The Signal is Green!

World Environment Day 2008 is here! Oil prices are going through the roof and that could be terrible news for you as a consumer. But, for an environmentally concerned citizen, it could perhaps be good news as well, especially since more and more cleaner energy alternatives may now become economically viable.

But, as another summer season gets over, what needs to worry you more as a producer or a consumer is something else! It is becoming increasingly clear that power shortage in India is not likely to disappear any soon. While the demand for electricity has kept on growing, the capacity expansion has fallen short of targets both in the Ninth and Tenth plans by about half. According to the government, India will miss the target of adding 78,577MW of power generation capacity by 2012 and the best case scenario will see only an addition of around 35,000MW.

The expected loss in Industrial Production during April-July 2008 only due to power shortages is 35%, according to ASSOCHAM. The all-India deficit in power supply in terms of peak availability and of total energy availability during 2007-08 was 14.8 per cent and 8.4 per cent, respectively, implying that the GDP was less by around 3,50,000 crores only due to power shortage. Given the related job loss and lost income opportunities, one can clearly identify the shortfall in power generation as an important constraint that prevents faster poverty reduction and our meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

While initiatives for addition to capacity to meet the growing demand for power need to be accelerated, considerations of sustainable development and the need for efficient resource usage make it imperative also to focus on demand-side management. The Energy Conservation Act, 2001, empowers the Government to take concerted steps to improve energy efficiency and conservation in the Indian economy. Among other things, the Act provides for notifying energy intensive industries, establishments and commercial buildings as ‘designated consumers’ and to prescribe energy consumption standards for them. The Act also provides for Energy Conservation Building Codes (ECBC) for efficient use of energy and its conservation in commercial buildings.

In this context, the setting up of the CII Green Business Centre at Hyderabad in 2000 was a major pioneering step in India. CII-GBC formed the Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) to promote the concept of Green Buildings in India. Of course, the concept of green building is not just about improving energy efficiency. It is also about improving the efficiency of use of material and water resources as well. It is ultimately an attempt to reduce the environmental impacts of both the construction and use of buildings, which also reduces the cost of operations and improves public health, by reducing conflict with nature.

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED-INDIA) Green Building Rating System promoted by the IGBC is slowly catching the attention of corporate clients. IGBC’s vision is to usher in a green building revolution in the country and to facilitate the emergence of India as one of the world leaders in green buildings by 2010.

One company which has taken the vision of a green building revolution to non-corporate customers is Biodiversity Conservation (India) Limited (BCIL). BCIL has built nearly two million square feet of residential homes in gated communities, offering green solutions to individuals and families without compromising on urban comfort and convenience. BCIL eco-homes use half the energy of regular residences of comparable size. Given that energy costs can only rise in the years ahead, the potential savings for the consumer is clear and tangible.

Naturally, the business is growing, and how! Whether in Madison Square or down town Bangalore, the best advertisement for any product is in the form of a proud customer. Word of mouth publicity has accelerated the demand for this customer driven business and BCIL has grown to an 80 crore company in a decade or so. Of course, awards and recognitions for BCIL and its Managing Director, Mr Chandrashekar Hariharan, from national and international bodies like TERI and ADB have also helped.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) says that buildings are responsible for at least 40% of energy use in most countries. With construction booming, especially in countries such as China and India, these figures are only likely to rise. The report of the companies involved in WBSCD’s Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EEB) project calls on governments to provide better urban planning, more effective building codes to enforce minimum required technical standards, and information and communication framework to overcome the lack of know-how. Additionally, policy improvements including tax and market incentives could encourage the use of energy efficient building equipment and materials and occupant consumption.

Of course, buying efficient equipment or building green homes is only one aspect of consumer behavior related to energy. The other significant aspect is using energy efficiently. In most Western countries, despite the price premium for energy-efficient equipment, during the 1990s most consumers switched over to more energy-efficient appliances. This eventually made the consumers wealthier. Yet, when the monetary savings from efficient use of energy is spent on more gadgets and equipment, this may not lead to much of a reduction in overall energy demand.

The growth of green business houses in India needn’t surprise us. Globally, green business has already become big business. The reasons are plenty: For one, it is now widely accepted that environmental problems, especially the ones related to energy, are not going to get any better. Then, of course, the consumers are increasingly aware and want economic costs and environmental risks to be minimized. The technology factor cannot be ignored either. Clean technology has emerged to meet the demand for greener products without compromising on quality or value for money. And all these mean that there is money, and fame, to be made for companies like BCIL that go the green way.

Political (In)significance of Karnataka 2008!

“How Congress is losing more than polls”, “BJP now a front runner in Lok Sabha polls”, “2009 will be the year of change”, “Congress loss raises questions about central leadership” etc have been the top headlines this morning. After reading these headlines, one might imagine that the Congress lost Andhra Pradesh, and not Karnataka, to the BJP. Of course, you would not be surprised by these headlines, if you know Indian ‘news’ media, as well as the average Joe knows!

