differentiation. Hierarchy is in struggle. This also suggests that the process of hierarchy making becomes more public, or social, than before when it was declared by the state or established by tradition.
Underlying the new project of hierarchy making in the higher education is a unmistakable capitalist logic. The higher rank a university secures, the higher tuition fees it
charges. But the opposite is untrue. In general, students cannot enter a high-rank university simply by paying more fees. There is a limit to capitalism.
A curious example is the mushrooming MBA courses in China. On the one hand, no other institutions are more conscious than the MBA programs about hierarchical ranking which directly determine the fees they charge. On the other hand, most of the MBA students, particularly those enrolled in the elite institutes in China, had work experiences and many are self employed, and thus the ranking does not mean much for them in the material sense (say, compared to other students who may need a strong university brand for looking for jobs).
When I asked an entrepreneur (incidentally, a Taiwanese) why he applied for an expensive MBA course in Shanghai, he gave me three reasons: good teachers, the reputation of the course (“it sounds good”), and the opportunity to prove that, after
working for many years, he is still able to pass tough examinations. The Chinese capitalist class in the making need symbolic capital, but they need “solid” symbolic capital, i.e., not cheap parody ready for sale.
The hierarchical ranking of universities undoubtedly facilitates exchange between financial and cultural capital.
But at the very same time as different types of capital are exchangeable, each capital must maintain minimum autonomy. Thus, in order to be acceptable to the general public,
hierarchy must be based on “merit” to some extent.
Universities also have to maintain a balance. For example elite universities in the US charge high fees but also provide generous scholarships. Scholarships attract good students to keep its ranking high which in turn justifies high fees.
In China at least until the very recent time, socially produced hierarchy in higher education has significant moral connotations. For example, lecturers and students from top universities are expected to be more vocal in criticizing the status quo, and the state have to be more careful in
dealing with professors from these institutions. In a largely authoritarian and politically conservative system, this status provide the institutions with special clout to be more independent, critical, daring in thinking alternatives, and sometimes more eccentric in behavior.
People rank the universities high to counteract the state power and private economic interest, no matter how symbolically.
New Battles :
Hierarchy itself may not be a problem. The issue is what kind of hierarchy prevails. Our goals should be, apart from continuing the historical progress of destabilizing and “softening” hierarchy in general, making the hegemonic hierarchy more ethical.
In Asia as well as elsewhere, states have been active in domesticating and incorporating the institutions that are high in hierarchy. The corporate world may have similar desires, although their efforts are less orchestrated and their relations to universities less clear. But, both the
state and the economic establishment need seemingly independent universities for the purpose of legitimation.
(Say, the state occasionally needs some “independent scholars” to back their views, and financial institutes also like donating money to “independent” learning institutes.) The contradictions internal to the project of legitimation provide important space for actions.
Furthermore, the interests of the state and of the capital do not always fit well, and playing one against the other can be another strategy.
I cannot quite imagine autonomous universities in practical sense. As Mao Zedong repeatedly reminded us, intellectuals are a piece of feather who cannot exist without someone else’s skin. We need others for our material survival. But perhaps we can fight for a more “autonomous” evaluation system with strong moral and ethical concerns.
Another important battle field is pre-university education. I am not too worried about the corporatization or privatization of universities as I believe that that will not go too far. Even state bureaucrats and diehard capitalists would frown upon universities that have no
intellectual or ideological teeth at all.
What is much more dangerous, for China, is the on-going process of privatization and hierarchization in secondary education.
As it is less easy for money to infiltrate into higher education, well-off families start the race early. Parents spend thousands of US dollars to send children to good primary and high schools and even kindergartens. (In Beijing, top kindergartens literally charge thousands of US
dollars for a seat.)
In Japan, elite private universities such as Keio and Waseda set up their own so-called “escalator” system including kindergartens, primary and secondary schools. Children from wealthy families buy the expensive ticket to enter the escalator on the ground floor,
which take them to the top universities in the future with certain “merits.” Thus social inequality is produced and reproduced without upsetting the “merit”-based hierarchy
of universities. In China, except those who are desperate to consolidate their newly acquired financial assets into firm class status, most people want to escape from the frenzied
competition in which children became the main victims. Thus there is social base for mobilization to fight against this trend. Among other things, top universities may be able to do something, even symbolically, to counteract the education industry.
_______________________________________________
edufactory mailing list
edufactory@listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/edufactory_listcultures.org
I find this post very interesting because it critiques the question "what is the agenda of edu-factory".
Hierarchies have always been an integral part of non Western societies but the Western world in the last 400 years has had very specific agendas in categorizing non Western societies, for political and business purposes.
