More often than not, I disagree with much, if not most, of what Arundhati Roy says in her articles. Here, however, is a superb article by Roy on P. Chidambaram's "War on Maoists".
Notwithstanding whatever grounds on which one might criticize Roy, there are several things that she needs to be unconditionally respected for: her courage, her insistence on speaking truth to power, and her willingness to be contrarian.
And Roy is to be especially congratulated, in my view, for refusing to believe that the free market game is the only game in town, and that the Indian political and economic space must be made safe for the optimal functioning of the market at any cost, including uprooting and devastating the lives of million of Indian citizens. Especially at a time when more and more Indian intellectuals appear to be meekly parroting that view (including many who for several decades maintained the exact opposite political position!)
This essay is sure to send partisans of the India Shining and magic-of-markets schools into a tizzy, if not outright rage. That itself is reason to celebrate the essay and Roy.
On related matters, here, on Interjunction, is my interview with Sudeep Chakravarti author of Red Sun, an excellent book on Maoist movements in South Asia.
Full post...
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Stalin Good, Mao Bad? Comrade Karat forgets his Marx!
Simple-minded and spurious reasoning from the CPI(M) head honcho. Proving why the 'progressive' Indian position that the CPI(M) for all its faults is better than the BJP or Samajwadi Party is utterly unfounded.
Karat suggests that Naxalites--- who, as is well known, are Maoists--- are not a "Left trend" and not "Marxists". Here's the problem Mr Karat-- whatever you think of Mao and Maoists, it is impossible to claim that they are not Marxists! They do not exhaust Marxism and there are legacies of Marxism that would squarely contradict the theory and praxis of various Maoist movements. But Maoists across the world have been and continue to be an integral part of the lived and living history of Marxism. The ostensible reason for the expulsion of Indian Maoists from the Marxist fold is the former's use of violence-- particularly violence directed against CPI(M) members. But Karat is being hypocritical here, of course, as will be glaringly obvious to anyone even cursorily familiar with the ideology of the CPI(M).
For this happens to be the same same Karat of the same CPI(M) that (a) has never repudiated the use of political violence when directed against 'enemies of history' or 'enemies of the party' or 'bourgeois imperalists' (b) has never repudiated or criticized Stalin for the pogroms sanctioned by the leader which resulted in the death of millions, and (c) in fact, considers Stalin a very important figure from whom much can be learnt. (I am told but do not know for sure that CPI(M) offices have posters of Stalin.) Karat himself is often described by Left folk as Stalinist in his ideological purity (read dogmatism). Here, for instance, is an extract from a 1992 CPI(M) resolution, "On Certain Ideological Issues: (Resolution Adopted at the 14th Congress of the CPI(M) Madras, January 3-9, 1992)", which, while acknowledging some minor faults in Stalin's administrative style, does not even hint at the violence that he was responsible for.
Karat betrays the same kind of doublespeak that politicians from all Indian parties are famous for. It is obvious that Karat's position is compelled by the tide of anti-Naxalite public opinion. If for whatever reason, the Naxalite movement gains public sympathy in India, Karat is quite likely to embrace them again. And the complicated family squabbles among the various Left parties in India are also a factor of course.
Whenever I see the CPI(M) up to its shenanigans, I am reminded of Nehru's astute and acerbic observation in the Discovery of India that for the Communist Party of India the history of India starts in 1917 with the Russsian Revolution.
Full post...
Karat suggests that Naxalites--- who, as is well known, are Maoists--- are not a "Left trend" and not "Marxists". Here's the problem Mr Karat-- whatever you think of Mao and Maoists, it is impossible to claim that they are not Marxists! They do not exhaust Marxism and there are legacies of Marxism that would squarely contradict the theory and praxis of various Maoist movements. But Maoists across the world have been and continue to be an integral part of the lived and living history of Marxism. The ostensible reason for the expulsion of Indian Maoists from the Marxist fold is the former's use of violence-- particularly violence directed against CPI(M) members. But Karat is being hypocritical here, of course, as will be glaringly obvious to anyone even cursorily familiar with the ideology of the CPI(M).
For this happens to be the same same Karat of the same CPI(M) that (a) has never repudiated the use of political violence when directed against 'enemies of history' or 'enemies of the party' or 'bourgeois imperalists' (b) has never repudiated or criticized Stalin for the pogroms sanctioned by the leader which resulted in the death of millions, and (c) in fact, considers Stalin a very important figure from whom much can be learnt. (I am told but do not know for sure that CPI(M) offices have posters of Stalin.) Karat himself is often described by Left folk as Stalinist in his ideological purity (read dogmatism). Here, for instance, is an extract from a 1992 CPI(M) resolution, "On Certain Ideological Issues: (Resolution Adopted at the 14th Congress of the CPI(M) Madras, January 3-9, 1992)", which, while acknowledging some minor faults in Stalin's administrative style, does not even hint at the violence that he was responsible for.
The CPI(M), since the Burdwan Plenum in 1968, has repeatedly made clear its assessment of the positive and negative aspects of Stalin's leadership. While being severely critical of certain gross violations of inner-party democracy and socialist legality, he May 1990 C.C. resolution had stated: "The CPI(M) rejected the approach which, in the name of correcting the personality cult, is negating the history of socialism. The uncontestable contribution of Joseph Stalin in defence of Leninism, against Trotskyism and other ideological deviations, the building of socialism in the USSR, the victory over fascism and the reconstruction of the war-ravaged Soviet, Union enabling it to acquire enough strength to check imperialist aggressive moves, are inerasable from the history of socialism.
