ASIA
A Cargo of Questions 1992
India
GWALIOR
It was near here during the 'Indian Mutiny', or 'War of Independence', that the British finally defeated Tantia Topi and it was in the final assault on the fort that the Rhani of Jhansi was killed. In 1853 the British, who had recently passed a law allowing them to take over any princely state under their patronage when the ruler died without a male heir, pensioned the Rani off and took full control. Four years later she was in the forefront of the uprising in Jhansi. In defeat she fled to Gwalior, and, in a last stand, she rode out against the British disguised as a man and was killed.
In 1600, Queen Elizabeth I had granted a charter to a London trading company giving them a monopoly on British trade with India.
For 250 years British power was exercised in India not by the Government but by the East India Company.
For the British India was a place to make money, not to interfere in culture, belief and religion, except where it could assist the policy of divide and rule.
They gave themselves the right to intervene in local states if they were inefficiently run; 'inefficient' was defined as and when the British saw fit.
Are we this British?
What do the British do to the British?
What do Indian administrators do to the Indians?
What exactly was and is this British administration?
Is it a system of thought, an ideology, that disguises identifiable interests?
Then and now?
Home and Away?
Khajuraho is a small village surrounded by Hindu temples. It is on the tourist route by air, Delhi/Agra/Khajuraho/Varanasi, therefore it is somewhere even if it is in the middle a place we might call 'nowhere'!
In 1600, Queen Elizabeth I had granted a charter to a London trading company giving them a monopoly on British trade with India.
For 250 years British power was exercised in India not by the Government but by the East India Company.
For the British India was a place to make money, not to interfere in culture, belief and religion, except where it could assist the policy of divide and rule.
They gave themselves the right to intervene in local states if they were inefficiently run; 'inefficient' was defined as and when the British saw fit.
Are we this British?
What do the British do to the British?
What do Indian administrators do to the Indians?
What exactly was and is this British administration?
Is it a system of thought, an ideology, that disguises identifiable interests?
Then and now?
Home and Away?
KHAJURAHO
Khajuraho is a small village surrounded by Hindu temples. It is on the tourist route by air, Delhi/Agra/Khajuraho/Varanasi, therefore it is somewhere even if it is in the middle a place we might call 'nowhere'!
Information Wrap
If Mr Chandra Shekar, the former Prime Minister is to be believed, the only objective of the multinationals (MNC's) is to take India for a ride. He explodes the myth that MNC's bring in huge foreign investment when they enter a country. Figures reveal that over 60% of the total equity capital of MNC's operating in India comes from earned profits. The way to do this is to convert reserves (accumulated profits over the years) into bonus shares. The strategy in the 70's was simply to beat the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) enacted in 1973. The Act forced many MNC's to reduce their holdings to 40% or face restrictions if they wanted a higher stake. While most of them agreed to follow the 40% limit, the Indian companies started issuing bonus shares in rapid succession so that the quantum of dividend repatriation of MNC's was not reduced. They also used their considerable clout to force the subsidiaries in India to depend entirely on the parent company for raw materials and capital goods requirements. A myth, according to the document, is that foreign MNC's help in increasing Indian exports. Foreign direct investment is oriented primarily towards producing abroad for the domestic markets of host countries rather than towards exporting.
THE TIMES OF INDIA, February 26, 1992
DHAULI
In 260 BCE Ashoka, the great Indian emperor, defeated Kalinga, but the bloody battle left such a bitter taste with Ashoka that he converted to Buddhism. The horrors he experienced in war are recorded in 13 inscriptions carved in a rock at the base of Dhauli hill.
In October 1956 the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Committee had been implemented. India had been divided into 14 States and 6 centrally administered territories according to the distribution of vernacular language.
Language identifying state or territory of administration, for the convenience of central authority and its bureaucracy?
This is the old ideal of the nation state. Homogenous and organisable?
What happened in Europe in the 16C to the 19C repeats itself in 20C India.
Also
"But the boundaries of these states were not formed by rivers or mountains, or any natural feature or terrain: they were instead, walls of words."
MIDNIGHT"S CHILDREN, Salman Rushdie.
PURI
Puri is one of the four holiest cities in India. The temple of Jagannath, Lord of the Universe, offers Hindus the opportunity of worship without caste distinctions. Contradictorily, the temple employs 6000men to perform the temple functions and rituals, attendants who are divided into 36 orders and 97 classes. 20,000 people depend on Jagannath for their livelihood.
Information Wrap
As we dwell on contemporary changes in the generation of wealth and its distribution, a number of distinctive feature of our times immediately spring to view. At the outset, it is clear that socialist polities everywhere have undergone a traumatic experience, comparable to what capitalist polities experienced in the 1930's. Next, it is equally clear that the indifference of radical thinkers to liberal values and institutions has played an important role in weakening the political structure of socialist societies in the very recent past. Last, but not least, the current trauma of the socialist world calls for a fundamental rethinking of socialist theory and practice if the enduring concerns of socialism are to remain on the agenda. It would be monumental folly to imagine that the trauma of world socialism has no special meaning for an India engaged in a serious examination of the principles and practice which shape its political economy. But if we are to avoid a panic reaction, it is necessary to do three things. First, to locate the principles that have guided our economy since the 1950's. Secondly, to take stock of our successes and failure of our great experiment in social transformation and economic growth. And lastly, instead of blindly accepting economic prescriptions flowing out of international financial agencies, we should work out a strategy of economic management which rests upon the specificity of our social condition.
The social experimentation that was initiated in India in the 1950's rested precisely upon such an exercise. It was clear to all concerned that the mechanism of the market had led humanity to the Great Depression of the 1930's, not to mention the frightfulness of fascism. Indeed even a cursory look at our economy and society makes it obvious that the manner in which the "market" is currently held out as a panacea is a matter of deep concern. To start with, the market is not uniformly successful even if in an advanced capitalist world. If we turn to developing countries, the situation is much more alarming.
Most developing countries have discovered that blind recourse to marketisation, while it may benefit some, leads a society as a whole to disaster. The few successful Third World countries - characterised by their modest size, and also the absence of a vast agricultural hinterland - have to be examined with reference to the "special' relations which the advanced capitalist world sought to establish with them, not necessarily for economic reasons. Moreover the state was anything but "neutral" in such polities.
It has been pointed out that there exists considerable confusion among economists between the notion of the market, on the one hand, and the climate of "competitiveness" on the other. The market is often a monster, promoting inequitable growth and distribution and generating class warfare in societies. The ethos of competitiveness pertains to an altogether different world; to efficiency; to innovative technology; and to the crucial concept of sustainable growth. Moreover, unlike the market, competitiveness does not necessarily conjure into existence vulgar consumerism which corrodes the integrity of individuals at the same time as it undermines the moral voice of the community. For all these reasons, we need to examine closely the political economy of liberalisation, if we are to negotiate our way into the next century as a humane, productive and equitable society.
THE TIMES OF INDIA, February 26, 1992.
Do we feel freedom in the market place?
I am shopped, therefore I am?