This extends to non Western education, non Western values, non Western cultural mores, non Western elites and non Western society at large.
Western universities, education models and education institutions of the Oxbridge variety have played along with that agenda and portrayed themselves as physical / virtual sites and locations for a "disinterested search for knowledge and rational critique", riding on the back of what are self defined as "Western cultural values" of freedom, discussion, open debate, sound models of higher education, vis a vis, non Western hierarchies in knowledge and education.
Globalization is now seeing the business models of many such educational institutions clutching for ways and means to retain their global influence. So often, the Western educational fringe raises the questions of corporatism, wage rates, exclusion etc.
This whole model of discussing cleavages in education is suspect, because it presumes the continued domination of Western cultural values and educational institutions.
I sometimes feel, 400 years of domination over the world is enough, is it not. Let others also talk.
So when one raises the issue in terms that Xiang Biao has raised, it immediately strikes some forgotten chords in people like me - brown from the outside, white from the inside.
Xiang Bao - "Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical"
That it need not be so, is a purely Western idea of the last 400 years.
So I feel it would be good to see the numbers of people who have traditionally been in higher education in previous times and the numbers who are now seeking entry into so called "democratic / liberal institutes of Westernized higher education".
-- However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. --
As Xiang Bao goes on to discuss the numbers entering education in Asia, maybe we need some comparative analysis with the numbers in Europe and America and how these scale up in comparison with overall population. He has suggested the numbers from Far East.
I would be very interested in similar data regarding other Asian countries.
But somehow the colonial agendas would never make this a fashionable topic for study, and Indian TV shows are well known for advertising one or two scholarships to Oxbridge.
Imagine, Indian media gets British professors to conduct third rate quiz shows and millions of students go through rounds and rounds of elimination to emerge as victors.
What for ? For a one or two seats in Oxbridge !! From a pool of millions of aspirants.
Needless to say, among the millions other who are left out, a few thousands force their skeptical middle class parents to shelve out money and foreign currency for "paid education and degrees", convincing their sceptical parents that after their education they will be given residence / work permits in EU and America and will not be thrown back to native countries.
So, the competition for marketing and corporate funds for attracting this few thousands of Chinese and Indian students becomes an industry by itself.
Native students in Western countries, who see themselves as disinterested pristine academics, feel, suddenly shortchanged by the struggle for Chinese and Indian students, by the managers and corporate staff, marketeers and racketeers, of Western universities, which they think are "their own" by definition and by birth.
Regards,
Nagarjuna
------------------
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about it : Notes from Asia
Here is Xiang Biao scheduled contribution.
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about
it: Notes from Asia
XIANG Biao
Institutionalized education in most part of the human society seems intrinsically hierarchical. One is supposed to progress from a “lower” level of learning to the “higher”; “average” kids study in mediocre schools, and the “outstanding” go to top colleges; and finally, “degree” is by definition hierarchical. Recent discussions on higher education have focused on the
governmentalization /corporatization (roughly meaning tightened administrative management in order to make university managerially accountable) and the marketization of universities. This essay explores the logic of hierarchy making in a larger, societal context. It is beyond dispute
that established institutions have deeply vested interest in maintaining exclusive and hierarchical systems, and it is also true that hierarchy, particularly in the form of the
ranking tally, is imposed top down by the establishment.
However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even celebrated by the larger society. Nor should we reduce the public acceptance to merely an example of false consciousness. Most people know much better than us (university nerds) how to deal with the world. There are ethnical and moral dimensions to the socially produced
hierarchy. Instead of aiming to eradicate hierarchy altogether (which cannot be a feasible agenda despite the ideological appeal), this post wishes to explore room in the social process of hierarchy making which may enable realistic action agendas.
Precarious Hierarchy and the Ethnics of Hierarchy :
In the modern time in general, higher education become less exclusive, and educational hierarchy become much less absolute. In colonial Asia, for example, formal English education had such a magic power that it directly contributed to the creation of the institution of modern
dowry in India. It is also safe to say that, in Asia at least, higher education become less hierarchical in the so-called neoliberal era. (I use neoliberal era with some reluctance. By this term I am referring to the period starting at the end of 1970s for China, the beginning of
1990s for India, the early 1990s for Japan, and the late 1990s for South Korea).
China launched a new, unprecedented round of university expansion in 1998. The number of newly admitted students jumped from 1.08 million in 1998 to 2.5 million in 2001. By 2007, the planed intake reached 5.67 million!
Similar to Japan and South Korea, entering universities is no longer a crucial life event—it is not difficult to get in, and furthermore getting in does not guarantee good job prospects. Students have more freedom in choosing universities according to location, subject or campus “culture” instead of a single system of hierarchical evaluation.
