No Subject

[owner-india_policy@cinenet.net]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send mail to: 					    india_policy@cine.net
Rules of posting and administrative:	www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender: owner-india_policy@cinenet.net
Precedence: bulk

Sub: Pre-debate: Surprising arguments!

Dear friends,

One of my colleagues sent me this write-up which I think is very important
to read and to try to understand. I am endorsing a copy of this mail to
the writer of this piece, who is a Prof. in the state of New York, with a
request to him to please subscribe to India_Policy so that we can debate
with him his ideas. In particular, I would like to discuss a bunch of
things here with him if he joins. 

Notice the argument, for example, that the "fact" that we do not need
western technology is demonstrated by the fact that we exploded some
nuclear bombs: who discovered the atom, who split the atom: was that an
Indian?  

a) Technology is neither western nor eastern: when India was at the
cutting edge of technology (recall the unrusted pillar at Kutub Minar),
technology was "Eastern technology." Technology is nothing but a corollary
of the laws of nature. We need the latest and best technology -
irrespective of its source. Let us not get involved in jingoism when it
comes to science and technology. 

b) The Ghost of Macaulay is being needlessly rejuvenated, I think. India
in 2000 cannot look back at what one person said hundreds of years ago. 
Today when I think, it is from my own - very much Indian - mind, and we
need to look around us with open eyes, look at facts and figures, and make
judgements of what is good or bad for us, irrespective of what Macaulay or
whoever said. Much water has flown in the past. 

The goal has to be to become the richest nation on earth in per capita
income. I don't see any signs of that in this argument. Only a deep
'inward-looking' behavior talking of 'relational wealth' (a concept of
Richard Easterlin, by the way, and who is at pains to show that India has
the potential to catch up with the West if it sets itself on the task with
determination). We don't want nor care for relational wealth. We want
absolute wealth and power. Let us all agree on such fundamental concepts
first and then decide to do whatever it takes to reach that place.

I think this write up is important because is shows some of the "other" 
kind of thinking (apart from strong socialistic thinking) in India today
that needs to be challenged and debated.

