Developmental Discourse: Arundhuti Roy vs Amartya Sen: Can Intellectuals Speak For the Subalterns?
Rinita Mazumdar
While Ms Roy seems to be opposed to ALL kinds of development, it seems that she has no solution to the problems of unevenness of development and her theory could be as blind as the neo-liberalism propogated by the Holy Trinity (WTO, IMF, World Bank).
Instead of that the left might take a look at Nussbaum and Sen's theories of capabilty development, where one does not look into commodities as such, which resolves into "commodity fetishism" but what is called "capability approach", or the question, what those commodites do for me; since we are responding to a problem that is peculiarly modern, the evolution of the market and the boundaries of imagined Nation States, there may not be ONE way to look at development. According to Capability approach each person ought to have the knowledge, education, information, and then via public discussion should come to a decision about what they would wish to do with the resources that they claim as their "own" (although the problem of "natively owning still remains).
Development is happening within vast amount of inequality and what this has done is led to the social exclusion of the already disenfranchized majority. Here State mandated free basic resources as well as access ought to be made available so that the community could decide whether they would assimilate to the mainstream developmental discourse.
Whether the tribals desire to be integrated via development is something at this point the mainstream population do not know; and the tribal do not see the large mining corporation conducive to their own interest; to jump from that to the conclusion, that "they" do not desire development is a bit of hasty generalization. The market never works in isolation, regardless of Adam Smith's classical work on the wealth of the Nation; there is always a social price to pay. And i am thoroughly opposed to the intellectuals speaking for the subalterns.
What gives the subaltern that if the present State which operates on terror to the disenfranchised, is replaced by another State built on some kind of Maoism, that it will not be more oppressive.
The paradox of the French Revolution is right on us, do we wish to keep the state and some semblance of liberty, or do we wish to replace it with an Oligarchy of the Vanguard Party where some will be forced to be equal, and an elite will suppress the rest....
As for violence, some violence is needed probably for the mainstream to hear the voice of the subaltern, however, standing on the shoulders of the Rule of the tyrants post French Rev or of Stalinist horror, I see no point in killing civilians, which will not create much stir from the State repressive apparatus, and will lead to further repression of the tribals....
Rinita
The left needs to do some more self analysis on its theoretical impoverishment; amazingly, while Marx and Engles did inductive research on the working class (which was a new research methodology of the time they completely under theorized the notion of gender and how the working class (Irish and Catholic so outside the notion of the hegemonic Protest English bourgeois) were excluded from masculinity,
It seems that not only the Left in India (and elsewhere) are do not have any theory of place or locationality, have they also lack a theory of public, private, and gender; for example, how much is tribal masculinity related to tribal identity crisis in the face of the onslaught of globalization of the upwardly mobile urban cosmopolitan Indian?
Again, Arun Agrawal's article is very good, I just wanted to share these thoughts,
RinitaOn 20 May 2010 14:39, Rinita Mazumdar <revfem...@gmail.com> wrote:
Venu,
Thanks for sending this letter it is really quite eye opening and indeed brilliant.
Some Comments: I am thinking of several issues that the left has kept under theorized in its discourse and which could be added to some of the the deeper issues of the construction of Indian National identity.
First, a thorough question of identity and population as well as ethnicity has been under-theorized here; for example, is there any data or research to show that the support for the "Naxals" are coming from tribals only of these places, whereas the non tribals are fleeing the area, because they cannot relate to the exact issues Naxals are fighting for.
Second, what is the exact relationship between the tribals and the non-tribals in the areas where in the name of development land is being grabbed and people are left with nothing; this will take us well beyond a simple economic determinism to a larger context of the question how even amongst subalterns in India there is a sense of identification with the Nation State and its Brahmanical hegemony which does not exist amongst the tribals.