But hierarchy certainly does not go away. Universities become ever more concerned about hierarchical ranking.
Shanghai Jiaotong University produces one of the best known tallies in the world. This reflects the fact that previously fixed hierarchy is replaced by more dynamic and unstable
differentiation. Hierarchy is in struggle. This also suggests that the process of hierarchy making becomes more public, or social, than before when it was declared by the state or established by tradition.
Underlying the new project of hierarchy making in the higher education is a unmistakable capitalist logic. The higher rank a university secures, the higher tuition fees it
charges. But the opposite is untrue. In general, students cannot enter a high-rank university simply by paying more fees. There is a limit to capitalism.
A curious example is the mushrooming MBA courses in China. On the one hand, no other institutions are more conscious than the MBA programs about hierarchical ranking which directly determine the fees they charge. On the other hand, most of the MBA students, particularly those enrolled in the elite institutes in China, had work experiences and many are self employed, and thus the ranking does not mean much for them in the material sense (say, compared to other students who may need a strong university brand for looking for jobs).
When I asked an entrepreneur (incidentally, a Taiwanese) why he applied for an expensive MBA course in Shanghai, he gave me three reasons: good teachers, the reputation of the course (“it sounds good”), and the opportunity to prove that, after
working for many years, he is still able to pass tough examinations. The Chinese capitalist class in the making need symbolic capital, but they need “solid” symbolic capital, i.e., not cheap parody ready for sale.
The hierarchical ranking of universities undoubtedly facilitates exchange between financial and cultural capital.
But at the very same time as different types of capital are exchangeable, each capital must maintain minimum autonomy. Thus, in order to be acceptable to the general public,
hierarchy must be based on “merit” to some extent.
Universities also have to maintain a balance. For example elite universities in the US charge high fees but also provide generous scholarships. Scholarships attract good students to keep its ranking high which in turn justifies high fees.
In China at least until the very recent time, socially produced hierarchy in higher education has significant moral connotations. For example, lecturers and students from top universities are expected to be more vocal in criticizing the status quo, and the state have to be more careful in
dealing with professors from these institutions. In a largely authoritarian and politically conservative system, this status provide the institutions with special clout to be more independent, critical, daring in thinking alternatives, and sometimes more eccentric in behavior.
People rank the universities high to counteract the state power and private economic interest, no matter how symbolically.
New Battles :
Hierarchy itself may not be a problem. The issue is what kind of hierarchy prevails. Our goals should be, apart from continuing the historical progress of destabilizing and “softening” hierarchy in general, making the hegemonic hierarchy more ethical.
In Asia as well as elsewhere, states have been active in domesticating and incorporating the institutions that are high in hierarchy. The corporate world may have similar desires, although their efforts are less orchestrated and their relations to universities less clear. But, both the
state and the economic establishment need seemingly independent universities for the purpose of legitimation.
(Say, the state occasionally needs some “independent scholars” to back their views, and financial institutes also like donating money to “independent” learning institutes.) The contradictions internal to the project of legitimation provide important space for actions.
Furthermore, the interests of the state and of the capital do not always fit well, and playing one against the other can be another strategy.
I cannot quite imagine autonomous universities in practical sense. As Mao Zedong repeatedly reminded us, intellectuals are a piece of feather who cannot exist without someone else’s skin. We need others for our material survival. But perhaps we can fight for a more “autonomous” evaluation system with strong moral and ethical concerns.
Another important battle field is pre-university education. I am not too worried about the corporatization or privatization of universities as I believe that that will not go too far. Even state bureaucrats and diehard capitalists would frown upon universities that have no
intellectual or ideological teeth at all.
What is much more dangerous, for China, is the on-going process of privatization and hierarchization in secondary education.
As it is less easy for money to infiltrate into higher education, well-off families start the race early. Parents spend thousands of US dollars to send children to good primary and high schools and even kindergartens. (In Beijing, top kindergartens literally charge thousands of US
dollars for a seat.)
In Japan, elite private universities such as Keio and Waseda set up their own so-called “escalator” system including kindergartens, primary and secondary schools. Children from wealthy families buy the expensive ticket to enter the escalator on the ground floor,
which take them to the top universities in the future with certain “merits.” Thus social inequality is produced and reproduced without upsetting the “merit”-based hierarchy
of universities. In China, except those who are desperate to consolidate their newly acquired financial assets into firm class status, most people want to escape from the frenzied
competition in which children became the main victims. Thus there is social base for mobilization to fight against this trend. Among other things, top universities may be able to do something, even symbolically, to counteract the education industry.
