JNU GSCASH Presidential Debate: What was said and what was left unsaid

The evening of 20^th March, 2013 saw the presidential debate for the Gender Sensitization Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) in JNU. I will try to put up an account of what the candidates spoke about, what questions they were asked, what they replied, and how did it feel like being in the audience. At the outset I would want to eliminate a few misconceptions: even though most parties, by general consent, claim that the GSCASH candidate is “independent,” “neutral,” and so on – which basically means that most of them refrain from contesting under their party's name – in reality the affair is much more openly political. The publicity campaign is run by the parties. The floor of the debate is divided into clearly demarcated areas where each of the party's cadre sit, and loyalty votes are freely asked by the parties from those who they think sympathize with them. There are consequences of the results too: a party would look at it as a matter of pride generally if its candidate wins the election, to speak nothing of the prestige that can be used in the coming elections of the students' union or GSCASH in the next term. The other problem of this deliberate de-politicization of GSCASH elections is that this is what the right-wing powers in campus and outside want: you are students, you shouldn't be allowed to talk about politics, do not make gender a political agenda, let us do the talking for you, and so on. Why, then, should progressive left parties want to speak the same language? The second misconception that needs to be cleared is regarding the relationship between the candidates and the audience; this is an unequal relationship, since the candidates make many claims about what their party has done in the past, and what they will once again do when given a chance. Some candidates went to the extent of saying that every vote given to her would be a blow to patriarchy! Usually the “how” questions are avoided, and when pushed, evaded. Hence, even if the debate seems democratic in its format, it lacks a very crucial aspect: there is no way the audience can verify the lofty claims made by the candidates. While there did exist a procedure earlier to discuss the annual faring of the GSCASH before elections, this has become defunct. But it is clear that GSCASH autonomy rests in dis-balance until such mechanisms for review are reinstated.

Around 5 30 pm, the proceedings for the election began. There was a show of strength going on, meanwhile, in the audience, which comprised mostly of political parties by now. As the debate began and carried on, more and more people filled in. A liberal estimate would be that perhaps a thousand – out of the seven thousand students enrolled in JNU – students were witness to the whole debate.

Abhiruchi Ranjan (All India Students Association) She began with a couplet about the freedom of women. Her manner of speaking was rather affected, and spontaneity was clear in its absence. She began by saluting the spirit of women's resistance in various contexts – against the AFSPA, against feudal caste relations, against the state war against tribals (there are some obvious omissions in this list, as we will see later; these omissions, in fact, were spoken of by none). Apart from this, there were no threads running through her speech, except these: firstly, she seemed to be in favor of increasing official, administrative mechanisms dealing with gender (gender orientation programmes and modules in courses). Secondly, she spoke in favor of everyone's right over their own sexual choices and the integrity of their bodies. Thirdly, she constantly reminded the audience of the recent protests in Delhi after a gangrape that caught high media attention, more than hinting that its leadership came from the “Freedom without Fear” campaign headed by her parent party. She was asked what was done regarding the issue of the LGBT community in the previous GSCASH term, when a student of her party was the representative. She replied that it was talked about during the gender orientation session held at the beginning of the previous semester, to which many in the audience shouted back that these sessions hadn't much to do with alternative sexualities. The second question she was asked was that having spoken about sexual crimes all over the country and the world, why was she or her party silent over the failure of the GSCASH to support a girl from outside who was molested within the campus by a student? Her reply was that she doesn't distinguish between the outside and the inside, and that the crimes committed in other parts of the country are more gruesome. Many in the audience did not consider this a proper reply to the question asked.

