Thursday, December 04, 2014
Gandhi amidst Swachh Bharat Abhiyan?
Monday 1 December 2014
by Dev Pathak
Beneath the shadow of the grand announcement of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan,coinciding with the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, there is a hotbed of questions. They deserve due deliberation in public forums, political as well as apolitical. For, the Abhiyan’s connection with Gandhi shakes awake some of the old debates and some new ones. The questions seeking for public deliberation are three-fold and interspersed with critical observations.
Firstly, what is the connection of the Abhiyan with Mahatma Gandhi? One can call it a non-issue by suggesting that the date on which it starts is annually celebrated as the birth anniversary of Gandhi; hence the Abhiyan is related to Gandhi. A more nuanced response, perhaps, could relate the motto of theAbhiyan with the Gandhian idealisation of cleanliness.
This is indeed a meaningful point, which yields another crucial question: what was the epistemological significance and sociological imagination behind Gandhi’s engagement with dirt and actions for cleanliness? As we are aware, primarily from nuggets of Gandhi’s writings and manifold analyses by Gandhian scholars, that his approach to dirt was not for mere tokenism. It was primarily to critically engage with the notion of purity and pollution. Based on these binary oppositions of purity and pollution, a key characteristic of the caste system, social stratas have been organised in India. Gandhi’s urge with his actions and message was to overcome the binaries and redefine human engagement with not only dirt but also whole approach to work, profession, and specialisation, and so on so forth. The binaries are at the core of the sheme of social stratification in which some works defile while other ennoble By altering it, Gandhi envisaged the formation of a society in which everybody could clean everybody’s dirt. It was an imagination of a society, sociologically debatable and ideally embraceable, in which cleaning dirt does not amount to defiling; and hence neither disposition of caste nor of class should define a work.
With this brief note, it is significant to explore whether the nature and scope of the recent Abhiyan has an iota of Gandhian philosophy and action inherent in it. The Abhiyan is vague and misleading about its epistemological and sociological significance.
Secondly, we are aware that Gandhi’s actions and messages regarding cleanliness emerged from his prolonged debate with motley of inspiring forces. They were located in India as well as beyond. We are familiar with Gandhi’s engagement with the humanistic ideology in the part of the West which scholars have called the ‘other Europe’. In other words, Gandhi’s drive for cleanliness, encapsulating his evangelic actions and philosophical engagement with the idea of dirt, departed from both, the modern-rationalist thinking as well as the socio-cultural status quo in India. For him, there was another justification for the cleanliness than the modern rationalist one or the caste-based idea of purity against pollution. It was to unite with those who dealt with dirt and defiled themselves in the social perspective. It was, simply, to suggest that those who clean are superior to those who preach about cleaning, show off token-ritual cleanliness, and sidestep the cleaner as defiled. This was how Gandhi made confident claims of changing the social structures, not by some formula invocation or token actions for photo-ops. It was cleaning as a normative, socio-cultural and consistent, action beyond dominant rationality of modernity and thereof classes or tradition and thereof caste.
One can dare asking: how does the Abhiyan in question challenge the dominant rationality of our time? Needless to say, the dominant rationality of our time is premised upon the Non-resident Indians’ and global South Asians’ imaginations. It also has in the backdrop a particular notion of development, which harps on sheen and shine concealing the murky truth. In short, could theAbhiyan bring about a radical transformation in the social structure, which perpetuates strange cognitive binaries of our time: the urban poor proliferate dirt and the rich think of cleaning it!
If the dichotomy of the poor and rich looks too banal, one can reformulate it as: the powerless are dirtying and the powerful (elite) are cleaning!