_______________________________________________
edufactory mailing list
edufactory@listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/edufactory_listcultures.org
Friday, December 28, 2007
Dharampal on British Colonial Agendas
Dharampal, Gandhian and Historian of Indian Science :
"All histories are elaborate efforts at mythmaking. Therefore, when we submit to histories about us written by others, we submit to their myths about us as well. Mythmaking, like naming, is a token of having power. Submitting to others' myths about us is a sign that we are without power. After the historical work of Dharampal, the scope for mythmaking about the past of Indian society is now considerably reduced.
If we must continue to live by myths, however, it is far better we choose to live by those of our own making rather than by those invented by others for their own purposes, whether English or Japanese. That much at least we owe ourselves as an independent society and nation." - Claude Alvares
Dharampal Ji's unmaking of the English-generated history of Indian society has in fact created a serious enough gap today in the discipline. The legitimacy of English or colonial dominated perceptions and biases about Indian society has been grievously undermined, but the academic tradition has been unable to take up the challenge of generating an organized indigenous view to take its place. The materials for a far more authentic history of science and technology in India are indeed now available as a result of his pioneering work, but the competent scholar who can handle it all in one neat canvas has yet to arrive. One recent new work that should be mentioned in this connection is Helaine Selin's Encyclopaedia of Non-Western Science, Technology and Medicine (Kluwer, Holland), which indeed takes note of Dharampal's findings. Till such time as the challenge is taken up, however, we will continue to replicate, uncritically, in the minds of generation after generation, the British or European sponsored view of Indian society and its institutions. How can any society survive, let alone create, on the basis of its borrowed images?
According to Dharampal, the British purpose in India, perhaps after long deliberation during the 17th century was never to attempt on any scale the settlement of the people of Britain or Europe in India. It was felt that in most regions of India, because of its climate, temperature range, gifted, industrious and dense population, the settling of the people of Europe would serve little purpose.
Therefore the purpose was defined as bringing to Britain and Europe, surplus products of the varied industry of the people of India, and the taxes imposed on this industry. Such a proposal, in fact, was very clearly put forward around 1780 by Prof. Adam Ferguson of Edinburgh. Ferguson was a professor of moral philosophy. (Interestingly. he is also regarded as the founder of British sociology.)
Dharampal found that for long periods in the late 18th and the 19th centuries, the tax on land in many areas exceeded the total agricultural production of very fertile land. This was particularly so in the areas of the Madras Presidency (comprising current Tamilnadu, districts of coastal Andhra. some districts of Karnataka and Malabar). The consequences of the policy were easy to predict: in the Madras Presidency, one third of the most fertile land went out of cultivation between the period 1800-1850. In fact, as early as 1804, the Governor of the Madras Presidency wrote to his masters (the President of the Board of Commissioners) in London : - "We have paid a great deal of attention to the revenue management in this country...the general tenor of my opinion is, that we have rode the country too hard, and the sequence is, that it is in a state of the most lamentable poverty. Great oppression is I fear exercised too generally in the collection of the Revenues."
Of course, Dharampal also found within the same archives, information about the Indian civil resistance in various regions of India in the early stages of British rule, like the one in Varanasi region around 1810-11 and in Canara around 1830 and how they were contained. But such events are not taken note of in the formal record as deliberate policy. Even petitions against grievances, though invited, would not be office recorded, unless, the wording of the petition, conveyed a sense of the petitioner's humility and of his (or her) limitless respect for authority.
Excerpts from one such rejected petition against the tax imposed in Varanasi highlight this : - "...former sooltauns never extended the rights of Government (commonly called malgoozaree) to the habitations of their subjects acquired by them by descent or transfer. It is this account that in selling estates the habitations proprietors are excepted from the sales. Therefore, the operation of this tax infringes upon the rights of the community, which is contrary to the first principles justice..."
"...It is difficult to find means of subsistence and the duties, court fees, transit and town duties which have increased tenfold, afflict and affect everyone rich and poor, and this tax, like salt scattered on a wound, is a cause of pain and depression to everyone, both Hindoo and Musulman: - let it be taken into consideration that as a consequence of these imposts the price of provisions within these ten years increased sixteen fold. In such case how is it possible, for us who have no means of earning a livelihood to subsist ?..."
By their methods of extortion and other similar means, the British were able to smash, Indian rural life and society by about 1820-1830. Around the same period, the extensive Indian manufactures met a similar fate. Because of deliberate British policy, the famed Indian village communities so eloquently described by Thomas Metcalfe around 1830, and by Karl Marx in the 1850s, had mostly ceased to exist.