Let me start with a few random facts: Out of a total of 224 seats, the BJP won 110, the Congress 80, and the JD(S) 28. Others, consisting 4 Congress rebels, 1 BJP Rebel and 1 JD(S) Rebel, have won 6. While the BJP’s vote share has increased from 28.3% four years earlier to 33.9% now, the Congress even now is ahead in vote share with 34.6%. The BSP has marginally improved its vote share by around 1% to nearly 2.7%, but has only managed to come second in two seats. Bangalore had only 16 seats last time, whereas this time, post de-limitation, the number has risen to 28. The BJP has won 17 of these seats. The BJP was the single largest party in the legislative assembly last time with 79 seats and is the single largest party this time too with 110 seats. So that is an increase of 31 seats! (The BJP contested 26 seats more this time.) The Congress was the second largest party last time with 65 seats and is the second largest party this time around too with 80 seats. So that is an increase of 15 seats as well! These gains in seats for both the National parties have come at the expense of the prominent regional party. (Even now, a Congress-JD(S) Coalition with Congress and JD(S) rebels would have absolute majority in the legislative assembly!)

Before I proceed any further, let me clarify that I am not trying to belittle the BJP’s success. They have worked extremely hard for this result and all credit should go to Mr. Jaitley, Mr. Yeddyurappa and the party cadre for their efforts. In fact, compare this: Mr. Advani, Mr. Modi, Mrs. Sushma Swaraj, Mr Rajnath Singh and Mr Venkaiah Naidu addressed almost 200 public meetings in the state, whereas Dr Manmohan Singh addressed one, Mrs Sonia Gandhi addressed six and Mr Rahul Gandhi addressed two. The fact that four of the Congress rebels have won, as against only one each of BJP and JD(S) rebels also shows that candidate selection was more of a problem for the Congress than the BJP and JD(S). So kudos to the BJP team!

However, the media projection of this result as a major turn-around in fortunes for both the Congress-led coalition as well as the BJP-led alliance is baseless and imaginary. Why do I say so? Simple reason! The Congress today holds only 8 out of the 28 Lok Sabha seats from Karnataka, whereas the BJP holds 18 of them. And you know what, if all the assembly segments in Karnataka voted in the coming Lok Sabha elections exactly as they voted this time, the BJP would win only 10 of the 28 seats, whereas the Congress will win 14 of them. That has to do with the Congress having its votes spread wide across the state. Turn-around in fortune? For whom, is the real question!

As for the apparent failure of the Congress central leadership, consider this: Mr. Rahul Gandhi had started his Karnataka tour with a stay in the tribal dominated Chamarajnagar district and incidentally, all four seats in the Chamarajanagar region have gone to the Congress this year. Last time around, the tally was zero! Among the other districts he toured, Mysore has brought 7 out of 11 seats and Gulbarga 7 out of 13 seats to the Congress kitty. These are areas where the Congress has gained at the expense of JD(S). In Mangalore, which was one of the few areas where Mr. Gandhi addressed election meetings, Congress wrested two seats from the BJP, taking its tally to 4 out of 8. In fact, at least part of the credit for Congress not losing much of its vote share to the BSP must be given to him. The BSP was expected to hurt the Congress party the way it did in Punjab and Gujarat, but this time around, in Karnataka, the Congress has held on to its ground.

On the other hand, should the Congress win even two of the three BJP ruled states that are going to polls later this year, the BJP can stop dreaming about returning to power in 2009. The simple reason is that these are states which have contributed to the BJP strength in the Lok Sabha. After a decade of Congress rule in Delhi, it is very unlikely that Sheila Dikshit’s Congress will win Delhi. But, given the level of anti-incumbency, only Congressmen can prevent the Congress party from winning the three BJP ruled states. Even the most optimistic BJP insider expects a drop in tally from these states. That’s only being realistic! But, if that’s so, from where will BJP make up for the loss of strength here? Gujarat? The BJP’s tally can’t go up far beyond its current high numbers! Bihar? JD(U), its ally, has almost decimated the party there. Maharashtra? Post-Pramod Mahajan, the state BJP unit is yet to find its feet. The fact of the matter is that there are no major states left for BJP to improve its tally significantly.

There are several states from where the tally of Congress and its allies can reduce significantly in the Lok Sabha elections next year: Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Bihar, for instance. But, there are also several states where they have scope to increase their tally: Almost all of the Gangetic Plains, including Uttar Pradesh, where an SP-Congress alliance might unify the non-BSP vote. Since the BSP has almost completely eroded the BJP’s base in UP, the only alternative to the BSP would be an SP-Congress combine. The Congress is also likely to do much better in both West Bengal and Kerala, where the Congress’s gains will be at the expense of the Left parties.

In other words, unless dramatic events occur between now and the election date, the UPA’s tally is not likely to be very different from what it is now. On the other hand, the BJP’s tally is likely to be lower although the tally of its allies might go up. In fact, whether it is Maharashtra or Bihar or Tamilnadu, the BJP needs its allies much more than its allies need it. Therefore, in these states, the BJP is even likely to contest in fewer seats than it did last time around. The change in relative strength within NDA also may open up the possibility of some of the current NDA allies joining UNPA to try their luck in forming a coalition with the support of both the BSP and the Left.