The third very significant point involved in the backdrop of the Abhiyan in question is related to the popular perception of Gandhi. This subsumes a long history in which Gandhi has been dubbed as- a textual entity in the prison of academics available for the ruminations and consumption of the academic elites, a symbolic entity in the prison of industries (including the Khadi Gramodyog) available for the consumption of all and sundry with purchasing power. One could come up with several other forms of Gandhi, reinvented day in and day out. There has been consistent engagement with Gandhi in popular Hindi cinema, modern theatrical performances, and recently in contemporary visual art. They all lead to the formation of thick subjective narratives with due inherent complexity. Gandhi thereby becomes a historical icon to debate with, a popular icon to be entertained by, and also a muse for many in creative domains. This enables us to love, to hate and also to be agnostic about Gandhi.
And hence it becomes difficult to invoke an all-encompassing pro-Gandhi conscience just by making an image of Gandhi with marigold flowers at the hotspots in Delhi on the occasion of the birth anniversary. As a matter of argument, it seems a hollow ritual without any meaning whatsoever even when the chief of a nation goes to offer floral tribute to Gandhi at Rajghat. Also, it does not cut across the checkered conscience of a nation when grand invocations are made in the national dailies.
For, Gandhi is not a monolithic category in the popular conscience; the latter is built upon several strands, some from textual Gandhi, some from symbolic (mis)appropriation of Gandhi, and some from popular cinematic renditions of Gandhi. In this wake, one wonder as to how an Abhiyan associated with Gandhi, if at all, takes care of the subjective complexity of a nation. If it does not, it would remain a mere propaganda technic harming the ideas, values, and actions that Gandhi embodied.
Moreover, it would be yet another ritual event which does not sync with the critical conscience of the masses, inspiring more indifference and apathy.
The author teaches Social Anthropology and researches on performance culture at the South Asian University, a university of SAARC nations, in New Delhi.
Beneath the shadow of the grand announcement of the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan,coinciding with the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, there is a hotbed of questions. They deserve due deliberation in public forums, political as well as apolitical. For, the Abhiyan’s connection with Gandhi shakes awake some of the old debates and some new ones. The questions seeking for public deliberation are three-fold and interspersed with critical observations.
Firstly, what is the connection of the Abhiyan with Mahatma Gandhi? One can call it a non-issue by suggesting that the date on which it starts is annually celebrated as the birth anniversary of Gandhi; hence the Abhiyan is related to Gandhi. A more nuanced response, perhaps, could relate the motto of theAbhiyan with the Gandhian idealisation of cleanliness.
This is indeed a meaningful point, which yields another crucial question: what was the epistemological significance and sociological imagination behind Gandhi’s engagement with dirt and actions for cleanliness? As we are aware, primarily from nuggets of Gandhi’s writings and manifold analyses by Gandhian scholars, that his approach to dirt was not for mere tokenism. It was primarily to critically engage with the notion of purity and pollution. Based on these binary oppositions of purity and pollution, a key characteristic of the caste system, social stratas have been organised in India. Gandhi’s urge with his actions and message was to overcome the binaries and redefine human engagement with not only dirt but also whole approach to work, profession, and specialisation, and so on so forth. The binaries are at the core of the sheme of social stratification in which some works defile while other ennoble By altering it, Gandhi envisaged the formation of a society in which everybody could clean everybody’s dirt. It was an imagination of a society, sociologically debatable and ideally embraceable, in which cleaning dirt does not amount to defiling; and hence neither disposition of caste nor of class should define a work.
With this brief note, it is significant to explore whether the nature and scope of the recent Abhiyan has an iota of Gandhian philosophy and action inherent in it. The Abhiyan is vague and misleading about its epistemological and sociological significance.
Secondly, we are aware that Gandhi’s actions and messages regarding cleanliness emerged from his prolonged debate with motley of inspiring forces. They were located in India as well as beyond. We are familiar with Gandhi’s engagement with the humanistic ideology in the part of the West which scholars have called the ‘other Europe’. In other words, Gandhi’s drive for cleanliness, encapsulating his evangelic actions and philosophical engagement with the idea of dirt, departed from both, the modern-rationalist thinking as well as the socio-cultural status quo in India. For him, there was another justification for the cleanliness than the modern rationalist one or the caste-based idea of purity against pollution. It was to unite with those who dealt with dirt and defiled themselves in the social perspective. It was, simply, to suggest that those who clean are superior to those who preach about cleaning, show off token-ritual cleanliness, and sidestep the cleaner as defiled. This was how Gandhi made confident claims of changing the social structures, not by some formula invocation or token actions for photo-ops. It was cleaning as a normative, socio-cultural and consistent, action beyond dominant rationality of modernity and thereof classes or tradition and thereof caste.
