Monday, May 23, 2011
Kicking Away the Ladder
How did the rich countries really become rich? In this provocative study, Ha-Joon Chang examines the great pressure on developing countries from the developed world to adopt certain ‘good policies’ and ‘good institutions’, seen today as necessary for economic development. Adopting a historical approach, Dr Chang finds that the economic evolution of now-developed countries differed dramatically from the procedures that they now recommend to poorer nations. His conclusions are compelling and disturbing: that developed countries are attempting to ‘kick away the ladder’ with which they have climbed to the top, thereby preventing developing counties from adopting policies and institutions that they themselves have used.
Poverty, participation and Democracy
Poverty, Participation, and Democracy, which grew out of a workshop organized atDukeUniversity in 2006, brings together six brilliant papers by renowned scholars from different disciplines. The central question addressed here is, what is the relationship between poverty and democracy? The classic studies on democracy by S.M. Lipset, Barrington Moore and Samuel Huntington have all shown that there exists a negative correlation between poverty and the development of democracy. Their works also suggest that “the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy”. However, by building on historical experiences and examples from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the authors of this volume argue that “poor people do not value democracy any less than their richer counterparts” (p.9). Their observations show that it is the educational level of people, rather than wealth and income that provide a positive correlation with the emergence and consolidation of democratic political regimes.
This book has six chapters. The introductory essay byKrishnasets the context for the book and outlines its main arguments. He provides empirical evidence that challenges the conventional wisdom, which advocates that “democracy tends to be stronger in richer rather than poorer countries” (p.7) and poor people participate much less than others in various democratic activities. The Indian case provides a fitting example where the poor participate more intensely than the rich in the electoral democratic process; democracy has not only survived inIndiabut also has become sturdier over the last six decades amid unfavorable conditions like high levels of poverty and illiteracy.
Increasing participation by the poor in the democratic process is also shown to have occurred in Africa and Latin America. Bratton as well as Booth and Seligson find that the major cause for this is the increase in education and political awareness among the people. Przeworski argues that it is not the poor but the rich and their fear for “redistribution” that threatens the viability of democracy. In order for democracy to become more firmly consolidated within the poorer countries, Krishna and Booth argue in the concluding chapter that middle-level “institution building” should be encouraged as they will not just provide viable means of representation for the poor but also will make the “everyday practices of governance” accountable and transparent (p.152).
The book suffers from three shortcomings. First, building institutions does not always strengthen democracy since institutions do not have, as Hadiz (2010) notes, “a life of their own that is independent of context”. They could be dominated by predatory interests that might undermine democratic governance. Secondly, there is no discussion on globalization, which is intimately related to poverty and democracy. Finally, the chapters look repetitive as they all use Lipset’s work as the basis of their discussion. Despite this, the volume’s methodological sophistication and theoretically insightful essays will be a significant contribution to the students of political sociology and comparative politics.
Note: Reviewed by Sahoo. S. (2011) in Political Studies Review, Vol. 9, pp. 258-259.
This book has six chapters. The introductory essay byKrishnasets the context for the book and outlines its main arguments. He provides empirical evidence that challenges the conventional wisdom, which advocates that “democracy tends to be stronger in richer rather than poorer countries” (p.7) and poor people participate much less than others in various democratic activities. The Indian case provides a fitting example where the poor participate more intensely than the rich in the electoral democratic process; democracy has not only survived inIndiabut also has become sturdier over the last six decades amid unfavorable conditions like high levels of poverty and illiteracy.
Increasing participation by the poor in the democratic process is also shown to have occurred in Africa and Latin America. Bratton as well as Booth and Seligson find that the major cause for this is the increase in education and political awareness among the people. Przeworski argues that it is not the poor but the rich and their fear for “redistribution” that threatens the viability of democracy. In order for democracy to become more firmly consolidated within the poorer countries, Krishna and Booth argue in the concluding chapter that middle-level “institution building” should be encouraged as they will not just provide viable means of representation for the poor but also will make the “everyday practices of governance” accountable and transparent (p.152).
The book suffers from three shortcomings. First, building institutions does not always strengthen democracy since institutions do not have, as Hadiz (2010) notes, “a life of their own that is independent of context”. They could be dominated by predatory interests that might undermine democratic governance. Secondly, there is no discussion on globalization, which is intimately related to poverty and democracy. Finally, the chapters look repetitive as they all use Lipset’s work as the basis of their discussion. Despite this, the volume’s methodological sophistication and theoretically insightful essays will be a significant contribution to the students of political sociology and comparative politics.
Note: Reviewed by Sahoo. S. (2011) in Political Studies Review, Vol. 9, pp. 258-259.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
The Political Economy of Poverty
Recording the past can be a tricky business for historians. Prophesying the future is even more hazardous. In 1901, shortly before the death of Queen Victoria, the radical writer William Digby looked back to the 1876 Madras famine and confidently asserted: “When the part played by the British Empire in the 19th century is regarded by the historian 50 years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monument.” Who now remembers the Madrasis?
In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis charts the unprecedented human suffering caused by a series of extreme climactic conditions in the final quarter of the 19th century. Drought and monsoons afflicted much of China, southern Africa, Brazil, Egypt and India. The death tolls were staggering: around 12m Chinese and over 6m Indians in 1876-1878 alone. The chief culprit, according to Davis, was not the weather, but European empires, with Japan and the US. Their imposition of free-market economics on the colonial world was tantamount to a “cultural genocide”.
