Ethnohistories of the Global City

(more…)


Filed under: main — Tags: , — Shekhar @ 31 January 2009 12.00 am

Swinging In or Swooping Down?

Many years ago, a fellow scholar and I embarked on a novel philological project, which began in the sweaty summer of 2000 with the simple but powerful insight that all text for all news in the English print media in India is essentially generated out of a limited number of words. We thus set out, with the help of friends, to document what we called at the time “the cliches, banalities and truisms” of the of the Indian English press. E-mailed to friends and colleagues amongst the Mumbai and Delhi literati, this amateur questionnaire grew into a veritable ethno-linguistic survey, which we called the Lexicon of Indian Journalese.

Our lexicon was compiled of terms and phrases commonly found in newspapers such as The Times of India. While seemingly neutral devices for describing events and actions common to the Indian scene, we suggest that these terms form a much deeper sub-strata of meaning in Indian public discourse. They are in fact linguistic structures shared by both veteran editor and cub reporter, by the governing elite and the citizen-subaltern, they are both description and truth. Read the ur-paragraph of Indian journalism and leap into the fray with your own contributions here.

Given my prior, amateur forays into this rich semantic field, I was pleased to see that our theory of the deep structures of Indian English journalism was recently confirmed by noted historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam in his scathing review of The White Tiger in LRB. More recently, a new variation on our lexicon surfaced (quietly and unbeknownst to foreign audiences) in yesterday’s CSM. Anuj Chopra in Pune writes of B. Ramalinga Raju that the Indian government, “in damage-control mode, swooped in to take control of Satyam, the beleaguered outsourcing company”.

While it did not merit an entry at the time of our compilation eight years ago, this journalist has rendered yeoman service to the lexicon, and deserves kudos for a new insight into financial regulation in India. “Swooping in” is a recognisable hybrid of “swinging into” and “swopping down” — the two entries in our lexicon before “nab”. Examples of this type of state behaviour are when the Government of India or one of its state or local arms “swings into action” after a crisis, and “swoops down upon” its unlawful subjects. Recent work on the anthropology of the state in India has also confirmed this swooping tendency. While without the vertical dynamics of “swooping down upon” or the proactive posture of “swinging into”, “swooping in” is a fascinating description of the government’s actions to protect shareholders, and may even denote a new posture by Indian regulators in the wake of the global financial crisis.


Filed under: main — Tags: , — Shekhar @ 13 January 2009 9.21 am

Mumbai Terror Dossier

The Hindu has scanned the entire dossier of evidence related to the terrorist attacks on Mumbai on 26-28 November. Their servers seem to be overwhelmed with requests, so I have cached the PDFs for downloading here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 and all parts archived.

Dr Singh’s genteel but firm diplomatic strategy is to present this evidence in the chanceries of the world’s great powers, who will compel Pakistan to act against Lashkar-i-Toiba and elements within its own intelligence establishment who mentored these irregulars to fight on the Kashmir and Afghan frontiers. So far both India and Pakistan have avoided war, but can there be a Third Way in the War on Terror?

This interview on All Things Considered with Siddharth Varadarajan is worth a listen, and this interview with Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the Inter-Services Intelligence, in Der Spiegel.


Filed under: main — Tags: , , , — Shekhar @ 7 January 2009 4.46 pm

The Story of Whose India?

I just finished watching the first episode of The Story of India on PBS. To see the Aryan invasion theory rehashed so completely is quite shocking on public television. Who is this so-called historian Michael Wood and hasn’t he read Romila Thapar? The show would be infuriating if he weren’t so culturally confused. Check the bit with him drinking the Aryan alpha brew of soma (actually mahua) in a Peshawar bazaar.


Filed under: main — Tags: — Shekhar @ 5 January 2009 8.24 pm

Stirring the Pot in Kashmir

Ahmed Rashid is stirring the pot in his interview on NPR All Things Considered yesterday.

While there is no doubt that Kashmir is in flames, the theory of “strategic depth”, explaining Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan and Kashmir through Islamist proxies such as the Taliban and Kashmiri jihad as a quest for balance against Indian dominance isn’t convincing. Pakistani foreign and military policies are not simply a negative corollary of India’s, and the notion that Pakistan is trying to compete with India for influence inside Afghanistan doesn’t explain India’s complete lack of involvement in NATO or the security situation in Afghanistan.