One can dare asking: how does the Abhiyan in question challenge the dominant rationality of our time? Needless to say, the dominant rationality of our time is premised upon the Non-resident Indians’ and global South Asians’ imaginations. It also has in the backdrop a particular notion of development, which harps on sheen and shine concealing the murky truth. In short, could theAbhiyan bring about a radical transformation in the social structure, which perpetuates strange cognitive binaries of our time: the urban poor proliferate dirt and the rich think of cleaning it!
If the dichotomy of the poor and rich looks too banal, one can reformulate it as: the powerless are dirtying and the powerful (elite) are cleaning!
The third very significant point involved in the backdrop of the Abhiyan in question is related to the popular perception of Gandhi. This subsumes a long history in which Gandhi has been dubbed as- a textual entity in the prison of academics available for the ruminations and consumption of the academic elites, a symbolic entity in the prison of industries (including the Khadi Gramodyog) available for the consumption of all and sundry with purchasing power. One could come up with several other forms of Gandhi, reinvented day in and day out. There has been consistent engagement with Gandhi in popular Hindi cinema, modern theatrical performances, and recently in contemporary visual art. They all lead to the formation of thick subjective narratives with due inherent complexity. Gandhi thereby becomes a historical icon to debate with, a popular icon to be entertained by, and also a muse for many in creative domains. This enables us to love, to hate and also to be agnostic about Gandhi.
And hence it becomes difficult to invoke an all-encompassing pro-Gandhi conscience just by making an image of Gandhi with marigold flowers at the hotspots in Delhi on the occasion of the birth anniversary. As a matter of argument, it seems a hollow ritual without any meaning whatsoever even when the chief of a nation goes to offer floral tribute to Gandhi at Rajghat. Also, it does not cut across the checkered conscience of a nation when grand invocations are made in the national dailies.
For, Gandhi is not a monolithic category in the popular conscience; the latter is built upon several strands, some from textual Gandhi, some from symbolic (mis)appropriation of Gandhi, and some from popular cinematic renditions of Gandhi. In this wake, one wonder as to how an Abhiyan associated with Gandhi, if at all, takes care of the subjective complexity of a nation. If it does not, it would remain a mere propaganda technic harming the ideas, values, and actions that Gandhi embodied.
Moreover, it would be yet another ritual event which does not sync with the critical conscience of the masses, inspiring more indifference and apathy.
The author teaches Social Anthropology and researches on performance culture at the South Asian University, a university of SAARC nations, in New Delhi.
Perception of corruption in India improves marginally
India ranks 85 among 178 countries on the global Corruption Perception Index this year.
India has marginally improved its ranking on the global Corruption Perception Index this year, on the back of prosecutions of high-level officials and hope that the new leadership will reduce corruption, Transparency International said on Wednesday morning.
India’s two-point improvement (on a total possible score of 100) did not count as a “significant change” unlike that in countries like Egypt, Jordan and Afghanistan. With a score of 36, India now ranks 85 among 178 countries, with countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand and Burkina Faso for company. Denmark ranks first, as it did in 2013, while Somalia and North Korea share the bottom spot. India is ranked better than all its South Asian neighbours except Bhutan.
The composite index is made up of a combination of surveys and assessments of public sector corruption by international agencies including the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. Of the nine surveys and assessments used for India, most relied on expert opinion on the extent of corruption and the rule of law and only one polled the general public.