These are strong words. Yet it’s hard to disagree with them after reading Davis’s harrowing book. Development economists have long argued that drought need not lead to famine; well-stocked inventories and effective distribution can limit the damage. In the 19th century, however, drought was treated, particularly by the English in India, as an opportunity for reasserting sovereignty.
A particular villain was Lord Lytton, son of the Victorian novelist Edward Bulwer-Lytton (“It was a dark and stormy night…”) after whom, today, a well-known bad writing prize is named. During 1876 Lytton, widely suspected to be insane, ignored all efforts to alleviate the suffering of millions of peasants in the Madras region and concentrated on preparing for Queen Victoria’s investiture as Empress of India. The highlight of the celebrations was a week-long feast of lucullan excess at which 68,000 dignitaries heard her promise the nation “happiness, prosperity and welfare”.
Lytton believed in free trade. He did nothing to check the huge hikes in grain prices, Economic “modernization” led household and village reserves to be transferred to central depots using recently built railroads. Much was exported to England, where there had been poor harvests. Telegraph technology allowed prices to be centrally co-ordinated and, inevitably, raised in thousands of small towns. Relief funds were scanty because Lytton was eager to finance military campaigns in Afghanistan. Conditions in emergency camps were so terrible that some peasants preferred to go to jail. A few, starved and senseless, resorted to cannibalism. This was all of little consequence to many English administrators who, as believers in Malthusianism, thought that famine was nature’s response to Indian over-breeding.
It used to be that the late 19th century was celebrated in every school as the golden period of imperialism. While few of us today would defend empire in moral terms, we’ve long been encouraged to acknowledge its economic benefits. Yet, as Davis points out, “there was no increase in India’s per capita income from 1757 to 1947″. In Egypt, too, the financial difficulties caused to peasants by famine encouraged European creditors to override the millennia-old tradition that tenancy was guaranteed for life. What little relief aid reached Brazil, meanwhile, ended up profiting British merchant houses and the reactionary sugar-planter classes.
The European “locusts” did not go unchallenged. Rioting became common. Banditry increased. In China, drought-famine helped to spark the Boxer uprising. In Europe, the fin de siècle was largely an opportunity for pale-faced men to wear purple cummerbunds and spout rotten symbolist poetry; for colonized peoples it genuinely seemed to presage mass extinction. It was, says Davis, “a new dark age of colonial war, indentured labour, concentration camps, genocide, forced migration, famine and disease.”
Davis’s attention to the importance of environment may recall the work of the Annales school of historians, but he is far more radical than any of them. His writing, both here and in such classic books as City of Quartz and Ecology of Fear, is closer to that of Latin American intellectuals such as Ariel Dorfman and the Urguayan, Eduardo Galaeno, who for decades have spotlighted capitalism’s casual abuse of the third world and who have sought to champion the poor and dispossessed. Such commitment, forcefully and lucidly expressed, is unfashionable these days.
“Class” may be passé in academic circles, yet the catalogue of cruelty Davis has unearthed is jaw-dropping. A friend to whom I lent the book was reduced to tears by it. Late Victorian Holocausts is as ugly as it is compelling. But, as Conrad’s Marlow said in Heart of Darkness : “The conquest of the earth, which means the taking away from those who have a different complexion and slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much.”
_______________
@ Sukhdev Sandhu, The Guardian, Saturday 20 January 2001
In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis charts the unprecedented human suffering caused by a series of extreme climactic conditions in the final quarter of the 19th century. Drought and monsoons afflicted much of China, southern Africa, Brazil, Egypt and India. The death tolls were staggering: around 12m Chinese and over 6m Indians in 1876-1878 alone. The chief culprit, according to Davis, was not the weather, but European empires, with Japan and the US. Their imposition of free-market economics on the colonial world was tantamount to a “cultural genocide”.
These are strong words. Yet it’s hard to disagree with them after reading Davis’s harrowing book. Development economists have long argued that drought need not lead to famine; well-stocked inventories and effective distribution can limit the damage. In the 19th century, however, drought was treated, particularly by the English in India, as an opportunity for reasserting sovereignty.
A particular villain was Lord Lytton, son of the Victorian novelist Edward Bulwer-Lytton (“It was a dark and stormy night…”) after whom, today, a well-known bad writing prize is named. During 1876 Lytton, widely suspected to be insane, ignored all efforts to alleviate the suffering of millions of peasants in the Madras region and concentrated on preparing for Queen Victoria’s investiture as Empress of India. The highlight of the celebrations was a week-long feast of lucullan excess at which 68,000 dignitaries heard her promise the nation “happiness, prosperity and welfare”.
Lytton believed in free trade. He did nothing to check the huge hikes in grain prices, Economic “modernization” led household and village reserves to be transferred to central depots using recently built railroads. Much was exported to England, where there had been poor harvests. Telegraph technology allowed prices to be centrally co-ordinated and, inevitably, raised in thousands of small towns. Relief funds were scanty because Lytton was eager to finance military campaigns in Afghanistan. Conditions in emergency camps were so terrible that some peasants preferred to go to jail. A few, starved and senseless, resorted to cannibalism. This was all of little consequence to many English administrators who, as believers in Malthusianism, thought that famine was nature’s response to Indian over-breeding.