Rashid’s implicit plea for international involvement, just months after Kashmir has returned to perhaps its worst state in fifteen years, seems somewhat clever given his oustanding scholarship and perspective on South Asia (his Taliban remains the single most valuable book on the rise of the students). Following the cack-handed repsonse of the Indian Government to the Amarnath land dispute making a pitch for US mediation in resolving the territorial dispute between India and Pakistan couldn’t be more poorly times. As for the rumours that Obama may send Bill Clinton as special envoy, he did broker an end to the Kargil War. Whatever Indian nationalists may say, the logical outcome of becoming a nuclear state was an acceptance of international mediation when things get out of hand between India and Pakistan.

What of the Simla Agreement and the famous Indian rejection of third-party mediation? It hit the dustbin of history sometime in the late nineties when Clinton had Nawaz Sharif pull back from nuclear war with India, and Strobe Talbott and Jaswant Singh had their famous strolls in the Mughal Gardens to bring India to the high table of the great powers. After the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, not only does India get to keep its bombs, it can be assured of a pro-US tilt in any mediation, which will most likely strictly behind the scenes, protestations from the Indian Foreign Office notwithstanding.


Filed under: main — Tags: , , — Shekhar @ 22 November 2008 3.00 pm

Call for Regime Change

Arvind forwarded me this article from today’s Sunday Express in New Delhi, “Are you an American Scholar? You are not welcome in India”. It is well known in the research community here in the homeland that the Home Ministry and Intelligence Bureau (IB) in India have delayed approvals and finally rejected the proposals for research sponsored by American Institute of Indian Studies (AIIS) and Fulbright, pending for the past two years. This has caused much loss to many friends and colleagues. There is no reason anymore to make sponsored research subject to a bilateral regime, and have everything submitted to the Home Ministry and IB for approval. Apart from AIIS and Fulbright, I do not believe most other funding agencies require one to submit to the research visa regime. Nor should anyone have to in this day and age — this regime is a relic of the early sixties.

Why should scholars seek anything other than entry visas to come to do research in India? Indian law actually permits for much more academic freedom and right to access if you go through other channels such as the university system and approaching officials directly. Perhaps I am painting too rosy a picture. But I believe funding should not be connected to your nationality, whether Indian or not, and apart from these few bilateral programmes under the old visa regime, it isn’t.

One needs to remember that most of these are public documents in state institutions which are, in principle, open to all. Of course access is always negotiated. One can do much through the recommendations of high-level bureaucrats, and the good-will of your average clerk, and I know many American scholars who have learned the ways of the system and taught me very much when I met them in the field in India or on campus here in America. One the other hand, I have had severe arguments with American scholars of South Asia who have seriously contended with me that one cannot access archives and other materials without a research visa.

This is simply wrong, and the perception this generates must be condemned. These same elite institutions in the U.S. play a role in mediating access to state collections in India, and setting standards for research practice globally. Some of the most important collections for doing research on Indian history are located in the U.S. and the U.K. In most cases the fruits of our research work, while sponsored and supported by public institutions in India and the U.S., is privately published, stored and circulated in closed archives and university libraries to which the wider public in India or America has only limited access.

The scholars themselves are trapped inside this system, and gain very little from subjecting themselves to it. I have seen many dear friends and colleagues humiliated by the registrations, inspections, and process of seeking approvals to which research visa holders must undergo. It is degrading once you are in India. But these Fulbrighters were kept waiting for all this time and finally rejected! How many liberals amongst us would seriously submit such sensitive project ideas if they knew that the police intelligence is opening a file on them, which is tied to their conditions of stay in the country, and which will haunt them for the rest of their careers as scholars of South Asia, whether their nationality is Indian or American? The whole idea of dragging oneself through this bureaucratic-police state in India is absurd if it can be avoided.


