[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Arundhati Roy on Juriprudence



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

IPI_Marker

Dear Ashish and Rajiv,
I have something to add here. My comments are in Capitalized font 
below:


On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 Ashish Hanwadikar wrote :
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and 
>propagate it!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>IPI_Marker
>
>Hi Rajiv,
>
> > Most of them were created for the benefit of the
> > British administration. The price that we paid for it
> > was too hefty. And, without colonialism, we could
> > still have obtained all those things. Japan did it.
> > Learning from the west is not a problem, learning from
> > anybody for that matter is not a problem.
>
>Yes it was created for the benefit of British administration. No 
>doubt
>about it. And the price we paid for it was too hefty. But the 
>reason we
>paid such an hefty price has lot to do with condition of our 
>society
>before British arrived. We were completly divided by religion, 
>caste,
>ethnicity etc. Morever, Muslim invaders had already screwed 
>India
>beyond recognition. People were ruled by various princes all 
>over
>India. There was no unity among them. And for all these years, we 
>never
>had any intellectual in India who thought about democracy, 
>secularism
>or capitalism.

I AGREE WITH ASHISH HERE TO SOME EXTENT. YES, MOST MUSLIMS DID 
PLUNDER AWAY THE WEALTH OF THE NATION BUT WE HAD MUGHAL LINEAGE, 
ESPECIALLY AKBAR, UNTIL AURANGZEB COME INTO POWER, WHICH UNIFIED 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDIA, AS WE SEE TODAY, AS A SINGLE IDENTITY IN 16TH 
CENTURY CE (LONG LONG AFTER 326 BC, MAURYAN PERIOD, WHICH WAS THE 
ONLY NOTED INSTANCE BEFORE THAT WHEN INDIA EXTENDED FROM 
BANGLADESH TO AFGHANISTAN AND WHOLE TO PRESENT INDIA EXCEPT 
"KERALA" AND "KARNATAKA"). AND IT WAS, MORE OF LESS, THE IMAGE OF 
MUGHAL INDIA THAT FORMED VIEW OF INDIA IN THE EARLY BRITISH PERIOD 
AND TILL DATE. THAT ALSO EXPLAINS WHY BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR WAS MADE 
TO THRONE IN DELHI IN 1857 WAR. SO, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, WE 
LIVE IN THAT INDIA. BUT FOR MUHGALS (AND LATER BRITISH FOR 
CARRYING THAT ON, OF COURSE), YOU WOULD HAIL FROM COUNTRY CALLED 
MAHARASHTRA AND MYSELF FROM RAJASTHAN AND I WOULD HAVE HAD TO LIVE 
ON MAHARASHTRIAN VISA FOR SO MANY YEARS THAT I DID. WHILE MUSLIMS 
GAVE US INDIAN IDENTITY AND IMPLICITLY CONTRIBUTED TO OUR SEARCH 
FOR HINDU IDENTITY AS WELL, BRITISH GAVE US WESTERN VALUES. EVEN 
THE PRESENT DAY HINDU FUNDAMENTALISM WHICH KEEPS ON HARPING ON 
INDIA AS ONE HINDU NATION DO SO BECAUSE OF THE VERY FACT THAT 
MUSLIMS ARE PRESENT IN INDIA. BUT FOR THEM, I FEEL, INDIA WOULD 
STILL HAVE BEEN CASTE-RIDDEN SOCIETY, AS IT IS THOUGH, BUSY WITH 
BLOODY BRAHMANIC HEGEMONY.



>It was brilliance of Gandhi that he recognized that real problem 
>in
>India is not occupation by foriegn powers but its caste system,
>ignorance of masses etc. So instead of hating Westerners for what 
>they
>did to us, he focussed on our internal problem. He organized 
>people
>using civil disobidience movement and not a revolution. Because 
>he
>realized that if we do that ordinary people will die in the 
>revolution
>and asshole dicatators will come to power. Common people will 
>still be
>divided by caste and religion. He was correct in this assessment 
>as
>shown by what happened after partition and continious caste 
>conflicts
>in the Bihar and UP or violent struggles during linguistic 
>division of
>states. I think we share some responsibility of what happened to 
>India.
>And had a leader like Gandhi born before we could have got 
>independence
>much much earlier.