It used to be that the late 19th century was celebrated in every school as the golden period of imperialism. While few of us today would defend empire in moral terms, we’ve long been encouraged to acknowledge its economic benefits. Yet, as Davis points out, “there was no increase in India’s per capita income from 1757 to 1947″. In Egypt, too, the financial difficulties caused to peasants by famine encouraged European creditors to override the millennia-old tradition that tenancy was guaranteed for life. What little relief aid reached Brazil, meanwhile, ended up profiting British merchant houses and the reactionary sugar-planter classes.
The European “locusts” did not go unchallenged. Rioting became common. Banditry increased. In China, drought-famine helped to spark the Boxer uprising. In Europe, the fin de siècle was largely an opportunity for pale-faced men to wear purple cummerbunds and spout rotten symbolist poetry; for colonized peoples it genuinely seemed to presage mass extinction. It was, says Davis, “a new dark age of colonial war, indentured labour, concentration camps, genocide, forced migration, famine and disease.”
Davis’s attention to the importance of environment may recall the work of the Annales school of historians, but he is far more radical than any of them. His writing, both here and in such classic books as City of Quartz and Ecology of Fear, is closer to that of Latin American intellectuals such as Ariel Dorfman and the Urguayan, Eduardo Galaeno, who for decades have spotlighted capitalism’s casual abuse of the third world and who have sought to champion the poor and dispossessed. Such commitment, forcefully and lucidly expressed, is unfashionable these days.
“Class” may be passé in academic circles, yet the catalogue of cruelty Davis has unearthed is jaw-dropping. A friend to whom I lent the book was reduced to tears by it. Late Victorian Holocausts is as ugly as it is compelling. But, as Conrad’s Marlow said in Heart of Darkness : “The conquest of the earth, which means the taking away from those who have a different complexion and slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much.”
_______________
@ Sukhdev Sandhu, The Guardian, Saturday 20 January 2001
Friday, August 13, 2010
Friday, November 06, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
To Michael Jackson
I grew up in a small village in Orissa where there was no electricity until 1996. I had no exposure to the modern world of music and entertainment. The only instrument of my childhood entertainment was a small radio that my father got as a part of his wedding gift from his parents-in-laws. I tried my best not to miss the bollywood music programme - Keo Karpin - telecasted in Vividh Bharti every Sunday at 12 or 12.30 noon. I love listening to music but very bad in remembering them, even till now.
Watching bollywood movies was also very rare. The news about free movie shows in nearby villages usually did not take much time to reach us. It is spread to others during our football practice in the evening. After the game is over, we used to gather to make the plans on where to meet and what time. Lest we might fall asleep during the movie show, we used carry sleep preventive mechanisms like sensors and Amrutanjan with us. Since free movie shows were very iregular and gave us rare opportunity to acquaint ourselves with bollywood, we could not afford to fall asleep.
That was the time when Amitabh Bachan and Mithun Chakrabarty were dominating the film industry. Mithun was the favourite for his dance in "I am a Disco Dancer". I loved his dance and also picked up few of his steps. I remember dancing infront of friends, and sometimes secretly by putting on my father's trouser and shirt. My passion for dance has always remained a secret affair. It has never found overt expression because of my shy individuality.
Last year while in Denmark, I went to a weekend party in Roskilde University with friends. We drank, danced, and enjoyed the music. Our group was the one which stayed till the end. One of the students who was the host of the party walked up to me and called me Michael Jackson. I was bit embarassed, but felt happy. As I told, my exposure was very limited. I hardly/never listened to Michael Jackson's musics or watched him dance. But last week, I don't know why but I spent one full day watching his videos and listening to his songs. I liked his "Thriller", "Smooth Criminal", "Dangerous", and several others.
Now Michael Jackson is dead. He is no longer there. Its very sad. Many of the bollywood actors have been influenced by his dance and music. Mithun Chakrabarty admitted that Michael Jackson was like a God to him. The few steps I learnt in my childhood were somhow indirectly influenced by Michael Jackson. I will remember him through my Denmark Experiecne. This is thus dedicated to Michael Jackson.
Watching bollywood movies was also very rare. The news about free movie shows in nearby villages usually did not take much time to reach us. It is spread to others during our football practice in the evening. After the game is over, we used to gather to make the plans on where to meet and what time. Lest we might fall asleep during the movie show, we used carry sleep preventive mechanisms like sensors and Amrutanjan with us. Since free movie shows were very iregular and gave us rare opportunity to acquaint ourselves with bollywood, we could not afford to fall asleep.
That was the time when Amitabh Bachan and Mithun Chakrabarty were dominating the film industry. Mithun was the favourite for his dance in "I am a Disco Dancer". I loved his dance and also picked up few of his steps. I remember dancing infront of friends, and sometimes secretly by putting on my father's trouser and shirt. My passion for dance has always remained a secret affair. It has never found overt expression because of my shy individuality.
Last year while in Denmark, I went to a weekend party in Roskilde University with friends. We drank, danced, and enjoyed the music. Our group was the one which stayed till the end. One of the students who was the host of the party walked up to me and called me Michael Jackson. I was bit embarassed, but felt happy. As I told, my exposure was very limited. I hardly/never listened to Michael Jackson's musics or watched him dance. But last week, I don't know why but I spent one full day watching his videos and listening to his songs. I liked his "Thriller", "Smooth Criminal", "Dangerous", and several others.