Dipti Tamang (Democratic Students' Federation) She began by pointing out towards the momentum built around gender issues in the wake of the famous Delhi-gangrape. She said that while on the one hand people are questioning patriarchy and asserting their rights over their body, the parliament is still living in its patriarchal mindset. It is necessary to question the ideas regarding gender that we grow up with, as well as do away with the draconian powers given to the police and the military. She pointed out how the state is ignoring the JVC and instead pushing forth laws that are to the detriment of women, which needs to be fought on the streets. She is not against the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Bill, but wants it to keep gender bodies representative rather than nominated in their elections. She believes that the administration should grant support to maintain the autonomy of GSCASH, and that GSCASH should keep a regular counselor in the health centre to provide psychological support to complainants.

Lovey Srivastava (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad) She began by narrating a string of developments world over where women achieved, recently, their equal rights with men, in terms of wages, right to work, right to social access, etc. But this enumeration ended abruptly, and she came to issues closer home. The most important part of her agenda was that GSCASH must be de-politicized, since it is a “neutral” body in the first place. It should not become a site for political clash, and must be impartial in its functioning as a court is. She has been in the campus since her BA days (now ten years), and she has consistently seen how the neutral character of the body has been watered down by political parties, and that GSCASH is often a tool for retribution. Hence, there should also be steps to curb false cases registered in GSCASH. Apart from these, she was in favor of demands for sanitary napkin dispensers in campus, speedy disposal of cases, and so on. She also spoke in favor of the students' protest that took place in Delhi of late, and against physical violence against women. She was asked what her idea of gender sensitization is. She replied that many students in campus watch porn in their rooms, and that should stop. She also believes that the administrative class that the girl faces exploitation from includes professors on one hand, and workers – mess, sanitation, etc. - on the other. She was asked how she could speak against rape when her parent party – the BJP – perpetrated these very crimes against minorities in state-sponsored pogroms. She replied that if these allegations are true, she condemns them. She was asked if she was in favor of condom-vending-machines in campus. To which she replied yes, and not only in campus but otherwise also. She was then asked how could she ask for stopping pornography given that MLAs from the BJP indulge in it in the parliament? She replied it is a detestable habit, and hence should stop everywhere, accepting the MLAs folly too. Lastly, she was asked what is her opinion about the LGBT group. She said she accepted them, but did not endorse them.

Sandhya Das (UDSF, SFR, New Materialists, Independent support) Her election agenda was based on the idea that patriarchy not only identifies the woman as its target, but also different kinds of women, based on lines of caste, nationality, and so on. She asked those who supported the protests against the famous Delhi gangrape why they remain silent about the Soni Soris and Asiyas and Nilofars. She pointed out that the Justice Verma Committee report – and law in general – would remain useless until and unless society steps up to uphold that, for which a patriarchal mindset will have to be questioned. In this regard, she criticized the dominant left for sacrificing work amidst people to media-centric attention. (What would be the nature of this work, however, she did not clarify.) She also exposed the image-centric notion of activism – the jholas, unruly beard, glasses of the standard activist – against allegations (these allegations have been made, but there is exageration also) that she is elite in her appearance and diction and so on. She upheld the right to sexuality also, openly raising the issue of the right to safe and free sex. She was asked what she thought wrong with the JVC report, and she clarified that nothing was wrong with it, but it was wrong to assume it will somehow work by itself, given the state's continuous disregard for reports of this kind. She was then asked why she was against protesting at Jantar Mantar, to which she replied that the kind of media-centric protest that JNUSU and the left in campus believe they are leading is actually just a “hang-over” from their Anna Hazare obsession.

Srirupa Bhattacharya (Democratic Students' Union) Srirupa was the only candidate who admitted to fighting from her party. She pointed out that we do not recognize that what the gender movement is up against is not simply misbehaviour, but entrenched patriarchy. In the context of the gang-rape protests in Delhi, she said that those of the campus left who claim to have led the protests had nothing to say when the demands for death penalty and chemical castration were raised, and they couldn't do anything when demands for increased surveillance and policing came about. She accused them of failing to recognize that it is this police that is the agent of patriarchal forces in our society. It will take a popular struggle to even uphold the autonomy of GSCASH. She also raised concerns about women of the marginal sections of society – SC/ST women, women of oppressed nationalities, and so on. She also put forth the suggestion that the results of GSCASH inquiry be binding for the administration to act upon. She was questioned about this point, as to what exactly she meant by it. Her reply was rather unclear, but suggested that as things stand presently, the GSCASH gives out its conclusions to the administration, which then acts on these. It should be GSCASH which decides how to act upon the findings they have.