Of course, what is likely to be left of UNPA is difficult to be imagined now! If SP allies with the Congress and AIADMK allies with the BJP, it doesn’t make sense for TDP and AGP to stay without allies at the Centre. These are parties which can’t ally with the Congress due to their regional realities. If TDP allies with the BJP at the Centre, it cannot ally with Left parties at the state level and vice versa. Without allies, TDP cannot defeat the Congress in AP in the near future. Chiranjeevi’s political entry will have its own repercussions too. If Chiranjeevi's party and TRS allies with the BJP, the Congress may lose few seats, but that alliance may wipe out the TDP-Left combine in Andhra Pradesh.

The number of seats lost by the Congress and gained by the BJP allies in Andhra Pradesh would be a decisive factor in the next Union elections. But, as of now, the political situation in Andhra Pradesh is far from clear. A BJP-TRS alliance in Telengana might look winnable on paper, but a Reddy-Muslim consolidation could mean Congress holding its ground. Will Chiranjeevi take away more votes from the Congress or from the TDP? If there is a quadrangular fight as expected, will there be much of a dent in the Congress tally? Even the by-election results expected next week will not give us a clear picture.

To answer the question of what the outcomes of Karnataka state elections imply for the National parties, let me make a few observations. One, the Congress has indeed suffered from not projecting - and the BJP has gained from projecting - a Chief Ministerial candidate. But, this will hardly be an issue in the Lok Sabha elections, as the Prime Ministerial candidates of both the alliances are known. And that is where the lesson to be taken from this election is interesting. Mr. Advani is no Vajpayee and if it is a personality contest between Dr Manmohan Singh and Mr. L. K. Advani, the BJP shouldn’t be dreaming of a contest. Two, any party that needs to win the next election should build its grassroots organizational structure. I believe that Mr. Gandhi’s tour helped the Congress party only because it revitalized the party organization at the grassroots in some of those areas he visited. That has paid off! Three, election management has become increasingly important and any party who ignores this lesson, does it at its own peril. Anyone who underestimates the importance of Mr. Jaitley’s role in BJP’s victory is choosing not to read the writing on the wall. Mr. Modi in Gujarat and Mr. Yeddyurappa in Karnataka certainly had their significance, but the one who has made the best use of these resources for the BJP is Mr. Jaitley. You can’t take that away from him.

I am not here to speculate on the stability of the new government to be formed in Karnataka, but any event that causes popular disappointment with the new government’s performance will be good enough to hand over power back to the Congress party on a platter. Depending on your political leaning, you can either feel happy that four years after Mr. S. M. Krishna lost the elections, the Congress has still not recovered fully or feel relieved that the Congress’ party’s vote base and its social coalition have still not been seriously eroded in Karnataka. If the central and state leadership of the Congress party can get their acts together, the party’s tally can only go up in 2009. Will that be good enough for the UPA to retain power at the Centre is an entirely different question!

The Choice of Kashmir!

For those of you who remember me from my Friday Club days, it would hardly be surprising that I’ve chosen to write something on ‘Kashmir’ for the first anniversary of this blog. However, there are pertinent reasons why I’ve chosen to re-visit this topic now.

Firstly, four assembly constituencies went to polls in the state of Jammu and Kashmir this Monday and the voter turn out has been the highest in more than a decade. While, one can not read anything extra-ordinary into the 72 per cent polling witnessed in Bhaderwah constituency in Jammu from where Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad has since won the election by securing nearly sixty-two thousand votes out of a total sixty-six thousand votes polled, this is not the case with the other three constituencies in Northern Kashmir. This time around Rafiabad has recorded 66.28 percent, Sangrama 40 per cent and Pattan 56.27 percent polling, as against the 2 per cent to 5 per cent polling that were recorded in 1989, 1996 and 1999! Incidentally, these are by-elections, and for the first time in the history of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Minister is not from the Kashmir valley.

Secondly, a day after these heavy turn outs were recorded, Daily Times, a Pakistani Newspaper, wrote an editorial openly admitting Pakistan’s ‘intervention’ in Kashmir and appreciating the change in Pakistan’s policy vis-à-vis Kashmir, while severely criticizing Syed Salahuddin, the Islamabad based leader of Hizbul Mujahideen. The lead writer almost suggests that Kashmir has hurt Pakistan’s interests more than anything else.

Now, don’t even imagine that people voted because terrorists had all gone home. The truth is that people voted despite the terrorists! As in the past, the polling in the Kashmir valley was indeed marred by separatist violence following the call given by the terrorists to boycott by-elections. A passer-by was killed and eight people were wounded in Srinagar when terrorists tossed a grenade at a passing vehicle of the CRPF. Terrorists hurled a grenade at a polling booth in Pattan while voting was in progress. Four people were wounded in the explosion in Palhallan village, forty kilometres from Srinagar. In another incident, terrorists hurled a powerful grenade at the Wagoora polling booth in Sangrama assembly constituency of Baramulla district. Earlier, on the eve of polling, terrorists had attacked five polling stations, lobbing powerful hand grenades at Pattan, Palhallan and at Kreeri, where it had injured one BSF trooper.

