Gautam Kalghatgi
I find the manifesto a mixture of sound practical ideas and utopian ideals which will, in my opinion, be unachievable. As ever, questions of who wil enforce such ideals and how, cannot be avoided. If history tells us anything, it is that almost all experiments at social engineering aimed at changing human behaviour in directions away from what ordinary people aspir to, fail. I am going to argue these points from a stance that used to be traditionally taken by the left - the kind of arguments that one can find on spiked-online.co.uk. For instance, Alexander Cockburn, an old-style leftist journalist/writer has ascribed the current preoccupations with climate catastrophism (also described as "new miserabilism" on spiked-online) to the decline of the left, and the decline of the left's optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice [liberal fascism]. Also added to this is the curious technophobia that informs some sections of society. My general stance is based on optimism. There are many problems in the world and in India - these will change as the world evolves. However, I believe that human spirit, ingenuity and technology will find solutions to these problems. Thus as I keep saying, more people live better lives in the world today than ever before ... India can feed itself because of the Green Revolution -a largely technological fix to the problems of agriculture ...Of course, it is necessary to be alert to the excesses of all these endeavours and ensure that society is free enough so that people can argue/fight against these excesses. The State or Society must be strong enough to enforce the rule of law to ensure social justice and guarantee liberty but society must also be based on a general assumption of the "goodness" of the people. I also believe that globalization is unstoppable and overall it will benefit all people. Of course, the rich will always benefit more - that has always been the case. A worthy fight is the fight to make sure that the poor people get their fair share of the wealth. A fight against globalization is ultimately doomed to fail and along the way, will cause more hardship to the poor - the rich will always do well.
Point
1. I don't quite understand this. If this mining is leading to corruption, you should campaign against corruption. If the mining is leading to local environmental problems, you must fight against that and indeed if the problem is too severe (as in Kudremukha) you should stop it.. But if the mining and export of the ore are creating jobs and wealth which allows people to live better lives why should you stop it? If the Indian steel industry is going to close down because it is less efficient, whatever the government does to keep it alive will fail - just look at British Steel. Actually, the Indian steel industry (at least industrialists like Mittal and Tata) are taking over the world.
Point 2. Absolutely agree. The state must make education, especially of the poor a priority.
Points 3, 4, 5. Agree
Point 6. Agree in principle. India must remain a secular society but as Amartya Sen has argued - Indian secularism is inclusive. We could not ban religion from public life. As you yourself have convincingly argued, India's cultural and religious diversity is its strength. In such a country there will always be tensions between the ideals of equality and secularism and the freedom of expression. Thus the question is whether the hateful outpourings of, say Bal Thakare or Modi, should be banned or faced up to and defeated in the political arena. I think banning them would be counterproductive. However there might be a case for bringing in laws in India like the laws against Incitement to Racial Hatred in the U.K. On the other hand, do you think in Indian society, such laws will be enforceable -look at the (SriKrishna) commission on the Bombay riots. Of course everyone should be actively working towards a tolerant society.
Point 7. Agree, though I don't know enough about this. Is it really a big problem? I can't imagine it is.
Point 8. Agree to the extent that in India farmers are amongst the poorest in society and hence they must be protected. However farm subsidies
Point 9. This seems like a prejudice against change. I sympathise with the sentiment that small people (traders) should be protected from the depredations of big corporations. But don't large super markets have any redeeming features? Do they not, in Western countries, supply cheap goods to the urban poor? My problem with such issues is really about implementation i.e. is there going to be a law on the size / profits /turnover of shops? How will it be enforced? Would small traders be subsidized / encouraged regardless of whether they are efficient, industrious or lazy? ...
Point
10. This is the utopian ideal that I was talking about. Indeed, if one lived a Gandhian life, one would use fewer resources. I can also understand that there is a spiritual element to living a simple, self-sufficient life. I would have full admiration for someone who lived like that. But how many people, especially in India would live like that, withdrawing from the 21st century ... without electricity, cars, trains, mobiles, aeroplanes, TV, cinema, gas cookers, the internet, computers, antibiotics, air conditioners, varied food and drink .... It is very well to rail against American consumerism. But is this not a fact that people who have such "luxuries" will not give them up (will you?) and people who don't have them now aspire to have them. The really important question is, if people will not live a Gandhian life how will you make them live like that. Indeed the problems of energy, water, food, health, education will only be soluble through technology - the non-Gandhian way! And as an optimist, I think they will be solved. What about Global Climate Change you say - well you know my views on this. By the way I recommend the essays on the following web sites - they have influenced my thinking.