“The two point increase reflects the prosecution of high level politicians and civil servants associated with the 2G and coal block allocations, a sign that institutions are robust in establishing rule of law and sanctioning the corrupt,” Santhosh Srinivasan, Research Coordinator at Transparency International, explained in an email to The Hindu. “In addition, the new leadership appears to have a strong anti-corruption drive, thereby creating further hope for a reduction in the levels of corruption as faced by ordinary people and businesses alike in the country,” Mr. Srinivasan said.
For this to go beyond rhetoric, further concrete steps and actions were needed including the enactment of all key pending anti-corruption bills, the setting up of a Lokpal mechanism, curbing illicit financial flows and deepening people’s access to information, Mr. Srinivasan said.
Economic growth did not necessarily reduce corruption, Transparency International said, pointing to countries like China whose corruption perception had worsened during a high growth period.
Updated: December 4, 2014 01:14 IST
Rethink the death penalty
As India continues to stand in favour of the death penalty, it is increasingly finding itself in the margins of world politics and international standards on this issue. On a UN General Assembly resolution to establish a moratorium on death penalty, a vast majority of the countries have voted in favour of abolishing the penalty. Although the resolution does not have binding value, it does carry considerable moral and political weight. Amnesty International reported that 114 of the UN’s 193 member-states voted in favour of the resolution and 36 voted against it, while 34 abstained. Around 140 countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is strongly against it. The International Criminal Court envisages life imprisonment even for crimes against humanity such as genocide. Customary international law does not prohibit the death penalty currently, but global opinion is rapidly moving towards an abolition.
Given this global trend, India gave the following reasons for its retentionist position: (a) the sovereign right to determine its own laws; (b) the death penalty is exercised in the “rarest of rare” cases; and (c) India guarantees ‘rule of law’ and the necessary procedural safeguards for a fair trial. But this justification is grossly inadequate. Abolition is now firmly entrenched in the human rights discourse and no longer limited to national criminal justice policy, making the ‘sovereignty defence’ much weaker. As far as the “rarest of rare” jurisprudence is concerned, the Supreme Court in Sangeeth (2013) agrees that this principle laid down in Bachan Singh (1980) has received erroneous and inconsistent interpretations in most judgments since Machhi Singh (1983). The court concedes that the test has become arbitrary and judge-centric rather than principle-centric. In an interview to Frontline, Justice A.P. Shah said: “Clearly, the two prisoners in Ravji’s case who were wrongly sentenced to death were executed as a result of these flawed judgments, constituting the gravest known miscarriages of justice...” As far as the ‘due process of law’ is concerned, the stealthy killings of Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru, as well as the undue delay in handling mercy petitions, deftly spelt out in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014), reflect flawed executive action that cannot always be corrected by judicial intervention. Even if public opinion in India currently favours the death penalty, the move towards a more enlightened approach can be initiated in Parliament. As India endeavours to play a stronger role in world politics, it is time to rethink its stand on the death penalty with more clarity.
Corrections and Clarifications
This article has been edited for a factual error
Dec 04 2014 : The Economic Times (Delhi)
How to Settle The Bengal Borderland
A Parliamentary committee has decided to pluck out a thorn in the flesh of India-Bangladesh ties since Independence: the singular matter of `enclaves' or `chhitmahals' on our eastern frontier. This is good news. It is common wisdom that when the subcontinent was Partitioned by Cyril Radcliffe in three weeks in 1947, it split into two nations: India and Pakistan.About 40% of the territory belonging to princely states, was left untouched. Actually , India was split into 199 segments: India, Pakistan and 197 enclaves -territories controlled by Pakistan or India, but located inside the others' territorial boundaries. All are on our eastern border: there are 73 Bangladeshi enclaves in India and 123 Indian ones in Bangladesh. None is administered by the host government. After all, why should India offer water, power, schools or civic amenities to territory that belongs to Bangladesh, and vice versa?
