cpk@telesis.UUCP (pulikesi) (04/11/85)
> > I just got a chance to read the message on net.nlang.india by ... Sri Rajiv relayed to us courtesy Arun Swamy. >........... > > Unfortunately, it seems that many people have to wait till they see > `Jewel in the Crown' till they get aware of the pleasures of British > Rule in India.... >........ > There are severe problems, which all > thinking people should endeavour should try and do something about, > at least in their limited contexts. Next time you hear some > comment, `Oh what else do you expect from a Bihari' don't just sit > there. Next time at your family table you hear some statement like > `All Muslims are dirty'- fight back- your parents may consider you impolite > but at least you claim some intellectual integrity. This list could go > on and on.. >...... > I'll end by suggesting some basic reading .... > RC Dutt's book on British Rule in India > gives a detailed account of the `benevolence' of our British Rulers- it > is a brilliant account of the plunder and destruction of the Indian Economy. > About contemporary India , Dilip Hiro's `Inside India Today' is a bit dated > but still quite good. MJ Akbar has written a good book- India, The Siege > within'. As far as magazines go, the Economic and Political > Weekly carries very in-depth analyses. If you want fiction, perhaps you > could go back and read authors like Premchand, Tagore etc . > > Jitendra Malik I cannot but concur with the essential features of Jitendra's comments. (I purposely edited off his over zealous language so that we can focus on the issues raised by him.) For many middle class, urban Indians their value system is for the first time challenged when they land in alien soil like the U.S. As a response there are generally three classes. 1) Blindly defend whatever is "presumed" to be Indian..a la Ram Rajya 2) Imitate superficially the west (brown sahebism) 3) Soberly assess the weakness and strengths of our society so that a proper stand and contribution can be made in regard to its progress Course 3 is certainly the most painful since it involves somewhat a radical rupture with fond assumptions. However it is the most fruitful and the only way forward for progress. As a start I can think of the following questions. - Democracy in India: what is meaning of this in a country where more than 70% live below the poverty line wnd where the peasants and workers, the majority of the population face bruatality daily? - Isn't the promotion of bestial communal violence a part of the strategy and tactics of the major political parties in India? Also common cliches like "the lack of formal educaton is the cause of the country's problem" "population is the problem" should be examined more thorougholy. A study should be made of the history of India to find out which are the real progressive forces in Indian history. Their legacy is a rich one and includes many movements like the Bhakti movement (the central thrust of which was against casteism), the revolutionary martyrs like Mangal Pande, Bhagat Singh etc. Only a fresh look can be a percursor to proper action!
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (04/17/85)
Soap box time: > Course 3 is certainly the most painful since it involves somewhat a > radical rupture with fond assumptions. However it is the most fruitful > and the only way forward for progress. As a start I can think of the > following questions. > > - Democracy in India: what is meaning of this in a country where more > than 70% live below the poverty line wnd where the peasants and workers, > the majority of the population face bruatality daily? I hope we are not questioning the suitability of democracy to the Indian situation. If we are, I would like to ask what are the alternatives? My answer would be we have already seen the alternatives at work, in El Salvador, the Soviet Union, the Philippines, Iran, and so on. I don't think that the masses of these countries are as prosperous as they could be, nor are they free to pursue "happiness" as they view it. We know that it is faddish for third-world leaders to impose phony "democracies" on their people, with the excuse that the people are not yet "ready" for freedom. We mustn't fall into the "guided" democracy trap: when you see the real thing, you will surely know it, regardless of labels. Democracy in India has not been tried in right earnest: witness the enormous centralization of decision making. There are a number of democratic tendencies in the Indian system, as well as well among the Indian people, which all responsible people should encourage and foster. It is a mistake to speak of democracy as though it were a luxury for the spoiled middle class, and what the "masses" really need is some sort of benevolent state control (maintained by the same middle class to whom we are not willing to accord aesthetic luxuries like democracy), suspension of trade unions, compulsory sterilization, or whatever. I think that the key is to stop imposing whatever ideological fad happens to be current on the people from the top down (Socialist Raj, Computer Raj, whatever). Democratic institutions should be fostered at the community level, and those in authority should treat them seriously, and try to help make them work (They don't, in present-day India). I rather like the institution of local populist mayors that I see in this country. Populism at this level cannot survive on B.S., caste, or anything else. The issues are (or should be clear). If the garbage doesn't get picked up, if street crime doesn't go down, if roads are full of potholes, why, throw the rascals out. At present, it is clear that there is no democracy in India at this level(controversial?). Perhaps those of us who profess to care about these things can teach people to demand accountability from their local leaders as a first step. I think that this accountability, power of recall, and public debate on issues, starting at the local level, is the key to give "power to the people", and not just to a bunch of westernized middle class Indians either(note that this despised group are also Indians, sharing the same hangups and responsibilities as the rest of the country. That they are somewhat cushioned from the results of their hangups, and often don't undertake their responsibilities is a different matter). In the long run, there is no way to solve the "poverty problem", the "ignorance problem", and so on without making the Indian village and city communities self-reliant and prosperous. Surely that is the economic aspect of a democratic system, which needs the political aspect to sustain it. --Bapa Rao.
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (04/22/85)
(Forward, the Light Brigade ...) Bapa Rao: > > It is a mistake to speak of democracy as though ... what the > "masses" really need is ... suspension of trade unions ... > Yeah, but if these damned trade unions got off their asses, stopped striking and gheraoing at the drop of a hat, and did a decent day's work, the country'd be a darned sight better off! Much of the time their infighting is just for the control of political turf, anyway, not because it gives workers a better deal. Frankly, I don't like some people making political capital out of other people's misery. -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (04/28/85)
> (Forward, the Light Brigade ...) > > Bapa Rao: > > > > It is a mistake to speak of democracy as though ... what the > > "masses" really need is ... suspension of trade unions ... > > > Yeah, but if these damned trade unions got off their asses, stopped > striking and gheraoing at the drop of a hat, and did a decent day's work, > the country'd be a darned sight better off! Much of the time their > infighting is just for the control of political turf, anyway, not > because it gives workers a better deal. Frankly, I don't like some people > making political capital out of other people's misery. > -- Saumya: I really threw in trade-union suppression as an example, among other things, of undemocratic things that are done in the name of expediency. But apparently trade-unions are your own private bugbear. :-) I guess that perfectly responsible behavior on the part of all the components of society makes the whole question of social organization (democracy vs. totaliarianism, for example) rather moot. I am pretty sure that in any democratic system all power groups will try to pursue their self-interest. Is it fair to arbitrarily decide to ban some of them at the expense of others? I don't believe so. I have quite a serious problem with disenfranchising anyone. In my view, suppressing trade unions to punish them for their unproductive behavior is not the answer. It is not clear that the workers will better off at the mercy of their employers,without the benefit of T.U.s. An open society in which different special-interest groups are balanced against each other, is, in my view, the optimal solution for a fair distribution of power among the people. In case of the trade unions, for example, we might conceive of an alternate, sincere leader emerging, whose superior qualifications as a leader are obvious to the workers. It would be easier for such a leader (e.g., someone halfway between Arthur Scargill and Doug Fraser) to emerge in an open, democratic system where the established corrupt leadership cannot threaten the emergent leader without risking public obloquy at best, and lawful retribution at worst. On the other hand, in a closed system where public assembly and association (as in Trade Unions) are under threat of banishment all the time, it is easier for established leadership to leave the workers with the choice of being represented by a mafia and not being represented at all. --Bapa Rao.