Similar comments could be made about the narratives on Indian science and technology. Initially they were desired for their contemporary relevance and usefulness to the advancement or correction of their British counterparts. But soon after the British began to rule and control Indian life and society, the continuity of Indian knowledge and practice seemed to them a threat.
Therefore it was something to be put aside so that it crumbled or decayed. Dharampal found that such a programme of 'making extinct' was contrived in practically every sphere of human activity, including the manufactures of cotton textiles, the production of Indian steel, and even the Indian practice of inoculation against small pox as early as A.D. 1800.
A similar fate awaited the extensive network of Indian schools and institutions of higher learning when they began to be surveyed in the 1820s and 1830s. Ironically, it is mainly through the British archival records that one becomes aware of the extensive nature of the education network, as well as its speedy decay in the Madras and Bengal Presidency, and somewhat later in the Presidencies of Bombay and in the Punjab. Of course, the view, which we get from such archival material is splintered and not integrated. But the indicators in themselves are of great value. They also provide us glimpses of pre-British life and of aspects of India's society of which we had lost track from about A.D. 1850 when society was broken up and sup- pressed, and an imposed alien system of education made us ignore and forget the innumerable accomplishments of our people.
"All histories are elaborate efforts at mythmaking. Therefore, when we submit to histories about us written by others, we submit to their myths about us as well. Mythmaking, like naming, is a token of having power. Submitting to others' myths about us is a sign that we are without power. After the historical work of Dharampal, the scope for mythmaking about the past of Indian society is now considerably reduced.
If we must continue to live by myths, however, it is far better we choose to live by those of our own making rather than by those invented by others for their own purposes, whether English or Japanese. That much at least we owe ourselves as an independent society and nation." - Claude Alvares
Dharampal Ji's unmaking of the English-generated history of Indian society has in fact created a serious enough gap today in the discipline. The legitimacy of English or colonial dominated perceptions and biases about Indian society has been grievously undermined, but the academic tradition has been unable to take up the challenge of generating an organized indigenous view to take its place. The materials for a far more authentic history of science and technology in India are indeed now available as a result of his pioneering work, but the competent scholar who can handle it all in one neat canvas has yet to arrive. One recent new work that should be mentioned in this connection is Helaine Selin's Encyclopaedia of Non-Western Science, Technology and Medicine (Kluwer, Holland), which indeed takes note of Dharampal's findings. Till such time as the challenge is taken up, however, we will continue to replicate, uncritically, in the minds of generation after generation, the British or European sponsored view of Indian society and its institutions. How can any society survive, let alone create, on the basis of its borrowed images?
According to Dharampal, the British purpose in India, perhaps after long deliberation during the 17th century was never to attempt on any scale the settlement of the people of Britain or Europe in India. It was felt that in most regions of India, because of its climate, temperature range, gifted, industrious and dense population, the settling of the people of Europe would serve little purpose.
Therefore the purpose was defined as bringing to Britain and Europe, surplus products of the varied industry of the people of India, and the taxes imposed on this industry. Such a proposal, in fact, was very clearly put forward around 1780 by Prof. Adam Ferguson of Edinburgh. Ferguson was a professor of moral philosophy. (Interestingly. he is also regarded as the founder of British sociology.)
Dharampal found that for long periods in the late 18th and the 19th centuries, the tax on land in many areas exceeded the total agricultural production of very fertile land. This was particularly so in the areas of the Madras Presidency (comprising current Tamilnadu, districts of coastal Andhra. some districts of Karnataka and Malabar). The consequences of the policy were easy to predict: in the Madras Presidency, one third of the most fertile land went out of cultivation between the period 1800-1850. In fact, as early as 1804, the Governor of the Madras Presidency wrote to his masters (the President of the Board of Commissioners) in London : - "We have paid a great deal of attention to the revenue management in this country...the general tenor of my opinion is, that we have rode the country too hard, and the sequence is, that it is in a state of the most lamentable poverty. Great oppression is I fear exercised too generally in the collection of the Revenues."
Of course, Dharampal also found within the same archives, information about the Indian civil resistance in various regions of India in the early stages of British rule, like the one in Varanasi region around 1810-11 and in Canara around 1830 and how they were contained. But such events are not taken note of in the formal record as deliberate policy. Even petitions against grievances, though invited, would not be office recorded, unless, the wording of the petition, conveyed a sense of the petitioner's humility and of his (or her) limitless respect for authority.