Now Michael Jackson is dead. He is no longer there. Its very sad. Many of the bollywood actors have been influenced by his dance and music. Mithun Chakrabarty admitted that Michael Jackson was like a God to him. The few steps I learnt in my childhood were somhow indirectly influenced by Michael Jackson. I will remember him through my Denmark Experiecne. This is thus dedicated to Michael Jackson.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Individualism – Man’s Right to Exist for his Own Sake
Has man any right to exist if he refuses to serve society?
Thousands of years ago the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake, he taught his brothers to light. But he left them a gift they had not conceived. And he lifted darkness off the earth. Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators, the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid, but they won. No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered. His truth was his only motive. His work is his only goal. His work, not those who used it; his creation, not the benefits others derived from it; the creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself, and only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
Man cannot survive, except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon, but the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice. The creator stands on his own judgment. The parasite follows the opinions of others. The creator thinks; the parasite copies. The creator produces; the parasite loots. The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasites concern is the conquest of men. The creator requires independence. He neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice. The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery. He claims that man is only a tool for the use of others that he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own.
Look at history! Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots without personal rights, without personal ambition, without hope, or dignity. It is an ancient conflict. It has another name – the individual against the collective. Our country, the noblest country in the history of men was based on the principles of individualism – the principle of man’s inalienable rights. It was country where a man was free to seek his own happiness. To gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold his highest possession, a sense of his personal value and as his highest virtue his self-respect. Look at the results! That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy as much as the earth has been destroyed.
I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me. It was believed that my work belonged to others to do with as they pleased. They had a claim upon me without my consent that it was my duty to serve them without choice or reward. Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt. I designed Cortlandt, I made it possible, I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of seeing it built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return. I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine, no matter who makes the claim. It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard in the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others. My terms are a man’s right to exist for his own sake.
_______________
@This is translated from the video clip "Fountain Head".
Thousands of years ago the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake, he taught his brothers to light. But he left them a gift they had not conceived. And he lifted darkness off the earth. Throughout the centuries, there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. The great creators, the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed; every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid, but they won. No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered. His truth was his only motive. His work is his only goal. His work, not those who used it; his creation, not the benefits others derived from it; the creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not, with his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself, and only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
Man cannot survive, except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon, but the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice. The creator stands on his own judgment. The parasite follows the opinions of others. The creator thinks; the parasite copies. The creator produces; the parasite loots. The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasites concern is the conquest of men. The creator requires independence. He neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice. The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery. He claims that man is only a tool for the use of others that he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own.
Look at history! Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots without personal rights, without personal ambition, without hope, or dignity. It is an ancient conflict. It has another name – the individual against the collective. Our country, the noblest country in the history of men was based on the principles of individualism – the principle of man’s inalienable rights. It was country where a man was free to seek his own happiness. To gain and produce, not to give up and renounce; to prosper, not to starve; to achieve, not to plunder; to hold his highest possession, a sense of his personal value and as his highest virtue his self-respect. Look at the results! That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy as much as the earth has been destroyed.
I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me. It was believed that my work belonged to others to do with as they pleased. They had a claim upon me without my consent that it was my duty to serve them without choice or reward. Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt. I designed Cortlandt, I made it possible, I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of seeing it built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid. My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return. I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine, no matter who makes the claim. It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard in the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others. My terms are a man’s right to exist for his own sake.
_______________
@This is translated from the video clip "Fountain Head".
Monday, September 08, 2008
Fear !!
Aj
Ye shahr ik sahme hue bachche ki taraah
Apni parchhaai se bhi darta hai
Jantari dekho
Mujhe lagta hai
Aaj tyohaar koi hai shaayad
Today
This city, like a frightened child
Fears its own shadow
Check the calendar
I have a feeling
That today might be the day of a festival
– Javed Akhtar
_________________
Circulated through the South Asia Contact Group on 8 September 2008
Ye shahr ik sahme hue bachche ki taraah
Apni parchhaai se bhi darta hai
Jantari dekho
Mujhe lagta hai
Aaj tyohaar koi hai shaayad
Today
This city, like a frightened child
Fears its own shadow
Check the calendar
I have a feeling
That today might be the day of a festival
– Javed Akhtar
_________________
Circulated through the South Asia Contact Group on 8 September 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Patriots of Singapore !!
Celebrating the National Day!!! August 9 was the National Day. Torsten was the Guest of Honour and the Guest Speaker was Nicolas Sim Hee Juat. The audiences had to bear all his bullshit because he always likes to pull my leg. He came up with all his long treausred stories about me – which girls I like, how have I failed with all my efforts in finding a “LIFE”. We had a wonderful dinner at Annalaxmi and then headed for drinks in Iguana at Clark Quay. The Red Straberry Martinis on the table, you can see. My meeting with Torsten after more than a year was interesting. I was thinking that he will be addressing me the same way his cousin (Charanpal Singh Bal) usually does. My guess was right – he called me SAHUKAR at the very first moment he saw me at the restaurant. A drink at Iguana was really nice because of the river-side ambiance, although was bit crowded. However, I enjoyed and had a good time with the patriots of Singapore.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Find a Life and You will Find a Love?