SS


>Date:         Wed, 8 Jul 1998 11:32:46 -0300
>Reply-To: Romesh Diwan <diwanr@RPI.EDU>
>Sender: The Other Economic Summit USA 1997 <TOES97@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>From: Romesh Diwan <diwanr@RPI.EDU>
>Subject:      Counsel to revolt:
>To: TOES97@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Dear friends,
>    Many thanks for carrying on a very thoughtful debate based on the good idea
>of caring for those who are less fortunate. There are a few other issues that
>need to be taken into consideration.
>
>    It is good to define our terms. Let us take the term "poor." No doubt there
>are people in countries in Africa, Asia and even US who suffer from all
types of
>privations. On the other hand, not all who are statistically or otherwise
>defined "poor"or "uneducated," are really so. Looking back on my own life,
I, my
>family and community would have been defined poor by any statistical measure.
>Yet we never thought ourselves poor. In fact, as I have explained elsewhere, we
>had so much "relational wealth" that it compensated for the lack of "material
>wealth" in many situations. We were "materially poor" but didn't need any help
>or support from outside because we never thought it necessary, desirable or
>useful.
>
>    There is a thus a prior issue: How do we define poverty? For a minimal
level
>of "material wealth" or of "relational wealth."By the criteria of relational
>wealth, most of us, materially well off in the US and other so called rich
>countries are poor. The next issue is: who are these "poor"? the people in
>Africa, India or those in the US? The first issue then is who are these
>suffering people? what are they suffering from?  who can help? and   whom
can we
>help?
>
>    Like good neo classical economics, the debate so far is based on two
>untestified assumptions: (i) there are self-explanatory poor people in Africa,
>Asia, countries which the Western intellectuals have been naming, over a long
>period of time, as "developing." That naming itself is a part of half truth;
>propaganda in Jaques Ellul's language from the classical book, "Propaganda."
>This itself needs to be examined. (ii) We can help. In other words, we know the
>problem, have the resources and wisdom to do so. Susan is rightly questioning
>this assumption. What I am suggesting is to question the first assumption as
>well. There is a third unwritten assumption, namely, that these poor are
>suffering from the same problem. Perhaps there are different classes of poor
>people and they suffer from different types of deprivations.
>
>    Having identified the group that needs help, we need to identify what sort
>of help is desired? Coming back to my life and community in early forties and
>fifties, we did need help. We were exploited, abused, and mistreated by the
>ruling colonial British. For example, in Simla, a hill town, it was written on
>the Mall; "Dogs and Indians not allowed here." In other words, we needed to
gain
>independence from the British colonial rulers. The violence these rulers
>inflicted on our people was immense. Let me give an example. In my book,
>"Productivty and Technical Change in Foodgrains" we listed all the famines
>caused by the British rule. This is well documented in Economic History of
>India, 2 Volumes by Ramesh Dutt, Oxford University Press. 1909.  Total deaths
>due to famines, alone, come to 100 MILLION;i.e. ONE MILLION PER YEAR FOR 100
>YEARS. This is a conservative estimate. Please, try to imagine the impact. I am
>afraid, in those days very few friends like TOES members could have been
>helpful; because it is no more a matter of advice. It is a matter of fight;
with
>the government at home. Today Chaippas is in this situation. Subcommandante
>Marcos doesn't need advice, their community needs support that can stop the
>rapes, the killings, etc.
>
>    This fact brings in another issue/assumption in the debate. Poverty,
>suffering, injustice, etc. has been separated from power relations. Poor are
>also powerless; their power has been taken away. There are two sources of
power.
>One, capacity to use force and violence. That is what is happening in Chiappas,
>and many other communites some of which have not made the news, today. Not only
>those in power have the capacity to inflict injury through violent instruments,
>the powerful are also insensitive enough to be able to do so. Two, capacity to
>tell lies and the propaganda machine to perpetuate those lies Over a period of
>time these lies create and perpetuate a class of vsted  elite, who keep on
>maintining these lies because their privilege depends on these lies.
>
>     Let me address this with the present situation in India where the ruling
>elite, highly sophisticated and certified, are part of the exploitative
>appratus. In India I call this group, RNI, which stands for Resident Non
>Indians. These elites reside in India but  are Non Indians fully engaged in
>exploiting majority Indians for a small "commission." In a recent piece, I have
>explained them as Macaulyites. ["Nuclear Explosion and Its Swadeshi Fall Out" -
>it is published in three magazines - Economic and Political Weekly, May 30 -
>June 5, 1998, BJP Today, May 16 - June 15, 1998, and Facts For You, June
1998] A
>short quote provides some explanation.
>
>    "India's basic problem is the Macaulyite elite that has ruled it till 1998.
>To understand Macaulyites let's go back to 1835 when Mr. Macaulay, a Member of
>the Council of India wrote a Minute [reproduced in Ansar Hussain Khan's The
>Rediscovery of India, 1995.p.326]. to transform India's educational base. There