Excerpts from one such rejected petition against the tax imposed in Varanasi highlight this : - "...former sooltauns never extended the rights of Government (commonly called malgoozaree) to the habitations of their subjects acquired by them by descent or transfer. It is this account that in selling estates the habitations proprietors are excepted from the sales. Therefore, the operation of this tax infringes upon the rights of the community, which is contrary to the first principles justice..."
"...It is difficult to find means of subsistence and the duties, court fees, transit and town duties which have increased tenfold, afflict and affect everyone rich and poor, and this tax, like salt scattered on a wound, is a cause of pain and depression to everyone, both Hindoo and Musulman: - let it be taken into consideration that as a consequence of these imposts the price of provisions within these ten years increased sixteen fold. In such case how is it possible, for us who have no means of earning a livelihood to subsist ?..."
By their methods of extortion and other similar means, the British were able to smash, Indian rural life and society by about 1820-1830. Around the same period, the extensive Indian manufactures met a similar fate. Because of deliberate British policy, the famed Indian village communities so eloquently described by Thomas Metcalfe around 1830, and by Karl Marx in the 1850s, had mostly ceased to exist.
Similar comments could be made about the narratives on Indian science and technology. Initially they were desired for their contemporary relevance and usefulness to the advancement or correction of their British counterparts. But soon after the British began to rule and control Indian life and society, the continuity of Indian knowledge and practice seemed to them a threat.
Therefore it was something to be put aside so that it crumbled or decayed. Dharampal found that such a programme of 'making extinct' was contrived in practically every sphere of human activity, including the manufactures of cotton textiles, the production of Indian steel, and even the Indian practice of inoculation against small pox as early as A.D. 1800.
A similar fate awaited the extensive network of Indian schools and institutions of higher learning when they began to be surveyed in the 1820s and 1830s. Ironically, it is mainly through the British archival records that one becomes aware of the extensive nature of the education network, as well as its speedy decay in the Madras and Bengal Presidency, and somewhat later in the Presidencies of Bombay and in the Punjab. Of course, the view, which we get from such archival material is splintered and not integrated. But the indicators in themselves are of great value. They also provide us glimpses of pre-British life and of aspects of India's society of which we had lost track from about A.D. 1850 when society was broken up and sup- pressed, and an imposed alien system of education made us ignore and forget the innumerable accomplishments of our people.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Among the world's Hungriest and Poorest - Incredible India
Dear All,
With respect to "crude statistics", I do tend to take alarmist global indices published by global think tanks on a whole range and variety of global issues, with a "pinch of salt".
The question still remains :
1. How do we respond to such "crude statistics"
2. What do we actually manage to do about these issues with the resources at our disposal.
There is no doubt that a country with 1.2 billion people has its politicial leaders pining and whining for the embrace and pats on the back, of the outgoing White House resident, backed by well funded Washington based policy think tanks, rather than evolving long term food security policies and development paradigms.
In the backdrop of the US Farm Bill 2007, continued and insistent EU and US farm subsidies, the arm twisting of developing economies by the diplomats and negotiators of the same countries and economic blocs, in global trade forums, so called respected think tanks which routinely spew out alarmist statistics have a habit of hijacking agendas for reasons best known to them.
In this, they do seek the support and mental attention of diaspora communities as well as of the Oxbridge / IMF / World Bank / Brussels trained economists who keep kicking the stirrups of Indian economy.
This routinely brings to my mind the statement of Leo Tolstoy - " I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back. "
At the same time, serious and more appropriate analysts like Devinder Sharma and P Sainath are continually sidelined and merely tolerated, in the cacaphony raised by these strategic policy think tanks with vested agendas.
Warm Regards,
Nagarjuna
----------------------
The Indian elite keep ranting about the economy's growth rate while the corporate papers (Hindustan Times, Times of India, Indian Express etc) get all excited about the bullish stock market that has crossed the 19,000-point mark.
But what about half the population grinding under poverty and malnutrition?
The Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute released its report "The World's Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger" on 6th Nov 07. The Institute devised the global hunger index (GHI) as a measure of poverty & hunger in a country.
This report is the first of its kind to use household survey data to look at those living below the one-dollar-a- day line. The index is designed to capture three dimensions of hunger: lack of economic access to food, shortfalls in the nutritional status of children, and child mortality, which is largely attributable to malnutrition.
1) India ranks way down at 96 among 119 developing countries included in the report. Even Nepal is four notches higher at 92, Pakistan 88, Myanmar 68, Sri Lanka 69, China 47.
In contrast, Mauritius is among the top 20 of least hungry countries.
The report commented "The lack of improvement in India's GHI score between 1997 and 2003 despite continued growth is a cause for concern, since India's GHI still indicates alarming levels of hunger".