Filed under: main — Tags: , — Shekhar @ 11 February 2007 10.52 am

The Urban Turn

Download The Urban Turn Transcript

http://www.heptanesia.net/documents/urban_turn.pdf

Transcript of symposium held in December 2002 with historians and sociologists Gyan Prakash, Jairus Banaji, Sujata Patel and Rajnarayan Chandavarkar organised by PUKAR (Partners for Urban Knowledge Action & Research) at the Bombay Paperie, Mumbai.


Filed under: main — Tags: , , , — Shekhar @ 25 December 2002 12.00 am

Democratic Politics and Economic Reform in India

Rob Jenkins, Democratic Politics and Economic Reforms in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

For better or for worse, in most countries of the post-Cold War world, a fairly generalised packaging of liberal-democratic state institutions and neoclassical market economics has now achieved hegemony as the prescription of the possible future. A host of international financial and trade institutions, aid agencies, global policy elites, and their state and non-state apparatuses now debate the dynamics of making “transitions” to this model, and the “reforms” necessary to “complete” this effort successfully. Neoliberal ideology constructs this as a universal and ineluctable process, eliding the complex politics of market-oriented reform by trumpeting an ideal notion of democracy, almost entirely emptied of meaning.

This recent book attempts to analyse this contingent, political dimension of the change in India’s development strategy since 1991, examining the commitment of governing elites to market reforms in a long-established democracy. Their commitment is by no means inevitable and irreversible, India’s liberalisation being undertaken in a competitive political system, where powerful interests could pose obstacles to thwart market reforms, unlike other “transitional” societies in Eastern Europe, Africa or Asia. In this, Jenkins intervenes in debates on the relationship between democracy and market liberalisation, arguing for the importance of political incentives, political institutions, and political skills.

The book is divided as follows: the first three chapters respectively introduce the book; map the history of economic reform in India — including the failed attempt by Rajiv Gandhi in the late eighties — and discuss methods and approaches to the political economy of reform. The following three chapters unfold the central themes of the argument on the political dynamics and durability of liberalisation.

Firstly, he argues for the incentives available to governing elites through new sources of profit and patronage in a scenario where state control of the economy is receding, and where they can carve out a new role for themselves in the market; additionally, the fluidity of the structure of interest groups makes it clear to politicians that resistance could be manipulated and new, pro-reform groups cultivated.

Second, the chapter on formal and informal political institutions examines Indian federalism and how the logic of reform has provided new life to state-level politics, where resistance to reforms is quarantined, while policy initiatives continue to come from New Delhi. States now compete against each other in the pursuit of more market-oriented policy measures. The salience of informal institutional mechanisms like party political arenas and networks of influence of power-brokers to the reforms process, neglected in analyses of liberalisation, is also addressed here.

Thirdly, the tactical skills of democratic politicians in managing the process of reform, obfuscating its effects, disarming its opponents and manipulating new short-term alliances to buy time for the rooting of the reform process is discussed. The final chapter contextualises India’s reform in a global context, critiques the naïve notions of democracy and good governance in development discourse, and discusses India’s institutional capacities in the wake of liberalisation.

Written at a time when these changes were being put in motion, and while in many ways outdated by the new policy initiatives since the 1999 general elections, this book retains useful insights into India’s democratic institutions and its policy apparatus. Most importantly, Jenkins highlights how liberalisation has been orchestrated by elites without much public fanfare or debate, and implemented in an ad-hoc, underhanded and opaque, but increasingly determined manner, belying the happy rhetoric of “democracy” and “civil society” in neoliberal ideology. The chapters are often plagued by heavy-handed repetition of the central thesis about the sustainability of liberalisation despite the rapid changes in governments in the past five years.

However, with its strong and representative sample data from four different states — Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Karnataka and West Bengal — this book is worthwhile reading for students of sociology, economics and politics, and development studies.