Sam de Brito's new book Building a Better Bloke provides some tips for men how to build self-esteem and a life for themselves. He believes that building a life will in turn attract women. This book deals with an aspect of the male weakness – although men appear to be bold and confident, a lot of them are actually not. Many of them also indulge in drunken behaviour. The biggest fear in their life is approaching and striking up a conversation with a woman. He suggests people to have a sense of humour and believes that if you “find a life and you will find a love”. The question, however, is that is this true or the opposite of it (If you find love you will find life). This is perhaps another question like the chicken and the egg that has no clear answer. Brito provides ten tips to lure a woman (1) Stay healthy, (2) Don't abuse alcohol or drugs, (3) Have a job that means something to you, (4) Be busy with your own activities, (5) Be well groomed and clean, (6) Have a sense of humour, (7) Talk to women as individuals, not as a gender, (8) Be a gentleman, (9) Don't mix with loser friends, and (10) Have a clean bedroom, clean sheets - and a lamp to create romantic lighting (ANI).
Reading these ten tips I feel it sounds very stupid, although he is partially right in saying that if you find a life you find love. It makes me think what is life and what kind of “love” that Brito is talking about. Is it just to find a woman or is it more than that? I guess the objective should not be to find the “love of our life” but to “love our life”. And when start loving ourselves we would perhaps find both love and life – a lovely life.
Reading these ten tips I feel it sounds very stupid, although he is partially right in saying that if you find a life you find love. It makes me think what is life and what kind of “love” that Brito is talking about. Is it just to find a woman or is it more than that? I guess the objective should not be to find the “love of our life” but to “love our life”. And when start loving ourselves we would perhaps find both love and life – a lovely life.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Why Civilizations cannot Climb Hills?
Prof. James C. Scott was a visiting professor at the Institute of Development Studies in Roskilde University in Denmark. Presenting his research on Southeast Asia, he spoke about Why Civilizations cannot Climb Hills. He argued how states stop when they come to hills and presented the history of non-state spaces. According to him, the history of agriculture in Southeast Asia is of 8,000 years. The history of homo-sapiens is 200,000 years and the history of homo-sapiens in Southeast Asia is 50,000 years. He also argued that most of human experience has been state-less. Population and production in Southeast Asia was dispersed.
He distinguished between the Valley and the Hill and argued that the valley has always been the sites of states – taxes, Kings, sites of war and of hierarchy. The hill has no permanent states, no permanent Kings and taxation system. It is relatively egalitarian, although it is considered uncivilized, primitive and as barbarian periphery. Hill peoples are the past of the valley people. Hill peoples don’t share the religion of the valley. Mountains remain at the fringes of civilization. People run away from valleys to hills to evade state-making – taxation, mono-cropping, etc. of the state. Hills are not barbarian periphery but they are kind of political refugees. Hill peoples are considered as tribes and tribes were the creation of states and empires. They are the people who live in the fringes of the state. In Southeast Asia and South Asia, tribes were escaping state-building where as in Africa tribes were part of the state project. The idea of nation-state has been to control the periphery and to expand the state sovereignty till the border.
He distinguished between the Valley and the Hill and argued that the valley has always been the sites of states – taxes, Kings, sites of war and of hierarchy. The hill has no permanent states, no permanent Kings and taxation system. It is relatively egalitarian, although it is considered uncivilized, primitive and as barbarian periphery. Hill peoples are the past of the valley people. Hill peoples don’t share the religion of the valley. Mountains remain at the fringes of civilization. People run away from valleys to hills to evade state-making – taxation, mono-cropping, etc. of the state. Hills are not barbarian periphery but they are kind of political refugees. Hill peoples are considered as tribes and tribes were the creation of states and empires. They are the people who live in the fringes of the state. In Southeast Asia and South Asia, tribes were escaping state-building where as in Africa tribes were part of the state project. The idea of nation-state has been to control the periphery and to expand the state sovereignty till the border.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Empowering Visions
Empowering Visions: The Politics of Representation in Hindu Nationalism
Christiane Brosius
London: Anthem Press, 2005
ISBN: 1-84331-135-6
What roles do the modern media play in the sphere of culture, politics and governance? Christiane Brosius’ Empowering Visions: the Politics of Representation in Hindu Nationalism (London: Anthem Press, 2005) is an attempt to address ‘why, how and when Hindutva ideologues and pragmatics exploited the video media in order to claim power over public opinion-making and opinion-shaping’ (p. 3). Grounded on the theories of popular culture, anthropology of audiovisuals and thick ethnographic analysis, Brosius brilliantly depicts the roles played by Jain Studios’ videography in representing Hindutva’s cultural nationalism as an alternative conception of modernity, nationhood and national identity against the existing morally corrupt culture of secularism. These alternative empowering visions are realized through active entwining of ‘imagination to politics and ideology, space to time, image to narrative, and agent to action’ (p. 4).
The author argues that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies, since the late 1980s, have heavily exploited the modern media, particularly audiovisual technologies to create visions of idealized Hindu way of life. Employing Schiffauer’s idea of ‘field of discourse’– ‘as a sphere in which cultural agents interact with each other with regards to interpretations, norms, values, questions of style and memories’ (p. 3) – Brosius argues that Jain Studio’s production and distribution of propaganda videos has helped the BJP in spreading cultural and ideological images to influence the public consciousness with a pan-Indian cultural nationalism grounded on the glories of the golden age. By depicting the people passionately participating in the saffron revolution, these images and narratives invite further participation of the audience. Key images and narratives from the domain of local popular culture were appropriated and commodified in a package to heighten ‘political marketing’ and mobilization (p. 93); to influence the popular psyche of the people; and to present itself as a credible force to reshape the modern nation-state, reclaim the stolen stories and rewrite the national history.