Across all developing regions of the world, the poorest households are most often located in remote rural areas with limited access to education, roads, and health services and members of these households often face exclusion due to their ethnicity, gender or disability.
Nagarjuna has interest in Food Policy issues and may like to comment further.
2) While child malnutrition has reduced, a separate study (see www.Indiatogether. org) finds that 1 in 2 Indian rural children under 3 is hungry.
3) And nearly 150,000 Indian farmers committed suicide in the period 1997- 2005, official data show. While farm suicides have occurred in many States, nearly two thirds of these deaths are concentrated in five States where just a third of the country's population lives. (See P Sainath, ZNet www.zmag.org, 12 Nov 07).
Two more recent statistics:
4) INDIA also leads the world in the number of women dying in childbirth - 117,000 in 2005.
This means a maternal mortality ratio of 450 deaths per 100,000 live births. The Pakistan figure is 320, Sri Lanka 58 and China 45 (one tenth of India's) [R Hensman, 19 Nov 07 www.countercurrents .org
5) Times of India, 20 Nov 07 reported that India has the largest number of illiterates in the world.
It ranks 126th out of 177 countries in the Human Development Index (UNDP 2006)
Eddie
With respect to "crude statistics", I do tend to take alarmist global indices published by global think tanks on a whole range and variety of global issues, with a "pinch of salt".
The question still remains :
1. How do we respond to such "crude statistics"
2. What do we actually manage to do about these issues with the resources at our disposal.
There is no doubt that a country with 1.2 billion people has its politicial leaders pining and whining for the embrace and pats on the back, of the outgoing White House resident, backed by well funded Washington based policy think tanks, rather than evolving long term food security policies and development paradigms.
In the backdrop of the US Farm Bill 2007, continued and insistent EU and US farm subsidies, the arm twisting of developing economies by the diplomats and negotiators of the same countries and economic blocs, in global trade forums, so called respected think tanks which routinely spew out alarmist statistics have a habit of hijacking agendas for reasons best known to them.
In this, they do seek the support and mental attention of diaspora communities as well as of the Oxbridge / IMF / World Bank / Brussels trained economists who keep kicking the stirrups of Indian economy.
This routinely brings to my mind the statement of Leo Tolstoy - " I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back. "
At the same time, serious and more appropriate analysts like Devinder Sharma and P Sainath are continually sidelined and merely tolerated, in the cacaphony raised by these strategic policy think tanks with vested agendas.
Warm Regards,
Nagarjuna
----------------------
The Indian elite keep ranting about the economy's growth rate while the corporate papers (Hindustan Times, Times of India, Indian Express etc) get all excited about the bullish stock market that has crossed the 19,000-point mark.
But what about half the population grinding under poverty and malnutrition?
The Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute released its report "The World's Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger" on 6th Nov 07. The Institute devised the global hunger index (GHI) as a measure of poverty & hunger in a country.
This report is the first of its kind to use household survey data to look at those living below the one-dollar-a- day line. The index is designed to capture three dimensions of hunger: lack of economic access to food, shortfalls in the nutritional status of children, and child mortality, which is largely attributable to malnutrition.
1) India ranks way down at 96 among 119 developing countries included in the report. Even Nepal is four notches higher at 92, Pakistan 88, Myanmar 68, Sri Lanka 69, China 47.
In contrast, Mauritius is among the top 20 of least hungry countries.
The report commented "The lack of improvement in India's GHI score between 1997 and 2003 despite continued growth is a cause for concern, since India's GHI still indicates alarming levels of hunger".
Across all developing regions of the world, the poorest households are most often located in remote rural areas with limited access to education, roads, and health services and members of these households often face exclusion due to their ethnicity, gender or disability.
Nagarjuna has interest in Food Policy issues and may like to comment further.
2) While child malnutrition has reduced, a separate study (see www.Indiatogether. org) finds that 1 in 2 Indian rural children under 3 is hungry.
3) And nearly 150,000 Indian farmers committed suicide in the period 1997- 2005, official data show. While farm suicides have occurred in many States, nearly two thirds of these deaths are concentrated in five States where just a third of the country's population lives. (See P Sainath, ZNet www.zmag.org, 12 Nov 07).
Two more recent statistics:
4) INDIA also leads the world in the number of women dying in childbirth - 117,000 in 2005.
This means a maternal mortality ratio of 450 deaths per 100,000 live births. The Pakistan figure is 320, Sri Lanka 58 and China 45 (one tenth of India's) [R Hensman, 19 Nov 07 www.countercurrents .org
5) Times of India, 20 Nov 07 reported that India has the largest number of illiterates in the world.