In 1974, Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Mujibur Rahman signed an agreement, allowing for each nation to absorb the enclaves within its jurisdiction and give residents the choice of whether to stay or migrate. Nothing came of this. In 2011, Manmohan Singh and Sheikh Hasina decided to resolve the issue, but steadfast opposition from the BJP and Bengal's new Trinamool Congress government stumped their efforts.In power now in New Delhi, the BJP has done a U-turn and favours signing the Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) to resolve the enclaves issue. But its Bengal unit is still deeply opposed to such a settlement. The TMC, which has blocked every rapprochement with Bangladesh, including the Teesta waters agreement, will also dig its heels in. But the LBA is necessary to alleviate the suffering of nearly 150,000 people who live there and boost India-Bangladesh ties. Sign it now.
In 1974, Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Mujibur Rahman signed an agreement, allowing for each nation to absorb the enclaves within its jurisdiction and give residents the choice of whether to stay or migrate. Nothing came of this. In 2011, Manmohan Singh and Sheikh Hasina decided to resolve the issue, but steadfast opposition from the BJP and Bengal's new Trinamool Congress government stumped their efforts.In power now in New Delhi, the BJP has done a U-turn and favours signing the Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) to resolve the enclaves issue. But its Bengal unit is still deeply opposed to such a settlement. The TMC, which has blocked every rapprochement with Bangladesh, including the Teesta waters agreement, will also dig its heels in. But the LBA is necessary to alleviate the suffering of nearly 150,000 people who live there and boost India-Bangladesh ties. Sign it now.
Dec 04 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)
In a first, 2 Indian univs, 2 IITs in Times' top 40
Kounteya Sinha
|
London:
|
There is great news for India's universities.For the first time, two new Indian entrants have jumped straight into the top 40 of the second annual Times Higher Education Brics and Emerging Economies' rankings.
Moreover, 11 other Indian universities have made it to the top 100 rankings. Around 18 countries featured in the 2015 rankings, which was released on Wednesday .
Around 15 universities -from Chile, China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey -have entered the tables for the first time.
China has cemented its dominance among the emerging global economies, retaining the top two places and increasing its representation among the top100 institutions to 27, up from 23 last year.
India has increased its representation with 11 of the top 100 places, up from 10 last year and it has a new national leader -Indian Institute of Science in 25th place, the IIT Bombay in 37th place and IITRoorkee in 38th position.
Phil Baty , editor of the Times Higher Education Rankings, said, “India is starting to show its potential in these rankings, increasing its overall representation in this new top-100 list to 11, from 10 last year. Only China and Taiwan have more top-100 institutions than India, which remains ahead of Russia and Brazil among the giant developing economies.But this improved showing is partly due to the fact that more Indian institutions have recognized the benefits of being part of the rankings process, and more are sharing their data with Times Higher Education“.
“Several Indian institutions have actually lost ground compared to last year.So there is clearly no room for any complacency . The good news is that by engaging with the global rankings and sharing performance data to benchmark themselves against the tough global standards set by Times Higher Education, India's leading institutions have shown a hunger for further development and for sharing the best practice. If this is backed by a government-led commitment to support India's top universities to compete on the global stage, with sufficient funding and reforms, there would be plenty of room for optimism.“
The rankings were given after accessing all aspects of the modern university's core missions (teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook).
China retains the top two positions (Peking University followed by Tsinghua University) in the rankings.
Fudan University follows Peking and Tsinghua, taking the ninth place, while University of Science and Technology of China lost its top-10 position, moving into joint 11th place.
Russia has seen a dramatic improvement in its standing increasing its representatives in the top 100 from just two last year to seven this year, and seeing its number one university , Moscow State University, climbing up from 10th to 5th.
Moreover, 11 other Indian universities have made it to the top 100 rankings. Around 18 countries featured in the 2015 rankings, which was released on Wednesday .
Around 15 universities -from Chile, China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey -have entered the tables for the first time.
China has cemented its dominance among the emerging global economies, retaining the top two places and increasing its representation among the top100 institutions to 27, up from 23 last year.