Of course, if you thought that separatist leaders would have finally read the writing on the wall, you are quite mistaken. “These elections do not weaken us” said Syed Ali Shah Geelani on Monday, “they were fought on small issues, and people tend to put aside the larger issues at such times, as pro-India politicians fooled people with promises of development, but our struggle is for freedom, not new drains.” For the moment, forget Geelani and his colleagues in the Hurriyat Conference. They are at least not denying that people voted, despite their call for boycott. Listen to what the Chief of the Jammu and Kashmir Mass Movement, Farida Behan Gee said on Wednesday: “The people of the valley have once again proved by boycotting the so-called sham elections that it holds no importance for them. India has been playing this drama of sham elections for the last six decades, but has never succeeded in breaking the firm resolve of Kashmiris for freedom struggle.” Would someone help Gee lift her head from beneath the sand?

But why are polling figures important? Perhaps, because some of us have been concerned about the Kashmiris’, like that of anyone else’s, right to self-determination. Many of us, deep within, are not sure if India is illegally occupying a territory by force. Perhaps, therefore it could then be said that it is this troubled consciousness that tries to draw solace from mundane figures like these! But should we actually be troubled? An examination of the historical facts proves beyond doubt the legitimacy of the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian union.

No, I’m not going to get into the debate whether Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession under duress or about the actual date of signing the Instrument of Accession or whether it was signed in the correct pro forma or not. I would want to refer to only a few undisputed facts. One, in 1947, there was definitely no clear preference for Pakistan among Kashmiris, whereas the dominant political party of the day, the Sher-i-Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah led Kashmir National Conference Party, supported by valley Muslims, clearly opposed Jinnah and Pakistan. History records that Jinnah was booed in Srinagar when he talked about his ‘two nation theory’. Two, by the time Yuvraj Karan Singh ascended the throne, the real power was with the people led by Sheikh Abdullah. When the Yuvraj nominated four members to India’s Constituent Assembly in June 1949, he acted not on his own, but on the advice of his council of ministers led by Sheikh Abdullah. Three, in August, 1951, the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was formed by the Yuvraj with members directly elected by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, on the basis of universal adult suffrage. This 75 member Constituent Assembly, on the 15th of February, 1954, voted 64 to 0, with 11 abstentions to ratify the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947. Four, the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which this democratically elected Constituent Assembly had framed, came into force on the 17th of November, 1957. Of the 158 sections of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, section 3 says that ‘the State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India’ and section 147 makes section 3 non-amendable! Five, the polling figures in Lok Sabha elections from Jammu and Kashmir until 1984 shows figures comparable to any other part of the Union of India. This to me shows that until the mid-Eighties, there were no doubts in the minds of the average Kashmiri regarding Kashmir’s accession to the Indian Union!

The only question that is then worth asking in this regard is why the course of history started changing from 1986 onwards. Again, let me not talk about contested facts. What is undisputed is that in 1986, the secular fabric of Kashmiri society began to rupture and the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits, first from Anantnag and then from the entire valley began. Terrorism began to raise its ugly head in the valley and peace became a long forgotten dream. But how come thirty odd years after the question of accession was settled by the people of Kashmir, these violent eruptions began from nowhere? Perhaps, the Daily Times Editorial gives you a hint. I quote: “Pakistan put everything at stake in 1990s when the insurgency in Kashmir started. It diverted a stream of “mujahideen” volunteers from a successful Afghan war to Kashmir and by the mid-1990s had created a situation in Kashmir that made the world wake up and take note of the Kashmir issue.”

That brings us back to our discussion on the polling figures in Monday’s by-elections. Let me take Geelani’s words at face value and assume that people voted because they are concerned about development. In which case, isn’t it that they actually believe that their elected representative(s) can actually make a difference in their lives, like in any other free democracy? In fact, the hope placed in the system should be much more there for people to defy threats to life and make it to the polling station, especially when the by-elections, except in Bhaderwah, wouldn’t have changed anything about the government.

Geelani and others in the Hurriyat always talk about tri-partite talks on Kashmir, between India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Technically speaking, does Pakistan have locus standi on this issue, except for the fact that Pakistan is an Islamic state and about 70 per cent or so of the people of Jammu and Kashmir are also Muslims? That leaves us with India and Kashmir. India has democratically elected representatives and so too do people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, except for those from parts under the occupation of Pakistani forces. Ghulam Nabi Azad, the elected Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir should be talking regularly to the leadership in Delhi. That I’m sure, they would have been doing even if Geelani or anyone else had not asked them to do so.

Pakistan’s ISI convinced successive leadership in Islamabad that if Soviet Union, then a super power, couldn’t stay in Afghanistan, it was only a matter of time that ‘mujahideen’ would ‘evict’ India also from Kashmir! Somewhere down the lane, that power of conviction seems to be coming down. Perhaps, there is an increasing realization that unlike the Soviets, Indians are defending their own territory and that any perceived support for Pakistan on the ground was over-estimated to say the least.