It ranks 126th out of 177 countries in the Human Development Index (UNDP 2006)
Eddie
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Headless Chickens ? And Indian Foreign Policy ?
Dear All
1. I have not read the texts of Naomi Klein and Milton Friedman being referred to in this group - but I would tend to weigh in on the side of Joe and Peter - by this I mean that, I find Eddie's
characterization of the character of western liberal democracies underpinned by the more general economic and globally expansionist post Marxian philosophy characterized by the "smoke screen antics" of the Chicago school - as being a bit less finely nuanced than I find Eddie's
views in general.
An analysis, or for that matter a criticism, of periods of history and its dominant players - must be nuanced in my opinion - if they are to be useful for coming generations and not just talk that can be disregarded by those who hold power in particular societies at particular epochs in history.
This in my opinion holds true for all ages and is a condition of humanity that we must avoid over simplifying in our quest for easy recourse to criticism and analysis of swathes of human thought and achievements.
Post Marxian Chicago school inspired neo liberalism - the core ideology of western democracies that have collectively ganged up as federations to play the role of global policemen - as the basis of the dominant economic conglomerates of US and EU must also be seen in this light. This is my opinion and I think that this kind of view - allows for more nuances of real politik - to be seen clearly in the light of liberal western democracy as a post Marxian ideology that is packaged into a product fit for export around the world.
2. With regard to the Myanmar crisis, I note the extreme reluctance in supporting an obvious revolution from the bottom - of the same policy architects of Indian foreign policy - who get together in Washington and criticize Indian parliamentarians as a group of headless chickens and yet cry themselves hoarse in saying that India must not let go of the historic opportunity to come out of its nuclear pariah status holding the coat tails of the US president who is himself now on his way out from White House as well as the pages of history.
Indian foreign ministry is supposedly weighing up the strategic losses and gains of supporting an obviously brutal military junta on its extreme eastern borders - the issues of Myanmar's natural gas reserves and Chinese real politik in the Bay of Bengal have been often commented on.
However, I would like to step back a bit and see in the reluctance of Indian democracy that is pallying up with Washington corridors of power - a certain unanimity of interest in supporting military dictatorships in critical parts of the world. Is this not the quintessence of the Chicago school economic doctrines, now emerging as a starkly Indian response to the unrest on its eastern borders ?
It is time we now begin asking ourselves the question, what is it really that now separates New Delhi from Washington ?
1. I have not read the texts of Naomi Klein and Milton Friedman being referred to in this group - but I would tend to weigh in on the side of Joe and Peter - by this I mean that, I find Eddie's
characterization of the character of western liberal democracies underpinned by the more general economic and globally expansionist post Marxian philosophy characterized by the "smoke screen antics" of the Chicago school - as being a bit less finely nuanced than I find Eddie's
views in general.
An analysis, or for that matter a criticism, of periods of history and its dominant players - must be nuanced in my opinion - if they are to be useful for coming generations and not just talk that can be disregarded by those who hold power in particular societies at particular epochs in history.
This in my opinion holds true for all ages and is a condition of humanity that we must avoid over simplifying in our quest for easy recourse to criticism and analysis of swathes of human thought and achievements.
Post Marxian Chicago school inspired neo liberalism - the core ideology of western democracies that have collectively ganged up as federations to play the role of global policemen - as the basis of the dominant economic conglomerates of US and EU must also be seen in this light. This is my opinion and I think that this kind of view - allows for more nuances of real politik - to be seen clearly in the light of liberal western democracy as a post Marxian ideology that is packaged into a product fit for export around the world.
2. With regard to the Myanmar crisis, I note the extreme reluctance in supporting an obvious revolution from the bottom - of the same policy architects of Indian foreign policy - who get together in Washington and criticize Indian parliamentarians as a group of headless chickens and yet cry themselves hoarse in saying that India must not let go of the historic opportunity to come out of its nuclear pariah status holding the coat tails of the US president who is himself now on his way out from White House as well as the pages of history.
Indian foreign ministry is supposedly weighing up the strategic losses and gains of supporting an obviously brutal military junta on its extreme eastern borders - the issues of Myanmar's natural gas reserves and Chinese real politik in the Bay of Bengal have been often commented on.
However, I would like to step back a bit and see in the reluctance of Indian democracy that is pallying up with Washington corridors of power - a certain unanimity of interest in supporting military dictatorships in critical parts of the world. Is this not the quintessence of the Chicago school economic doctrines, now emerging as a starkly Indian response to the unrest on its eastern borders ?
It is time we now begin asking ourselves the question, what is it really that now separates New Delhi from Washington ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)