India has increased its representation with 11 of the top 100 places, up from 10 last year and it has a new national leader -Indian Institute of Science in 25th place, the IIT Bombay in 37th place and IITRoorkee in 38th position.
Phil Baty , editor of the Times Higher Education Rankings, said, “India is starting to show its potential in these rankings, increasing its overall representation in this new top-100 list to 11, from 10 last year. Only China and Taiwan have more top-100 institutions than India, which remains ahead of Russia and Brazil among the giant developing economies.But this improved showing is partly due to the fact that more Indian institutions have recognized the benefits of being part of the rankings process, and more are sharing their data with Times Higher Education“.
“Several Indian institutions have actually lost ground compared to last year.So there is clearly no room for any complacency . The good news is that by engaging with the global rankings and sharing performance data to benchmark themselves against the tough global standards set by Times Higher Education, India's leading institutions have shown a hunger for further development and for sharing the best practice. If this is backed by a government-led commitment to support India's top universities to compete on the global stage, with sufficient funding and reforms, there would be plenty of room for optimism.“
The rankings were given after accessing all aspects of the modern university's core missions (teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook).
China retains the top two positions (Peking University followed by Tsinghua University) in the rankings.
Fudan University follows Peking and Tsinghua, taking the ninth place, while University of Science and Technology of China lost its top-10 position, moving into joint 11th place.
Russia has seen a dramatic improvement in its standing increasing its representatives in the top 100 from just two last year to seven this year, and seeing its number one university , Moscow State University, climbing up from 10th to 5th.
Dec 04 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)
India less corrupt than China: Study
But Still Ranks With Burkina Faso, Benin
For the first time in 18 years, India ranks asless corrupt than China in the annual corruption survey by global watchdog Transparency International.In its annual survey of 175 countries, India ranks an otherwise depressing 85th, but has improved in the index, jumping 10 places.
China, on the other hand, has fallen 20 places to rank 100th despite Chinese president Xi Jinping unleashing a massive campaign against corruption, arresting a number of high profile political and military leaders. While India and China were at more or less similar levels in 200607, this is the first time since the rankings started in 1996 that India is perceived to be less corrupt than China. The Corruption Perception Index is compiled by experts like banking institutions, big companies and other organizations based on their view of corruption in the public sector. Transparency International's annual report measures perceptions of corruption using a scale where 100 is cleanest and 0 most corrupt. India's score moved up to 38 from 36. Despite a slightly better showing by India, its contemporaries on the index are countries like Burkina Faso and Benin, nothing to write home about. The Berlin-based organi zation published its 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index of 175 countries on Wednesday .Turkey and China showed the greatest drops in the index. India's perception improvement is attributed to a heightened awareness and public antipathy to corruption from the time Anna Hazare began his agitation in 2012. This was succeeded by the first ever Lokpal Bill being passed in parliament. India's reputation has also been burnished somewhat by the pending anti-corruption bills wending their way through Parliament. Corruption was a major plank in the election campaign in the recently concluded general elections, a central part of BJP's pitch. Even Arvind Kejriwal's short-lived government in Delhi was premised on an anti-graft platform. The top performer is Denmark at 92. In a statement, Transparency International said it is campaigning for countries to adopt a procedure called Unmask the Corrupt, urging the EU, US and G20 countries to follow Denmark's lead and create public registers that would make clear who really controls, or is the beneficial owner, of every company . Times View We could celebrate the fact that India's rank and score have improved in the 2014 rankings over the 2013 ones, but the improvement is too little and from too low a base to warrant such a reaction. India's current score of 38 is way below the 92 that the least corrupt countries like Denmark have achieved and its rank of joint 85th among 175 countries means it is in the middle of the range. If the country is to realize its full economic potential, the situation will have to improve dramatically and soon. The government has a major role to play in ensuring this happens by reducing discretionary powers and making processes more transparent, but civil society too must play its part in the form of anti-corruption movements and constant vigil.  |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)