The links below have essays by Prof. Richard Lindzen. I think the first one is an excellent summary of the issues involved even though it is on such a right wing website! http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/the_fluid_envelope_.html
Below is an essay by Prof.Tennekes which should be read by all climate modellers http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Climate%20models-Tennekes.htm
An essay by Prof. Freeman Dyson - Nobel Laureate (Physics) http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf
A "realist" and excellent blog by a senior climate scientist - Roger Pielke.Sr Especially read the Main Conclusions in the right-hand blue bar http://climatesci.org/
The link below compares actual temperature measurements to IPCC "predictions"/ "projections" / "scenarios". There is also a lot of debate about whether these models are "falsifiable" a la Popper. If they are not and have no skill in making forecasts, how can they be used to inform public policy decisions? Since 1998 there has been no great change in mean global temperature though CO2 levels have been increasing. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming
Thus I think the problem of feeding a rapidly increasing population will be solved not through organic farming but with better (Genetically Modified ?) crop strains, better/ safer fertilizers and pesticides ....The problem of energy will be solved by doing many different things, improved energy efficiency being at the top of the list and renewable (e.g. solar, wind, wave) energy , nuclear energy, better oil recovery from existing sites, further discoveries of conventional oil, greater exploitation of unconventional oil like tar sands ... What I don't think will work and not ethically right is an elite telling the less fortunate that they must live "simply".
Point 11. I think I have said enough about my views on globalization. I believe it is unstoppable and on the whole a good thing. It will have some bad consequences which will be different in different circumstances and different places. These need to be identified and coped with. As for voting for non-corrupt politicians ... Amen!
Dear Gautam,
When was the last time I didn't hear a public intellectual being said to keep his/her house in order before discussing on a public issue? Your excellent analysis of URA's manifesto is, alas, tinged with an optimism that is more fantastic than URA's so-called "utopian ideals" themselves. If I understood the meaning of the manifesto (intent, what URA meant) correctly, this was neither drafted with blind utopian goggles on nor in deep cynical desperation in response to a rapidly degenerating public life. It is not practically practical, yet, no idea at incubation is practically practical. Enough of defending the manifesto.
The context of this people's manifesto are the Karnataka elections a debate about what kind of government we want.
If mining in the context of the current political situation in Karnataka is not the problem, what is? Creation of job and wealth is not the question here at all. The way the money power is being utilized to create a situation in politics, where the original intention of democractic institutions of election and vote-franchise are being severely mauled is the issue here. It is only incidental that mining is the new way of getting some easy money for those who reached there first. Besides, the environmental problem is easily a non-trivial one. I don't think anybody suggested here to close down mining. The suggestion here is to nationalize it.
The education of the "rich" is what the state should take care of. There should be common schools where the "poor" would have to go anyway, but the "rich" need to be dragged in too. Do away with the multi star facility international schools rightaway - is the message ( I think).
As for whether we are witnessing Global Warming or Global Cooling is a question scientists will keep arguing about. The unmistakable symptoms in the immediate vicinity is that we are experiencing a rise in temperature, receding water tables, unseasonal climatic conditions in our own towns and cities. As common people, we can only express a wish that we had lesser pollution, lesser industrial pollutants corrupting our rivers, lesser air and noise pollutions, and overall, a cleaner environment. That is the humanist way of approaching what seems to be a human problem and URA has voiced his opinion which I believe is genuinely humanistic.
As much as you feel Technology has the answers for the ills and the problems of the world, I have a very strong case for staunchly believing in the idea that Technology "is" the "ill and the problem" and that using Technology to solve problems is like digging a well and then filling it... endlessly. Will it take two great experts on both the sides of the spectrum to argue for and against Technology? Maybe. Yet, the great non-experts that we are, we do imagine a world that is a better place to live. If URA has his reasons to assume that Technology and Globalization are not the way forward, I atleast respect that.
In the end, your optimism with Technology and Globalization is lovable yet is very private.
It is not as if either the left or the right controls either globalization or the ensuant "miserabilism". Yet, it must be noted that the optimism with Globalization is as blind as the "miserabilism" against it. If Globalization was a planned execution of a "master plan", well nothing like it. However, it is not showing any signs of that as yet.
regards
Ravishankar R
Post new comment