Third, and this is grossly undertheorized in left literature, the politics of place; is the sense of "belonging or home" as opposed to the other or the refugee (with no homeland) a modern phenomena, or has deeper roots (I am more in agreement with Arun Agarwal's theory that certain places as tribals "home" seems to be a modern reaction to a modern problem
Fourth, and this is grossly undertheorized in not only later Marxists, but also in both Marx and Engels (probably the CPI ML) are following their ideology, of the construction of subaltern masculinty and its relation to the hegemonic masculinity of the bourgeois and the Nation State; even while theorizing the class structure of the 19th century England, Marx and Engels failed to theorize the evolution of working class (Irish) masculinity. Similarly, the act of violence ("otherwise called terrorism by the Nation), says something about the identity crisis of the subaltern masculine construction.
Again, congratualations on Arun Agrawal for a brillaint and eye opening article on the his comments on the home Ministers lies and deceptions,
RinitaOn 20 May 2010 11:32, Venugopalan K M <kmven...@gmail.com> wrote:
Below is Arun Agarwal's brilliant letter to Chidambaram on his taunts
towards Civil Society. It should be widely circulated. Warmly, Prashant
Bhushan
-------------------
Dear Shri Chidambaram,
This is in response to your repeated taunts on NDTV that the civil society
must respond to the wanton killing by the Naxals. It appears that the
interview was tailor made for getting the consent of the Cabinet for more
firepower and airpower to combat the Maoist. The diabolic support of Arun
Jaitly, be it by describing you an injured martyr, was designed to achieve
his ambition through the support of the mining barons of the BJP ruled
states.
As a member of society I hope I am being civil in disagreeing with you on
your hard line approach against the innocent tribal. I also hope you will
not find it too shocking for being accused of being largely responsible for
the rise and growth of Naxalism, as the following happened on your watch as
Finance minister.
Is it not true that Naxalism grew exponentially in the last ten years to
become the present menace? In fact you have yourself identified the time
frame of the last ten years in your interview with NDTV.
Is it not true that the rise in popularity of Naxalism is also coincidental
with the rise in iron ore mining profits which increased from around Rs50
per tonne to over Rs5000 per tonne in the last ten years?
Is it not true that the map of Naxalism is also the map of the Indian
Minerals. These minerals belong to the people of India but have been handed
over to mining barons and corporate in a relationship of mutual benefit,
more appropriately described as crony capitalism. It is for this reason that
Arun Jaitly is your staunchest supporter because the fate of four state
government ruled by BJP is dependent on the money from the mining mafia.
Is it not true that during your watch as Finance Minister for four and half
years, corporate raked in a profit of over two lac crores through legal and
illegal mining, mostly in the iron ore sector? How was this profit shared?
Is it not true that during your entire tenure as FM the royalty on iron ore
was not revised and remained at a ridiculous Rs 7 to 27/ tonne (depending on
the type and grade of iron ore) with the average of around Rs 15 per tonne.
This royalty was neither made ad valorem nor was it revised from year 2000
onwards when the international price of iron ore rose to dizzy levels.
Is it not true that the minerals are owned by the people of the State? Is a
meager 0.5% royalty on iron ore profits adequate compensation to the owner
of the resources? Would you sell your one crore property for Rs 50,000?
Did your fulfill the oath that you took as a Minister to abide by the
Constitution, in particular Article 39 (b) and (c) of the constitution which
directs the government to use natural resources owned by the people of the
country are used to subserve the common good?
Would the Naxal problem have been there if 25% of the mining profit was
spent on the poor and the tribal living in the mining area and whose life
was uprooted by the greedy corporate/mining mafia with active connivance of
the law enforcers and policy makers?
What prevented the government from nationalizing the iron ore mine industry
and handing it over to a PSU or NMDC whose shares of Re1/- was lapped at a
premium of Rs300(30000% premium) and using the profit for benefit of the
people?
Are you aware that even a resource rich and affluent country like Australia
with a low population base is imposing an additional 40% windfall tax on the
mining profits? Can a poor country like India afford to forgo these windfall
profits?
Will you reveal as to how many times you have defended public interest
through PIL and how many times you have defended corporate interest during
your professional career as a lawyer? The question is relevant because of
your empathy for the corporate sector is in apparent conflict with that
towards the toiling masses.