>Japan did it! Great! After what? After a bloody World War II? It 
>was
>only after their defeat in World War II that they were made to 
>change
>their system by US and other powers. China was not defeated in 
>World
>War II. Have they learned and adopted Western system?
>
> > I am no fan of Russia but the fact is that it's them
> > who fought the toughest against the German onslaught.
> > Russia lost many millions of its citizens in World War
> > II. I don't think they ever got enough credit for it.
> > They just didn't do enough media hype and propaganda.
>
>Come on! They fought against Hitler because Hitler attacked 
>them.
>Initially they had agreement between them not to attack each 
>other. I
>cannot forget the fact that it was appeasment of Hitler and 
>belief that
>after some time Hitler will stop the War that allowed Hitler to 
>win
>Poland, France and some other East Euroepean countries in a 
>quick
>succession.
>
>This time there is no way person like Hitler can prepare such a 
>huge
>Military effort without the World noticing it. However, there 
>are
>weapons of mass destruction like Nuclear Weapons and Biological 
>weapons
>which are sufficient to destroy enough of civilization. Dictators 
>have
>learned from World War II but we haven't! We still continue the 
>policy
>of appeasment and continue to grant legitimacy to their claim 
>that they
>represent poor and opressed. Or worse we believe that firm 
>language
>like the George Bush used will give Dictators the moral courage 
>and
>excuse to attack us. It was the same "evil" speech by Ronald 
>Reagan
>that took away moral legitimacy of Russians and Communist. Geoge 
>Bush
>has done the same thing this time. We need to support him. We 
>might
>differ him in the ways we can achieve removal of this dicatators 
>but
>there is no question that these dictators are evil and need to 
>be
>destroyed by means possible. Because such a strong long language 
>might
>give excuse to these dictators but more than that it gives the 
>people
>who are fighting for freedom in those countries lot of 
>encouragement
>and promise of support. That's what we need.
>
>
> > It's a matter of conjecture. For most people on this
> > planet, US doesn't make any difference.
>
>I know you believe that!
>
> > Buzz words like 'capitalism', 'free market' are all
> > very good. I personally prefer safety nets in the
> > society. As long as 'capitalism' and 'free market' do
> > not clash with it I am fine. My only worry is these
> > things will only fill the pockets of rich and corrupt
> > in India. Poor people will have nothing. And in India,
> > majority is poor. I am not an expert on these issues,
> > not even remotely. I'd love to hear from more
> > knowledgable folks as to how 'capitalism' and 'free
> > market' will work for everybody.
>
>What expert opinion you need? Don't you realize that we cannot 
>design a
>system which can guarantee wealth to everybody? All we can do is 
>to
>design a system which allows us freedom to pursue what we want 
>without
>trampling on the similar freedom of others (which is democracy,
>secularism and capitalism). What happens in a such system, 
>whether poor
>gets benefitted or rich cannot be determined in advance. Because 
>of
>danger of having a system which tries to gurantee a a 
>particular
>outcome (such a equal or just distribution of wealth) is that it 
>is
>incompatible with the freedom. The risk of certain asshole like 
>say
>Indira Gandhi using such an centralization of power to take away 
>our
>complete freedom is very real indeed. We cannot afford the 
>possiblility
>of another dictator or mass scale corruption. The system like
>Democracy, Secularism and Capitalism regulate the use of force in 
>the
>society. It is up to the individual to use the freedom under 
>such
>system to advance himself or herself and also help others in any 
>way
>he/she can. We cannot use Govt. force to gurantee employment or 
>social
>security to everybody. Because if we do the lack the freedom that 
>comes
>with it will also destroy innovation and enterprenership. That 
>will
>reduced the final product of the society creating more scarcity 
>and
>more desperate dictators.

-----
"Don't you realize that we cannot design a
system which can guarantee wealth to everybody?"
-----

I THINK ASHISH HAS ALREADY MADE IT CLEAR HERE THAT CAPITALISM IS 
NOT GOING TO WORK FOR ALL IN INDIA. WE WOULD HAVE "SOME" 
SACRIFICIES TO MAKE. HOW MUCH THAT NUMBER "SOME" WOULD BE, IS A 
MATTER OF FRESH DEBATE BUT I SURMISE THAT IN A COUNTRY LIKE INDIA, 
IT IS GOING MAKE HUGE IMPACT  AND ALSO WIDEN GAPS BETWEEN "HAVES" 
AND "HAVE NOTS". ALSO, IN SUCH "CAPITALIST INDIA" THE LEAST WE 
WANT IS TO HAPPEN IS ENRON-LIKE CASES OF CORPORATE INTERFERENCE IN 
PUBLIC POLICY MAKING BECAUSE IF THAT HAPPENS THEN THAT IS GOING TO 
BE AN UTTER DISASTER FOR INDIA (NO NUMBERS, SORRY).

INDIANS WILL HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE SERVICES TO THE NATION IN TERMS OF 
PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES (AND NOT ALMS OF SECURITY AS ASHISH 
EXPLAINED) BY "HAVES" TO "HAVE NOTS" (MARK THE FINE DISTINCTION 
 FROM SOCIALISM). SINCE WEALTH MUST ALSO FLOW FROM OUTSIDE, FDI 
CHECKED WITH STRONG INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AGAINST UNFAIR TRADE 
PRACTICES OF DEVELOPED NATIONS WOULD, I BELIEVE, SEE INDIA AS A 
VERY PROMINENT PLAYER IN WORLD ECONOMY AND POLITICS.

BY THE WAY, GUYS, I GET A FEELING THAT WE ARE TALKING MUCH ON TOO 
MANY TOPICS IN ANY STRING AT A TIME. THIS STRING WAS TO DISCUSS 
ABOUT ARUNDHATI ROY'S VIEWS AND WE TALKED EVERYTHING FROM INDIAN 
ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL HISTORY (WHICH, OF COURSE, I AM RESPONSIBLE 
FOR) TO WORLD HISTORY TO WORLD ECONOMY. I FEEL IT'S JUST TOO VAGUE 
TO HANDLE MATTERS OF SUCH VAST SCOPE AND THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A 
DEFINITIVE PLAN AND OBJECTIVE FOR ANY DISCUSSION, DEFINE THE 
OBJECTIVE UPFRONT AND ENTERTAIN THE COMMENTS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO 
THE CAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC DEBATE. WHAT DO YOU SAY?

REGARDS,
YOGESH



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------