Selective use of particularistic media imaginations and narratives has colonized the public conscience and provocative representations in the public sphere have generated antithetical feelings of ‘self’ and ‘the other’. Visual media has convincingly justified Hindutva’s agenda of Hindu cultural identity as ‘credible’ and depicted Muslims as anti-nationals and a threat to the nation. It argues that the national history has been misrepresented by the anti-nationals and a self-empowerment could be achieved only by re-mapping Indianness through a return to the ‘indigenous and “true” history of the Hindu people’ (p. 12). A sense of ‘pop patriotism’ is being crafted by softly manipulating the Hindu sentiment through devout citizenship, righteousness, self-sacrifice, sacred violence, heroism, national devotion, and the notion of martyrdom which has ‘left deep scars on the skin of civil society, and changed the mental maps of large parts of Indian citizenry for good’ (p. 180). The video media, which is a part of Hindutva’s ‘cheerful revolution’ aimed at forming a powerful paternalistic state with a seemingly disciplined and infantile citizenry ever ready to sacrifice for the cause of universal brotherhood and moral community (p. 93). Since 1998, the Internet has decentralized the power of representation and disseminated Hindutva ideology on a wider scale. The presentation of imaginary and narratives in cultural production has, thus, played a significant role in redefining identity, history, nationhood, governance and politics.
The only shortcoming of the book would be its overemphasis on the cultural ‘production’ of image and narratives and not the ‘reception’ of it by the people. Despite this, the book is an admiral contribution to the Anthem South Asian Studies series. Its uniqueness lies in its provocative and telling arguments embedded in ethnographic description and provides a valuable contribution to the field of popular culture and anthropology of iconography.
______________________
@ Reviewed by Sarbeswar Sahoo, Contemporary South Asia, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2008, pp. 357-358.
Christiane Brosius
London: Anthem Press, 2005
ISBN: 1-84331-135-6
What roles do the modern media play in the sphere of culture, politics and governance? Christiane Brosius’ Empowering Visions: the Politics of Representation in Hindu Nationalism (London: Anthem Press, 2005) is an attempt to address ‘why, how and when Hindutva ideologues and pragmatics exploited the video media in order to claim power over public opinion-making and opinion-shaping’ (p. 3). Grounded on the theories of popular culture, anthropology of audiovisuals and thick ethnographic analysis, Brosius brilliantly depicts the roles played by Jain Studios’ videography in representing Hindutva’s cultural nationalism as an alternative conception of modernity, nationhood and national identity against the existing morally corrupt culture of secularism. These alternative empowering visions are realized through active entwining of ‘imagination to politics and ideology, space to time, image to narrative, and agent to action’ (p. 4).
The author argues that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies, since the late 1980s, have heavily exploited the modern media, particularly audiovisual technologies to create visions of idealized Hindu way of life. Employing Schiffauer’s idea of ‘field of discourse’– ‘as a sphere in which cultural agents interact with each other with regards to interpretations, norms, values, questions of style and memories’ (p. 3) – Brosius argues that Jain Studio’s production and distribution of propaganda videos has helped the BJP in spreading cultural and ideological images to influence the public consciousness with a pan-Indian cultural nationalism grounded on the glories of the golden age. By depicting the people passionately participating in the saffron revolution, these images and narratives invite further participation of the audience. Key images and narratives from the domain of local popular culture were appropriated and commodified in a package to heighten ‘political marketing’ and mobilization (p. 93); to influence the popular psyche of the people; and to present itself as a credible force to reshape the modern nation-state, reclaim the stolen stories and rewrite the national history.
Selective use of particularistic media imaginations and narratives has colonized the public conscience and provocative representations in the public sphere have generated antithetical feelings of ‘self’ and ‘the other’. Visual media has convincingly justified Hindutva’s agenda of Hindu cultural identity as ‘credible’ and depicted Muslims as anti-nationals and a threat to the nation. It argues that the national history has been misrepresented by the anti-nationals and a self-empowerment could be achieved only by re-mapping Indianness through a return to the ‘indigenous and “true” history of the Hindu people’ (p. 12). A sense of ‘pop patriotism’ is being crafted by softly manipulating the Hindu sentiment through devout citizenship, righteousness, self-sacrifice, sacred violence, heroism, national devotion, and the notion of martyrdom which has ‘left deep scars on the skin of civil society, and changed the mental maps of large parts of Indian citizenry for good’ (p. 180). The video media, which is a part of Hindutva’s ‘cheerful revolution’ aimed at forming a powerful paternalistic state with a seemingly disciplined and infantile citizenry ever ready to sacrifice for the cause of universal brotherhood and moral community (p. 93). Since 1998, the Internet has decentralized the power of representation and disseminated Hindutva ideology on a wider scale. The presentation of imaginary and narratives in cultural production has, thus, played a significant role in redefining identity, history, nationhood, governance and politics.
The only shortcoming of the book would be its overemphasis on the cultural ‘production’ of image and narratives and not the ‘reception’ of it by the people. Despite this, the book is an admiral contribution to the Anthem South Asian Studies series. Its uniqueness lies in its provocative and telling arguments embedded in ethnographic description and provides a valuable contribution to the field of popular culture and anthropology of iconography.