Is it wrong for the civil society to conclude that both as Home Minister and
Finance Minister you have been protecting the corporate profiteers (by first
allowing them to loot the mineral wealth belonging to the people and now
securing these mines for them) and not protecting the interest of the poor
and tribal people who are victims of corporate greed and crony capitalism of
the political parties? You in particular should have known better having
been a Director of Vedanta Resources!
In your appearance on NDTV you talked about the two prong approach and one
of them having been weakened. It is the prong of development which has been
weakened and is non existent. The royalty collected is not sufficient to pay
for the various types of direct damages done by the mining industry (health,
environment, water, roads, rehabilitation etc) let alone the cost of
security forces.
Is it not true that the killing of innocent security forces and tribal is
the direct result of the policy of securing the mineral wealth for the
corporate profiteers and political parties who share the loot?
It was shocking to know that you were more concerned about your CV falling
short by a few months of completing five years as Finance Minister when you
met your maker (refer the NDTV interview) than about the blood of the
innocent that has been spilled on both sides as a consequence of corporate
profiteering.
It is not surprising that all the State government which get reelected on
the money of the mining mafia are interested in using air cover to make
mining safe and profitable ever after. You should know better the role of
money in elections after having managed to squeak past the post while the
DMK MPs romped home with handsome margin. Mr Raja retained his portfolio!
What is at stake is the credibility of the State: that it is using force to
benefit the mining mafia and that it has a vested interest in the
profiteering of the mining mafia which is prospering because of crony
capitalism.
To restore its credibility the Government should resume all the mines which
in any case belong to the people and give a solemn pledge that a minimum of
25% of the mining profits will be used for the benefit of the local people.
The solution is not only just but one mandated by the Constitution. It is
only after restoring its credibility that the State will have the right to
act. That one hopes, will not be necessary because honest development based
on the resources belonging to the people is the best contraceptive against
the Maoist ideology. (One is happy to note that according to newspaper
report the Mining Minister has made a similar proposal and not surprisingly
facing resistence.)
What happened Mr Chidambaram, you used to be a nice guy? You resigned over
the Fairgrowth affair when you were not even guilty.
Life is not about arguing a brief in Court for money. It is about arguing
for what is right. You have wrongly accused us being 'clever nor being
devious' (refer interview with NDTV), because we are not capable of it. We
cannot argue the way you do. Your arguments in Parliament over the oil for
food programme while shielding Reliance from being referred to the Pathak
Committee were indeed 'brilliant'. Were you being clever or devious in your
arguments? (Refer the book Reliance the Real Natwar written by the
undersigned for deciding the issue.) Please do not use the civil society as
an excuse for your omissions and commissions. We have no vested interest
except that what belongs to the people should go to the people and that
innocents, whether the security forces or the people forced to join the
Maoist, should not die for corporate profits. We are not powerful to tie the
State governments with legal cases on police excesses. Those trying to
uphold human right violations do so at considerable risk to their life and
liberty and deserve our respect and not condemnation as misguided romantics.
On a personal note Sir, Will you resign and argue my PIL before the High
Court involving three lac crores of iron ore being gifted by the State to
Posco and Arcelormittal (as Palkhivala did to argue the Minerva Mill case).
It will be difficult to lose the case because law, facts and most important
you will be on the same side.
If you agree to do so, Sir, I am sure He will give you far more credit than
He would for the extra six months that you missed out as Finance Minister!
In case you are interested I will send you a copy of the petition.
Looking forward to hearing from you. For far too long you have been shifting
the blame on the civil society. We too need answers.
With warm regards
A K Agrawal
E13/2 Vijaykiran Apartments
32 Victoria Road
Bangalore 47
http://groups.google.co.in/group/greenyouth/browse_thread/thread/a7acc85bd19a92db
--
Rinita Mazumdar,
Women Studies and Philosophy,
University of New Mexico
--
Rinita Mazumdar,
Women Studies and Philosophy,
University of New Mexico
--
Rinita Mazumdar,
Women Studies and Philosophy,
University of New Mexico