Karat betrays the same kind of doublespeak that politicians from all Indian parties are famous for. It is obvious that Karat's position is compelled by the tide of anti-Naxalite public opinion. If for whatever reason, the Naxalite movement gains public sympathy in India, Karat is quite likely to embrace them again. And the complicated family squabbles among the various Left parties in India are also a factor of course.
Whenever I see the CPI(M) up to its shenanigans, I am reminded of Nehru's astute and acerbic observation in the Discovery of India that for the Communist Party of India the history of India starts in 1917 with the Russsian Revolution.
Full post...
More of the NY Times' double standards
The New York Times has another one of its stories that periodically puts the developing world in its place. This story is about the Chinese regime's undemocratic rules, specifically a rule that cars should be saluted by kids.
I have no objection to the story in itself. There is no doubt a story here. And I am no fan of undemocratic policies anywhere in the world, whether India, China, or the US.
But why does the sharp journalistic eye of the Times fail to see similar coercive pressures in the US? It is impossible, for instance, for anyone to criticize the American military or troops, regardless of whether the person is for or against the war. Criticizing the troops, beyond singling out a "few bad apples" responsible for the Abu Ghraib torture, runs the risk of exposing one to accusations of being 'anti-American' 'unpatriotic', 'treasonous', or worse. I recall Vijay Prashad mentioning in an interview in Social Text that he routinely gets threatening messages on his phone for his political beliefs. This social impossibility of being able to criticize the troops-- even if legally one has freedom of expression to do so--is generally true of corporations, or university settings (for all their genuine commitment to freedom of expression), or the public sphere. A Chomsky can do so but even he gets assaulted by the Right. This phenomenon is, of course, a function of the American Right exploiting the notion that liberals led by Jane Fonda let down, and vilified the American troops in Vietnam.
In this respect of insisting on obeisance to certain symbols of national authority, with the possibility of punitive social (and often, but not always, legal) sanctions for violating such injunction all nations-- the US as much as China-- appear to be alike.
I don't recall seeing a single prominent American liberal or libertarian voice defend the principle of freedom of expression in this context. Not the libertarian economists who valiantly defend the freedoms of corporations against government interference. Not the libertarian political scientists who never fail to remind us why the West beat the rest (a commitment to freedoms being one reason!). Not all the liberals who defended the war as a 'just' intervention.
Another coercive pressure manifests itself as the demand that all minorities-- and some more than others-- should constantly prove their loyalty to a certain conception of the nation. Which is why gas stations owned by South Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans are likely to have many symbols of patriotic sentiment visibly displayed all across their establishments.
Not a squeak from the Times about any of this.
And what about the Times' own rule-following when it came to the official Weapons of Mass Destruction line trotted out by the White House, which the Times lapped up without question?
This is why many academics have a poor opinion of the Times, even if they will not say so openly. As a tactical matter, these academics will not refuse a chance to publish in the Times, given the influence, prestige, and reach of the paper. But from conversations with several academics about the mode in which the Times covers the world, none of them really expect the Times to get the complexity of the situation. They don't expect the Times to be reflexive about its own assumptions either.
And yes, it is possible to get the complexity of a situation in a newspaper article or op-ed. This is not a journalist versus academic mode of writing issue at all.
Full post...
I have no objection to the story in itself. There is no doubt a story here. And I am no fan of undemocratic policies anywhere in the world, whether India, China, or the US.
But why does the sharp journalistic eye of the Times fail to see similar coercive pressures in the US? It is impossible, for instance, for anyone to criticize the American military or troops, regardless of whether the person is for or against the war. Criticizing the troops, beyond singling out a "few bad apples" responsible for the Abu Ghraib torture, runs the risk of exposing one to accusations of being 'anti-American' 'unpatriotic', 'treasonous', or worse. I recall Vijay Prashad mentioning in an interview in Social Text that he routinely gets threatening messages on his phone for his political beliefs. This social impossibility of being able to criticize the troops-- even if legally one has freedom of expression to do so--is generally true of corporations, or university settings (for all their genuine commitment to freedom of expression), or the public sphere. A Chomsky can do so but even he gets assaulted by the Right. This phenomenon is, of course, a function of the American Right exploiting the notion that liberals led by Jane Fonda let down, and vilified the American troops in Vietnam.
In this respect of insisting on obeisance to certain symbols of national authority, with the possibility of punitive social (and often, but not always, legal) sanctions for violating such injunction all nations-- the US as much as China-- appear to be alike.
I don't recall seeing a single prominent American liberal or libertarian voice defend the principle of freedom of expression in this context. Not the libertarian economists who valiantly defend the freedoms of corporations against government interference. Not the libertarian political scientists who never fail to remind us why the West beat the rest (a commitment to freedoms being one reason!). Not all the liberals who defended the war as a 'just' intervention.
Another coercive pressure manifests itself as the demand that all minorities-- and some more than others-- should constantly prove their loyalty to a certain conception of the nation. Which is why gas stations owned by South Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans are likely to have many symbols of patriotic sentiment visibly displayed all across their establishments.
Not a squeak from the Times about any of this.
And what about the Times' own rule-following when it came to the official Weapons of Mass Destruction line trotted out by the White House, which the Times lapped up without question?
This is why many academics have a poor opinion of the Times, even if they will not say so openly. As a tactical matter, these academics will not refuse a chance to publish in the Times, given the influence, prestige, and reach of the paper. But from conversations with several academics about the mode in which the Times covers the world, none of them really expect the Times to get the complexity of the situation. They don't expect the Times to be reflexive about its own assumptions either.
And yes, it is possible to get the complexity of a situation in a newspaper article or op-ed. This is not a journalist versus academic mode of writing issue at all.
Full post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