Since one of the oft-cited solutions to the Kashmir question is making the Line of Control (LoC) as the international border, we need to take a re-look at the LoC. If Pakistan has no legitimate claims over the state of Jammu and Kashmir, then technically, Pakistani occupation of nearly one third of the state is illegal and by force. However, what is interesting is that whether intentionally or not, the Line of Control had divided the state of Jammu and Kashmir on socio-political and ideological lines! To quote Bharat Kanrad, “the more assertively Islamic parts populated by the Mirpuri Muslims fell on the Paksitani side, there to join up with the ‘Northern Areas’… (where) the Muslim Conference Party had strong support in pre-partition politics”. The parts on the Indian-side consisted of Budhist-dominated Ladakh region, Hindu dominated Jammu region, and Muslim dominated Srinagar valley, where it was the pro-India, relatively more secular, National Conference Party that had ground support. As Kanrad points out, this division left India and Pakistan retaining the portions of the state that were ethnically and culturally in sync with them.

The last two decades of militancy was meant to change the ideological and ethnic character of Srinagar valley, which would have in turn tilted the overall balance towards Pakistan. Fundamentally, India and Pakistan represented and continues to represent two contrasting ideologies: One, inclusive and open, the other, exclusive and closed. Srinagar valley and the Sher-i-Kashmir had clearly chosen India and its ideology fifty odd years before. Even as late as on 11th of February, 1975, Sheikh Abdullah had written to the then Prime Minister of India: “The accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is not a matter in issue. It has been my firm belief that the future of Jammu and Kashmir lies with India because of the common ideal that we share." Defying the threat to their lives, people in the Kashmir valley have reiterated that once again… just this week!

P.S. Former Yuvraj, later Sadar-i-Riyasat and Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, Karan Singh was in news recently as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had sent him to Nepal as a special envoy. May be we would see more of him in future. He is definitely one of the probable candidates for the next rounds of Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections!

Historical Materialism and the Black Kettle!

Despite the fact that the struggle for independence has today mostly become mere pages in our collective history, no one with a right frame of mind, would stand in admiration based on blissful ignorance or selective amnesia of what the British had done here in this country, and certainly, not Dr Manmohan Singh or any Congress (wo)man for that matter! The reason is fairly obvious: The Congress’ claim to Delhi is rooted entirely in its history of struggle for Indian independence from the British! The freedom movement, which had thousands undergoing incarceration and other forms of persecution in their struggle against the British, happened mostly under the Congress flag! And that is a history that the Indian National Congress is proud of!

That is also a history, which troubles the Communist Parties in India. Therefore, such vociferous criticism of the Prime Minister for his statements in Oxford, should merely be seen as attempts by the Left to appropriate a part of the nationalistic spheres of Indian politics for themselves. Whether one likes it or not, economic growth and an apparent change in the status of the Country to one that has arrived in the international scene, has lead to there being an evident sense of pride in being an Indian. While Bharathiya Janatha Party would have wanted to hitchhike to power on such newfound and widespread nationalistic tendencies, they have to live with the fact that the original claimants to nationalism are still around.

As for the Left, while they may not be dreaming of coming to power on their own, in times like these, even they would like to have a piece of the pie, which has the flavour of the times! But, unfortunately for them, documented history stands in their way. Communist participation in freedom struggle was at its best, questionable; at its worst, fit to call them 'anti-nationals'! While Leftist historians have repeatedly pointed out the dubious role of the RSS, most of them would want themselves to skip a few pages here and there when looking at the role of the united Communist Party in the Indian Independence movement. In that sense, it is ironic, to say the least, although not unexpected, to see both the Comrades and the Pariwar now trying to appropriate historic pan-Indian nationalism!

In the course of this fight for political space, we even had one gentleman asking the Prime Minister to get back to basic history and learn about the freedom struggle against the British! If only he had known what he was asking!! And if only he himself had learned that history, he would then have realized that the Prime Minister’s statements put him in the august company of the likes of Gandhi, Tagore, Tilak, Gokhale, Radhakrishnan and Nehru. And these were leaders for whom the freedom struggle wasn't a story that they had heard from their parents. Who knows what Comrade Prabhat Patnaik, former member of the CPI (M) Central Committee might say tomorrow? That by having said good things about the British, they had all been insensitive to the millions of ordinary Indians, who had toiled hard and had even given up their lives to secure precious freedom? That these leaders had failed to see through the game plans of the forces of imperialism? Who really knows?

In the 1920s, when the Communist Party in India was born (CPI says it was born on 26, December, 1925 in India; CPM claims it was born in 1920 in the USSR!!!), it was equally opposed to both British Imperialism and the Congress Party. In response to the growing threat of fascism in the 1930s, the Comintern (which was, for all practical purposes, controlled by Stalin) adopted a policy of forming broad alliances with almost any political party willing to oppose the fascists. This brought about a change in the nature of the Indian communists' relationship with the Indian National Congress. Most communists joined the Congress Socialist Party, and in Kerala, they took control over the Congress Socialist Party. But during the Second World War, USSR sided with the British and the British legalised Communist movement in India. What happened then is interesting: The Communist Party opposed the Quit India movement, characterizing the Congress' call against the British as 'helping the fascists!!!