______________________
@ Reviewed by Sarbeswar Sahoo, Contemporary South Asia, Vol. 16, No. 3, September 2008, pp. 357-358.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
A Momentary Look at My Past
This is a piece of art that many people in Singapore may not have noticed. It is situated right in front of the entrance to the Fullerton Hotel. I took this picture long ago in 2007 when a friend of mine from London was visiting me in Singapore and I had to act as the tourist guide. I kind of like this picture because of the kind of expression it depicts. It reminds me of my childhood days that I spent with friends in my tiny village. I remember of going to the village pond and jumping down to the pool of water from the top of the date tree….what a life that was!! Unbelievable now even to me. I loved swimming, for which I was always chased by my mom. I used to swim for hours and hours till my eyes get red. I even almost always won the swimming race – whether under water or butterfly (It was true and believe me I am good swimming underwater). In retrospect, I enjoyed my time with my friends in the very small village in the state of Orissa. Many of my friends have left the village like me having been forced by the pragmatism of life. The simplicity of life no longer exists. Not just their absence but the advent of television has replaced that simplicity and injected a sense of artificiality into the village life. When I go back, this is what I lament about. However, it is also true that I have, in the process, been affected and become a victim of such metamorphosis.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
OH THE GREAT AMERICANS! STIR UP YOUR CONSCIENCE!
The history was busy to write your name,
Amongst the nations with the highest fame.
The world was proud of your grace,
Virtue and love were the signs of your face.
From your soil, streams of justice used to flow,
To the vices and wrongs, you were a lethal blow.
You used to inspire a trust in all,
You drew no line between big and small.
The cascade of wisdom from your mind,
Quenched the intellectual thirst of every kind.
To the benighted humanity, you sowed new seed,
The compassion of Jesus (p.b.u.h.) was your creed.
Why suddenly, for you, this turn of fate?
How you emerged as a symbol of hate?
Stir up your conscience,
Look ahead with prescience.
Strain your nerves to see the right,
With a sense of justice, not with might.
Your eyes will perceive a demeaning course,
That made you believe in arms and force.
Delve deep into your soul,
To find out your filthy role.
Each part of the globe was within your reach,
With the Bible in hand; its lesson to preach.
You threw it away with a ruthless shake,
Your hands now possess weapons, for power sake.
The world is now standing aghast,
Why this all has happened so fast?
I know, only a few in your midst,
Spoiled your serenity with a grisly twist,
Sullied your image as a graceful race,
And eclipsed the sedateness of your pace.
Rise up ! purge your glory,
Of the present grim story;
Restore your lost dignity,
With penitential ‘sad’ and ‘sorry’.
Listen to the shrieks and wails,
See the destruction and travails,
Your sons have caused in others’ land,
With the dead falling like heaps of sand.
When the advent of Christ (p.b.u.h.) is too close,
Why you became so hideous, and why you chose,
To smear your face with innocent blood,
To engulf the humanity with your raging flood.
Now is the time for you to repent,
For what you have done, and what you spent,
To bring about fright and fear all around,
Let once again the global ambience reverberate,
Not with threats and piercing cannonade,
But with your soothing sermons, and remorseful sound.
_______________
@ Written by Dr. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani, President, All India Muslim Forum, Lucknow- India
Amongst the nations with the highest fame.
The world was proud of your grace,
Virtue and love were the signs of your face.
From your soil, streams of justice used to flow,
To the vices and wrongs, you were a lethal blow.
You used to inspire a trust in all,
You drew no line between big and small.
The cascade of wisdom from your mind,
Quenched the intellectual thirst of every kind.
To the benighted humanity, you sowed new seed,
The compassion of Jesus (p.b.u.h.) was your creed.
Why suddenly, for you, this turn of fate?
How you emerged as a symbol of hate?
Stir up your conscience,
Look ahead with prescience.
Strain your nerves to see the right,
With a sense of justice, not with might.
Your eyes will perceive a demeaning course,
That made you believe in arms and force.
Delve deep into your soul,
To find out your filthy role.
Each part of the globe was within your reach,
With the Bible in hand; its lesson to preach.
You threw it away with a ruthless shake,
Your hands now possess weapons, for power sake.
The world is now standing aghast,
Why this all has happened so fast?
I know, only a few in your midst,
Spoiled your serenity with a grisly twist,
Sullied your image as a graceful race,
And eclipsed the sedateness of your pace.
Rise up ! purge your glory,
Of the present grim story;
Restore your lost dignity,
With penitential ‘sad’ and ‘sorry’.
Listen to the shrieks and wails,
See the destruction and travails,
Your sons have caused in others’ land,
With the dead falling like heaps of sand.
When the advent of Christ (p.b.u.h.) is too close,
Why you became so hideous, and why you chose,
To smear your face with innocent blood,
To engulf the humanity with your raging flood.
Now is the time for you to repent,
For what you have done, and what you spent,
To bring about fright and fear all around,
Let once again the global ambience reverberate,
Not with threats and piercing cannonade,
But with your soothing sermons, and remorseful sound.
_______________
@ Written by Dr. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani, President, All India Muslim Forum, Lucknow- India
The Little Mermaid
The Little Mermaid (Danish: Den lille havfrue) is a fairy tale by the Danish poet and author Hans Christian Andersen about a young mermaid willing to give up her life in the sea and her identity as a merperson to gain a human soul and the love of a human prince.