>were two objectives of this educational policy: (a) to create a class of
>SUBSERVIENT Indians to "be interpreters between us and the millions whom we
>govern." Subservience required that these Indians fully accept British [ now
>Western ] interests as legitimate  and supreme to which Indian interests
have to
>be subjugated.(b) These subservient Indians  form "a class of persons, Indians
>in blood and colour, but English [now Western] in taste, in opinions, in
morals,
>and in intellect." They are thus fully ALIENATED from their own, specially
>Hindu, culture. The combination of "Servitude" and "alienation" produces a
>highly disturbing and destructive insecurity. It ensured that this class did
>Westerner's dirty work of legitimizing their interests by delegitimizing
>nationalist and cultural aspirations of the majority in return for a few crumbs
>of economic and security advantages. Even though the British had to quit, the
>Macaulyites have survived; in fact prospered. Nehru was a Macaulyite par
>excellent. He helped their cause masterfully by setting up institutions that
>promote this "subservient and alienated" class. Its members now hold positions
>of power in every walk of life. Rajiv Gandhi, P. Narasimha Rao and Inder Gujral
>also represented and served this class well. Because they have subjugated
>India's interests, India has gone down, while this class has prospered,
>splendidly.
>    Having myself acquired such education, I caught the Macaulyite disease from
>which I am just recovering. It has taken me 30 years to recognize the arrogance
>and ignorance of named professors in prestigious universities compared to the
>wisdom of my uncertified mother and grandmother. I therefore well
understand why
>English educated Indians pooh-pooh nationalism and denounce Hinduism. Even
today
>...terms "Hindu" and "nationalist" are used pejoratively so that it's easy to
>sell India cheap; so well articulated in Chitra Subramanian's India is for
Sale.
>    The Macaulyites have used two subterfuges to keep India weak and dependent
>as well as conceal their "servitude and alienation." Following British
>colonists, they have been dividing Indian society by playing on caste or
>minority differences and denunciation of Hinduism. In this subservient and anti
>Hindu elite culture, denouncing Hinduism is highly profitable. One can find
>evidence everywhere. Few example should suffice. (i)  Mr. M. F. Hussain has
made
>it an art form to earn money by denigrating Hindu Goddesses; the Macaulyite
>elite pay fancy price for these abhorrent paintings because they denounce
>Hinduism; well articulated by Sandhya Jain ["Sita is the Center of
>Consciousness" The Pioneer, May 14, 1998]. (ii) Any uninformed and ignorant
>correspondent, such as Peter Popham of the The Independent can insult Hinduism
>and gain editor's respect. M.V. Kamath ["Slandering Religion" Mid Day, May 21,
>1998] is rightly concerned at such audacity, arrogance, ignorance and
stupidity.
>It is, therefore, not surprising that massacres of Hindus in Kashmir don't make
>headlines. (iii) The writers regularly use, even today, the adjective "Hindu
>nationalist" for BJP alone; aren't the members of Congress and UF Hindu or
>nationalist? Can they use adjectives such as "corrupt congress" or "criminal
>communists?" Why not? Even Indian writers at AP and Reuters use anti Hindu and
>nationalist adjectives. Not only that, they also add distorted historical
events
>to prejudice readers against Hindu and nationalist issues. Imagine, these
AP and
>Reuters writers stating every time they refer to the U.S that it committed
>genocide against American Indians, treated blacks as slaves and dropped atomic
>bombs in Japan. Can these writers use such pejorative language for a major
party
>in a free democratic country like, France, Great Britain, Germany, or U.S A.?
>They will be summarily dismissed for bias, inaccurate write ups and
>incompetence. In Macaulyite controlled Indian media they prosper. (iv) For an
>example of subservience, watch the obeisance the so-called educated and
>political leaders pay to Sonia Gandhi.
>    Macaulyite elite have maintained India's colonized status by underscoring
>its weaknesses and attributing it to nationalism and Hindu past; never
>mentioning the intervening period of 1,000 years of exploitation. Because of
>their servitude every thing desirable is videshi[foreign] and due to their
>alienation, there is nothing valuable in swadeshi. They have achieved this by
>promoting two major myths: India needs "superior" Western (a) technology, and
>(b) economic institutions because it can't produce it. Given these myths, their
>role becomes important, as in the colonial days; and they get the crumbs.The
>explosion of nuclear devices has debunked both these myths"
>
>    In the last analysis, the major source of exploitation lies deeply into the
>ideology of science, tehcnology and consumerism  which provide the intellectual
>and propagandist base for poverty and suffering generating policies that these
>elites follow. Globalization makes these policies all the more onerous.
>
>    This is too large a topic and there are still many more issues that need be
>addressed. However, this communication is getting already long and it is useful
>to stop here. Hopefully, it provides some additional dimensions. Incidenally,
>there is a very good book, How Can I Help? by Ram Dass which is worth looking
>in.
>
>    With regards. romesh
>
>
>Romesh Diwan, Professor of Economics
>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180
>diwanr@rpi.edu
>
>