People's War, the then publication of the Communist Party, called Netaji Bose, 'Tojo's dog' and 'an agent of imperialism'. A series of cartoons in the People's War in 1942 attacked Netaji Bose: On August 8, Netaji was portrayed as a mere mask for the Japanese imperial ogre; on September 13, as a cur held up by Joseph Goebbels, and on November 21, as a Japanese bomb to destroy India. (Recently Budhadeb Bhattacharya and Jyoti Basu have admitted that they were wrong in discrediting Bose.) During Quit India movement, J. P. Narayan was shown in a cartoon as jumping into the pouch of the 'Kangaroo-Gandhi'. Mahatma Gandhi was accused of being merely "the astute leader of the bourgeoisie", being in a "decadent phase", and as one who had reached "the nadir of his bankruptcy".

In 1947, after having considered Gandhi's movement as 'a bourgeoisie struggle to entrench local capitalists', the Communists refused to accept India’s independence. History undoubtedly records that the Communists were the culprits behind the first armed rebellion against the newly independent state of India from Telengana, which Sardar Patel neatly crushed. It is only after the failure of the rebellion that the party abandoned 'armed struggle'! In 1962, when the Sino-Indian war broke-out, the Soviet faction of the Indian communists backed the position of the Indian government, while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese position. (EMS and BTR were imprisoned for their anti-national stand.) By 1964, this split was formalised. The pro-Moscow arm retained the original name of the party, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the pro-Beijing arm became the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM! Later, the extreme left movement came out of the CPM after the party started tasting success in parliamentary elections and began to go back on revolutionary talk. There is little wonder that these groups call themselves Maoists, and even today talk of Indian aggression against the Chinese in 1962!!! Unfortunately, these groups still cause havoc in regions like Telengana.

Let us cut a long story short. The Communist Party's chameleon role in the freedom struggle, whether they opposed both the British and the Congress, whether they opposed the British and sided with the Congress, or whether they opposed the Congress and sided with the British all depended upon the stand the USSR took vis-a-vis the UK at each point of time and had nothing to do with the interests of the people of this country. The only thing that changed in the post-independence days was that by the Sixties, some communists had new masters: China, instead of the USSR!

If the RSS finds faults with the Communists for being more Marxists than Indian, can you find fault with that?

This is not to call the entire present generation of Communists anti-nationals or traitors! Yet, it is a little unpalatable to read a write up by Comrade Patnaik in People's Democracy (which is nothing but the CPM successor of People's War, which had discredited the Congress leaders all the time during the freedom struggle), finding fault with a Congress PM for telling the British that despite a history of colonialism, India has moved far too forward to continue to blame Britain for all its ills!

There is no doubt that the role of the RSS in the freedom struggle is dubious! As is being pointed out, Savarkar's letter is a public document. This is not to deny the fact that Savarkar fought the British to deserve imprisonment. But he also gave up at a certain point. In any case, how much ever the Pariwar wants to glorfy its predecessors role in the freedom struggle, documented history would always trouble them. And, this holds true for the Left as well! No wonder, to prove their credentials, People's Democracy has been forced to cite a British despatch, which merely is about the gut feeling of a British officer that "the behaviour of many of CPI's members proves what has always been clear, namely, that it is composed of anti-British revolutionaries". History writing, the Left way!!!

The Left-leaning historians, who've dominated Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) till recently have come up with an 'official history', which is biased and deliberately ignoring 'other versions'. The worst example to cite? When ICHR decided that history should be available in regional languages as well, and not just in English, much to their ‘embarrassment’, most members of the ICHR 'realised' that they were themselves the leading historians in this country. R. S. Sharma, Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, Muhammad Habib, S. Gopal, Nurul Hasan, D. N. Jha and the rest have got not one, but two or three or four of their books so translated. And guess, who else have got the honour of ICHR publications? Surprise, surprise! EMS, P. C. Joshi, and even R. P. Dutt, the leader of the Communist party during the British period!! But certainly not the works of Sir Jadunath Sarkar or R C Majumdar!!!

Yet, Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1888 - 1980) was in my understanding, one of the greatest historians this country has ever seen. It is no surprise if some haven't heard of him or his three-volume History of the Freedom Movement in India. ICHR, which is supposed to promote historiography and history learning in this country didn't want people to know about him. To know why the Left didn't want people to know much about Majumdar, let me quote Rajaram quoting Majumdar: "During the great national upsurge of 1942, the Communists acted as stooges and spies of the British Government… Mr. Joshi (of the Communist Party) was placing at the disposal of India the services of his Party Members… Joshi had, as General Secretary of the Party, written a letter in which he offered ‘unconditional help’ to the then Government of India and the Army GHQ to fight the 1942 underground workers and the Azad Hind Fauz (INA) of Subhas Chandra Bose… Joshi’s letter revealed that the CPI was receiving financial aid from the British Government, ...had a secret pact with the Muslim League…"

For ages, we've discussed and debated the roles Jinnah and the RSS have played in the partition of this country. People have debated the roles of Gandhi and Nehru even. Have you ever heard the role of the Communist Party in it? Have you ever heard of the EMS thesis, as they called it then? In any case, don’t bother! For a party (CPM), which had called India the aggressors in the Indo-Chinese war and supported the Chinese, for a party, which had lauded the scientists and the people of China for successfully testing their nuclear weapons, but severely criticised the nuclear weapons testing of India, their history couldn't have been any better!