The Little Mermaid lives at the sea bottom with her father the sea king; her grandmother; and her five elder sisters, born one year apart. When a mermaid turns 15, she is allowed to swim to the surface to watch the world above, and as the sisters become old enough, one of them visits the surface every year. As each of them returns, the Little Mermaid listens longingly to their descriptions of the surface and of human beings.
When the Little Mermaid's turn comes, she ventures to the surface, sees a ship with a handsome prince, and falls in love with him from a distance. A great storm hits, and the Little Mermaid saves the prince from a near-drowning. She delivers him unconscious to the shore near a temple. Here she waits until a young girl from the temple finds him. The prince never sees the Little Mermaid.
The Little Mermaid asks her grandmother whether humans can live forever if they do not drown. The grandmother explains that humans have a much shorter lifespan than merfolk's 300 years, but that when mermaids die they turn to sea foam and cease to exist, while humans have an eternal soul that lives on in Heaven. The Little Mermaid, longing for the prince and an eternal soul, eventually visits the Sea Witch, who sells her a potion that gives her legs, in exchange for her tongue; the Little Mermaid has the most intoxicating voice in the world. Drinking the potion will make her feel as if a sword is being passed through her, and walking on her feet will feel like walking on knives. In addition, she will only get a soul if the prince loves her and marries her, for then a part of his soul will flow into her. Otherwise, at dawn on the first day after he marries another woman, the Little Mermaid will die brokenhearted and turn to sea foam.
The Little Mermaid drinks the potion and meets the prince, who is attracted to her beauty and grace even though she is mute. Most of all he likes to see her dance, and she dances for him despite her excruciating pain. When the prince's father orders his son to marry the neighboring king's daughter, the prince tells the Little Mermaid he will not, because he does not love the princess. He goes on to say he can only love the young woman from the temple, but adds that the Little Mermaid is beginning to take the temple girl's place in his heart. It turns out that the princess is the temple girl, who had been sent to the temple to be educated. The prince loves her and the wedding is announced.
The prince and princess marry, and the Little Mermaid's heart breaks. She thinks of all that she has given up and of all the pain she has suffered. She despairs, but before dawn, her sisters give her a knife that the Sea Witch has given them in exchange for their hair. If the Little Mermaid slays the prince with the knife, she will become a mermaid again and live out her full life.
The Little Mermaid cannot bring herself to kill the sleeping prince lying with his bride and, as dawn breaks, throws herself into the sea. Her body dissolves into foam, but instead of ceasing to exist, she feels the warmth of the sun; she has turned into a spirit, a daughter of the air. The other daughters of the air tell her she has become like them because she strove with all her heart to gain an eternal soul. She will earn her own soul by doing good deeds, and she will eventually rise into the kingdom of God.
________________
The story is from Wikipedia.
The Little Mermaid lives at the sea bottom with her father the sea king; her grandmother; and her five elder sisters, born one year apart. When a mermaid turns 15, she is allowed to swim to the surface to watch the world above, and as the sisters become old enough, one of them visits the surface every year. As each of them returns, the Little Mermaid listens longingly to their descriptions of the surface and of human beings.
When the Little Mermaid's turn comes, she ventures to the surface, sees a ship with a handsome prince, and falls in love with him from a distance. A great storm hits, and the Little Mermaid saves the prince from a near-drowning. She delivers him unconscious to the shore near a temple. Here she waits until a young girl from the temple finds him. The prince never sees the Little Mermaid.
The Little Mermaid asks her grandmother whether humans can live forever if they do not drown. The grandmother explains that humans have a much shorter lifespan than merfolk's 300 years, but that when mermaids die they turn to sea foam and cease to exist, while humans have an eternal soul that lives on in Heaven. The Little Mermaid, longing for the prince and an eternal soul, eventually visits the Sea Witch, who sells her a potion that gives her legs, in exchange for her tongue; the Little Mermaid has the most intoxicating voice in the world. Drinking the potion will make her feel as if a sword is being passed through her, and walking on her feet will feel like walking on knives. In addition, she will only get a soul if the prince loves her and marries her, for then a part of his soul will flow into her. Otherwise, at dawn on the first day after he marries another woman, the Little Mermaid will die brokenhearted and turn to sea foam.
The Little Mermaid drinks the potion and meets the prince, who is attracted to her beauty and grace even though she is mute. Most of all he likes to see her dance, and she dances for him despite her excruciating pain. When the prince's father orders his son to marry the neighboring king's daughter, the prince tells the Little Mermaid he will not, because he does not love the princess. He goes on to say he can only love the young woman from the temple, but adds that the Little Mermaid is beginning to take the temple girl's place in his heart. It turns out that the princess is the temple girl, who had been sent to the temple to be educated. The prince loves her and the wedding is announced.
The prince and princess marry, and the Little Mermaid's heart breaks. She thinks of all that she has given up and of all the pain she has suffered. She despairs, but before dawn, her sisters give her a knife that the Sea Witch has given them in exchange for their hair. If the Little Mermaid slays the prince with the knife, she will become a mermaid again and live out her full life.
The Little Mermaid cannot bring herself to kill the sleeping prince lying with his bride and, as dawn breaks, throws herself into the sea. Her body dissolves into foam, but instead of ceasing to exist, she feels the warmth of the sun; she has turned into a spirit, a daughter of the air. The other daughters of the air tell her she has become like them because she strove with all her heart to gain an eternal soul. She will earn her own soul by doing good deeds, and she will eventually rise into the kingdom of God.
________________
The story is from Wikipedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)