Originally published in Contemporary South Asia, vol.10, no.1, Carfax Publishing, Bradford, U.K., 2000


Filed under: main — Tags: , — Shekhar @ 13 September 2000 12.00 pm

The Worlds of Indian Industrial Labour

Jan Breman, Karin Kapadia, Jonathan Parry, eds., The Worlds of Indian Industrial Labour (Contributions to Indian Sociology, Occassional Studies 9). New Delhi and London: Sage Publications, 1999

Marking both a renewal of interest in labour studies and an important disciplinary shift, the publication of this anthology is a significant event. Introduced by Jonathan Parry, the fourteen essays by sociologists, anthropologists and historians in the volume include two “book-ends” — introductory and concluding reviews of the respective literatures on the “organised” and “informal” sectors of the industrial economy in India, both by Jan Breman. These chart the shifts in labour studies from the narrow emphasis on the tiny formal sector of the economy — about workers’ “commitment” to the industrial setting, measures of productivity, the social profile of formal sector workers, and trade union strategies — to the much larger and unwieldy “informal” sector of the economy, incredibly neglected by research scholars. While questioning this dualism in the study of economic activity in India, Breman raises questions about the formation and coherence of the working-class or proletariat as an identity and analytical category, the diversity of forms of wage labour and industrial production — from home-based to small workshops to large factories — and the multiplicity of workers’ identities in both formal and informal occupations.

The essays are as follows. Dilip Simeon offers a history of the coal industry in Jharia, South Bihar, and the changing relations of capital, labour and state in the context of working class and tribal movements. Chistropher Pinney locates a pessimistic discourse on industrial modernity as “Kaliyug” for the managers of a large plant in Nagda, Madhya Pradesh, while for the local workers — the subject of these constructions of rural rusticity and traditionalism — there is a less nostalgic feeling towards the exploitation from which the factory has liberated them. Jonathan Parry examines the Bhilai Steel Plant and takes issue with E.P. Thompson’s thesis on the transformation brought about by industrial work discipline, arguing this effaces the variability of rhythms of industrial production.

Two pieces explore memory and the construction of the past. Douglas Haynes, in a piece on the textile industries of Surat and Bhiwandi, discusses the idioms of industrial relations and their inflection by languages of morality, caste and kinship, in different ways deployed by both employers and workers to articulate contemporary concerns. Chitra Joshi, writing on the crisis-striken textile mills of Kanpur — today mostly closed — explores the narratives of industrial decline of a decimated workforce with a memory of the labour militancy in the 1930s.

Raj Chandavarkar, in a rich meditation on labour historiography — with material on the Bombay textile strikes of 1928–9 — offers a critique of mechantistic narratives of industrialisation and proletarian consciousness, and their insufficient treatment of the contingencies in the formation of class identity. Samita Sen, in a history of the Calcutta jute mill industry, foregrounds the position of women in the urban industrial workforce, documenting how their labour and lives were marginalised and domesticated by colonial capitalism and patriarchy.

Several pieces directly address the “informal” sector. One of the weaker contributions is Arjan de Haan’s piece on evolution of the badli, or substitute, labour system in the Calcutta jute industry, in which he unconvincingly argues that the badli system, labour recruitment, and migration patterns need to be seen as an aspect of workers’ agency, their “choices” and “values”, rather than as a business strategy to retain a flexible and exploited labour force. Peter Knorriga maps the unstable industrial relations in the small-scale, mostly home-based production units in the Agra footwear industry.

Karin Kapadia contests traditional arguments about class formation in her study of the synthetic diamond industry in rural Tamilnadu, arguing that workers’ identities are mediated, and the “flexibility” of the globalising labour market maintained, through gender discourses and practices. Miranda Engelshoven analyses the formation of the urban Saurashtra Patel community through the the production relations of the diamond industry in Surat, and discusses obstacles to workers’ organisation. Geert de Neve analyses the practice of tying labour to maintain a stable workforce in powerloom industry in Tamil Nadu, and how what was once an employers’ strategy of bondage has become a reciprocal relation for workers in search of a better livelihood.

The revival of interest in labour studies in India — distinct from the post-Independence intellectual and policy interest in labour — comes both at a time when the foundational categories of the disciplines concerned with the study of labour are being contested, as well as in a political conjuncture when working-class radicalism is at a low ebb and capital at its most expansive. The contributions to this exceptional volume confront the conceptual challenges faced in the study of the historical and contemporary working landscape in India, and offer exciting new possibilities for research by all social scientists.

Originally published in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, London, Fall 2001.