It is important to note that the 'standard history', that the Left cites in the case of Sarvarkar, also comes from Majumdar. To quote from People's Democracy, Vol. XXVI, No. 19, dated May 19, 2002, from the article titled 'Such Attacks Will Not Silence Us : CPI(M)' - "Sitaram (Yechuri) said that historically it is indeed true that V D Sarvarkar was in jail. It is equally true that he sought clemency from the British government, subsequently. These are historical facts. They are mentioned in the History of the Penal Settlement by none other than the nationalist historian, R. C. Majumdar."

Of course, the best line in that article is something else: "Sitaram rubbished the RSS talk that communists had played no role in the freedom struggle saying it is like the pot calling the kettle black."

Should I say Inquilab Zindabad for that?

_______________________________________

I would like to thank my dear friends, Muneera, Rijo and Swapna, for all the debates that happen in E-gops and especially, for the one we had on this issue. A special word of thanks to Rijo for encouraging me to state my case in the form of this write-up.

Ah, the revolution! It is coming!

Peter Drucker once said: “In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has had to worry about where the next meal would come from”. Some Economists in our country assume that, by this, Drucker was suggesting doing Economics as a good career option for youngsters.

Not surprising, considering the fact that we indeed have economists, perched in their state funded academic ivory towers, preaching the virtues of subsidies and telling us how labour reforms are a bad idea to begin with.

It seems, once labour reforms happen, it would be difficult to earn wages without working. Now, who would know it better than these scholarly men that there cannot be a worse concept than having your wages linked to your contribution to work! I mean, can you imagine, the right to wages being conditional? The right to life is a fundamental right, and income, which is so basic to life; can it be conditional upon, say, work?

Isn’t it so obvious that the right to strike too is a fundamental right? Apparently, the honourable Supreme Court is not taking into consideration the rights and the aspirations of the common man. I didn't say this. The Professors, they said it!

Of course, the right to employment is a fundamental right as well. Doesn’t it follow that you need to be employed to have the right to strike? In which case, if someone is unemployed, it means that the state has failed to protect the rights, and hence the government should resign. Now, don’t ask me why only the government should ensure results, when the labour force of the country wouldn’t have to! Or may be I should attempt to answer that. Let me think... Is it that while the labour force forms the proletariat, the comprador capitalists, who cannot be left unaccountable, run the government?

Aha! I can see some sense now. Too good! I am glad that despite American imperialism strangling even our cultural ethos, and the liberalization, privatization and globalization, forced on us by the MNCs, the World Bank and the IMF, we have not lost the ability to think clearly. I am glad we haven’t been influenced by the steady growth in the economy or the expansion of the middle-class or even the gradual reduction in poverty. Ask the Professors and they can disprove all the changes that you think you have seen in the last two decades. In case, some things can’t be disproved, they can very well tell you how terrible those would be for the country in the long run.

Alright! Let us put two and two together: The Left in this country is allowed to have it way and the right to wages, the right to strike, and the right to be employed become fundamental rights. This, clearly, precludes the possibility of any rights to the capitalist-employer. Since the employers, given their limited rights, would then decide to minimize the use of labour, it becomes imperative upon the state to generate employment. The state, since it needs capital to employ these millions, and since it is expressly anti-national to depend on imperial agencies like the World Bank and the IMF, taxes the capitalists to the extent possible. The capitalists, who would thus see their capital sponged off, could then either go and settle abroad with whatever they have or continue producing till s/he is broke and join the labour force. You thought of cost cutting through technological change as a possibility? Sorry, the money that could have been invested in R&D would have been wiped off as taxes, and foreign-collaboration is a strict no-no! Thus, as more and more businesses close, the state steps in to provide jobs for more and more people. How long? Since there are no additional sources of capital left, the state starts pump priming and galloping inflation sets in. Or did you think of the possibility of state-run firms employing everyone who were around and still making profits and thus, generating enough capital to continue running the show? Goodness, you are so right! I mean, if we can make sure that there is no competition from anywhere for the goods and services produced by the state-run firms, why can't they make profit? May be the prices might rise a bit, but the Government can subsidize… oh, sorry, forgot that there is no money… well, prices might rise and then the salaries can be increased and then the prices may rise a little more and the salaries can rise a little further…

Hours and days pass by and finally the system comes to a stand-still! The reserve army of the unemployed swells up instantaneously and the revolution- ah! the revolution, the Professors have taught and foretold a whole generation of students - would finally happen. Of course, this revolution may not have guns and bullets. Stones and sticks should still be affordable, and in any case, Marx hasn’t said anything about that. The state, the ultimate oppressor, would finally collapse, and assuming that other countries are all too busy with their own affairs, peace, a just peace, an academically ideal condition, would prevail, even if it would be of the graveyard variety. What is important is that by then all private property would have been eliminated, and inequality would have already become history. And, well, the poor! You see, there can’t be such categories as the rich or the poor then.

The better-off and the worse-off? Yeah! The dead and the living!

My bets are on the Professors joining places ranging from Amherst to the Hague, offering new courses on neo-imperialism and underdevelopment, as soon as the Left parties come to power!

'Son-stroke' at twilight!

Thrishivaperoor: When Shri K Karunakaran, the crafty old man of Kerala politics, handed over the flag of his new party to his son, Shri K Muraleedharan, many in the audience were left wondering if he had finally lost the script. The veteran ‘leader’ would have liked his family form a dynasty at the state level in the Congress, on the lines of the Nehru-Gandhi family at the national level. For almost a decade now, he had tricked and blackmailed the Congress leadership at the Centre and at the state level, into deals, which foisted Shri Muraleedharan on to the state unit of the Congress in return for peace from him. But, the ever-spiraling ambitions of the father-son duo and the dormancy of Shri A K Antony’s leadership ended up in the parliamentary positions from the state being handed over to the opposition Left front on a platter. A complete disconnect with the grassroots meant that the Congress high-command did not know what actions to take until the state unit of the Congress had lost all semblance of credibility.

It was only after a couple of months that a leadership change in the government and a course correction in group politics happened. Less-idealistic but highly shrewd politicians took charge of the anti-Karunakaran forces in the Congress in a process, which found Shri Antony pleading once again before the party leadership for accommodating Karunakaran and his family. Yet, neither Shri Antony nor Shri Karunakaran’s friends at the centre, Shri Pranab Mukherjee and Shri Motilal Vohra, could stop Shri Karunakaran’s exit from the party. The central leadership apparently expects the party, as would anyone familiar with the see-saw politics of Kerala, a chance to sit in the opposition after the next Assembly elections. Hence, it becomes pointless to pamper Shri Karunakaran. The fact that even the Left wouldn’t openly woo him would have been considered when Shri Muraleedharan was expelled from the party for six years.

At his moment of reckoning, Shri Karunakaran was forced to choose between the party he built in the state and his son. He chose his son. Ironically, now that he finds himself outside the Congress, any dynasty, which he would have wanted to build through his son, can now be realized only in a setting similar to that of any of the Kerala Congress factions, where he could be a mere scarecrow on the fields of either of the opposing fronts in Kerala. What a fall for someone who was affectionately called by many Keralites as ‘the leader’! Smt Margaret Alwa appropriately referred to Shri Karunakaran’s problem as ‘son-stroke’. It is likely that history would judge him a trifle too harshly for succumbing to this sickness at the twilight of his life.

May Day wishes for the unemployed!

Collecting thoughts and colouring them with ink may not be treated as labour and so I wonder if I can rightfully celebrate May Day! That brings me to an interesting question about the place the unemployed have in India's proletarian parties.

The immediate provocation for this is the sustained opposition of the Left parties and the trade unions to labour reforms in this country. It is not very difficult to comprehend the position of the trade unions: Self-interest necessitates defending their existing rights and benefits. So it makes perfect sense for them to fight to keep wages higher than what they should be, even if it means that the demand for labour remains lower than what it should be. As long as they remain employed, the effect of high cost of labour on the overall industrial employment and the nature of production do not matter to them. Rational behaviour? You bet!

The Left parties cannot oppose the Trade unions. It is a problem, part of a historic image trap. Organised workers are the most visible component of the working class and historically, Left movements have identified with their cause. But where does that leave the Left parties vis-a-vis the unemployed, the underemployed and the employees of the unorganised sectors?

Contrary to the expectations of basic economic logic, Indian industrialisation has been predominantly capital-intensive, even as the country has remained as an obvious case of a capital scarce, labour abundant economy. A couple of distortions explain this. One is the presence of the so-called 'depreciation allowance' on tax, which allows companies to write off amounts against capital depreciation, promoting an obvious bias in favour of capital over labour. What a brilliant state policy for an over-populated country, right?

What is, but of much more consequence is the inflexibility in the labour market and the presence of laws obviously biased against the employers. Once the real cost of employing labour is artificially high, it should hardly be surprising that industrialists prefer capital-intensive techniques of production, even in a labour abundant country like ours. So the liberalised private sector now grows at exciting rates, but without any reforms in the labour market, there is hardly any growth in employment in the manufacturing sector. Well, the critics of economic reforms talk about jobless growth, but what they would not want to admit is the fact that it is due to less reforms and not more!

In a country, where nearly 9 out of 10 workers in the manufacturing sector are in the unorganised sector, where a good number of agricultural workers are underemployed, and where unemployment levels are high even by developing country standards, should a small percentage of unionised workers hold back employment growth? Should the better off among the working class be allowed to protect their interests by effectively blocking the entry of others?

Labour reforms would reduce the cost of employing labour and would thus result in an increased demand for labour. Any benefit this process accrues to the industries would again translate into more jobs. In a country, where the average level of education is nothing worth writing home about, service sector jobs can provide employment only to a small, often English educated, minority. So there is no way one can truly undermine the importance of employment generation in the manufacturing sector. This, but, demands the immediate removal of anti-employer biases from labour laws. In the long-run interests of the working class movement, in the interests of the 'reserve army of the unemployed', would the Left parties oblige? Let this May Day mark a new beginning for the poor and the unemployed of this country.