Filed under: main — Tags: , , , — Shekhar @ 30 June 2000 12.00 pm

The Metaphor of Middle-Class Scorn

In his first few years occupying the Chief Minister’s chair in Bihar, Laloo Prasad Yadav was found of recalling that, in his father’s village, the local upper-caste leaders would sit in similar thrones, and his father could not dare to come near the Brahmins and sit on a chair like them. That would have signified equality. His father and other backward and lower castes had to approach their caste superiors as humble supplicants, their faces averted and backs hunched, and sit at the feet of the lordly Brahmins.

Laloo’s claim to power, he seemed to be saying, was not just based on the boring details of parliamentary procedure such as the number of votes he or his allies polled. Rather, he incarnated the inversion of the brutal caste and feudal hierarchies of agrarian society, the awakening of the wretched of the earth. His rustic idiom of political expression, the discourse of the masses, was the only language he knew how to speak, and one that he took to the heights of the state, whose all-important symbol was the gaddi of power.

The Symbols and Substance of Power

What he did with this power is another story, one that we all are familiar with. As with the recent Assembly election, the middle-class is always ready to write off Laloo as more symbolism than substance. Our media never tires of representing him and his followers as corrupt and glowering peasants drunk on a power they for some reason seem not to deserve, considering Bihar’s present ills — the massive scandals, caste and class warfare, criminalisation and administrative collapse that have become synonymous with Yadav raj. When several years ago Laloo was hauled off to jail on corruption charges, his wife became an object of similar scorn. She was condescendingly portrayed as a hoodwinked pativratta, running the state from her kitchen, with too many children than is considered decent.

Why this particular hatred and fascination with Laloo, when there are thousands of other equally loud-mouthed and corrupt politicians who are deserving of similar derision? Laloo first came to power standing defiantly alongside his former colleagues in the Janata Dal, all of whom had risen simultaneously with the new politics of lower caste and lower class empowerment, in the legacy of Jayaprakash Narayan’s social justice movement and V.P. Singh’s implementation of the Mandal Commission reservations. While early in his reign, Laloo provided housing to the masses and made other pro-poor overtures, most importantly through his example showed them that the could control their own destinies.

Democracy and Insubordination

His irreverance is legendary — planting vegetables and grazing cattle in the prim gardens of the Chief  Minister’s official residence, or chomping a huge paan and regally spitting while conducting interviews with posh journalists from Delhi. A new type of politician of the television age, Laloo craved such opportunities, the chance to caricature himself for the camera, as the unreconstructed Other of the mannered and educated classes, the veritable metaphor of Underdevelopment — the oily and uneducated peasant whose spittle just stained your finely starched kurta.

While the middle-class elites would turn away in disgust and fear of this jungli, it is mistaken to see these performances as signs of a villager who could not forget his backward ways — it was a clear message to the poor that their way of life was as powerful and meaningful as that of the elites.

Laloo always knew that he was both the object of fascination of the better-off — because the Other always conceals the repressed desires and anxieties of the Self — as well as their worst nightmare, because his antics reminded the middle-classes of their irrelevance in a democracy where only numbers count, and even the media can’t hide that depressing fact. If Bihar is, according to the recent NDA slogans, a jungle raj, then Laloo styled himself the jungle ka sher.

Jab tak samose mein aloo rahega, tab tak Bihar mein Laloo rahega

It remains to be seen whether Laloo’s brand of insubordination will ever bring a real change to the lives of the poor. It seems not. But last week, Laloo’s staying power was again roundly underestimated by every political formation in the country.

While unlike the aloo in our samosa, one day Laloo might himself go, he and his ilk have had a permanent effect on our democracy, a change that it would be foolish to ignore. Political and social institutions are never neutral. For the powerless, the state is synonymous with the dominance of certain castes and classes whose hegemony are made to seem permanent. When the hierarchies on which this control of institutions are themselves swept away through the logic of popular democracy, their institutions might similarly be shattered. In regions like East UP and Bihar the social order, based on the brutalities of poverty, casteism and landlordism, is being overturned with an equal amount of ferocity and violence, and not a little showmanship.
Originally published in Satyam Online.


Filed under: journalism — Tags: , , — Shekhar @ 1 March 2000 12.00 pm
Older Posts »