Tintumol Joseph (Students Federation of India) She saluted the spirit of the people who took to the streets after the Delhi-gangrape and condemned the govt.'s passing the ordinance rather than accept the recommendations of Justice Verma. While she condemned the upper hand of the state with its draconian laws in Kashmir and North East, her party's position in Tripura still remained unclear. Tintumol argued towards preserving the autonomy of the GSCASH from administrative interference as well as from being made nominative under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill. She spoke against the vulnerability that a student has to face in lodging and carrying through a complaint against a professor, and promised to balance out these inequalities if given a chance. She also said that there needs to be a more timely dispensing of justice in GSCASH cases, and was ready to brace all these challenges as a GSCASH student representative.

We must also ask ourselves a few questions after having heard what the candidates have to say. Firstly, amidst all the slogans for Bhanwari Devi, Nilofar-Asiya, Manorama Devi, Irom Sharmila, nobody mentioned Shah Bano. That is the Achilles' Heel of the left (even the “independent” left/caste-based/tribe-based parties) on campus. The progressives here rarely talk about Shah Bano. And we know this belongs to the votebank strategies in campus. There is nobody asking the question if patriarchy also further marginalizes women and children within the marginalized. Secondly, nobody raised the question of the moral-policing that hostel rules allow. There are huge fines levied upon students if guests (of either gender) are found during warden checks. Mostly, hosting men is easy for men, since it only requires putting a letter requesting permission, which then costs Rs 10. There is no way a woman guest can stay over. Why does this never figure into the discourse on moral-policing in campus? Thirdly, there are considerable gaps between the agenda put on the parchas and those spoken of in speech. For example, nobody spoke of sanitary-napkin-dispensers, even though it was part of the agenda. Nobody spoke of condom-vending-machines. The former was promised last time too, but not given, hence it was better not to mention it. The latter was an attempt to sound progressive, but as it turned out, repression got the better of most left candidates, while it was an ABVP candidate who agreed to it! Likewise, nothing substantial was said about the issue of alternative sexualities. What is to be done with token support? How about speaking against the stereotypes and misconceptions that many in campus hold regarding the LGBT?

The most important thread running across all these concerns is the disappearance of the “how” questions. A friend who witnessed the election remarked that nobody seemed to be interested in really doing something, it was just a power-game that one plays in the interest of one's party. What will be required now isn't simply voting for one or the other candidate, who seems to us most radical or most progressive, but rather a strong pressure on GSCASH from outside to deliver sincerely and deliver on the correct issues. We need to have quarterly report discussions in which all the developments in GSCASH are publicly read out and discussed. We must demand and help ensure that complainants are not threatened by professors or political parties to take back their complaints, and that they are helped against psychological torment by insensitive and crooked elements. We must demand that gender sensitization should include students and professors, and must be regular. GSCASH elections need to be organized with the JNUSU elections. There must be provisions that if a student's representative has resigned, there must be by-elections so that the student representation is not weakened. More time must be given for the candidates to be questioned: it is seen that they talk nonsense for this limited time and simply get away without answering important questions. The effects of the Sexual Harassment Bill on GSCASH autonomy and our plan of action must be made more clear. And these are only preliminary demands. The list must definitely grow. Meanwhile, we must not take the elections lightly and must cast our vote having thoroughly judged the agenda of each candidate. We must not think of voting as a favor for somebody whom we know or who has helped us. We don't want privileges, we want what is rightfully ours.

"For India to win....."

Nationalism, patriotism, is a hoax. There are historical reasons for its emergence as a social force. Those reasons are not under dispute. But as an attitude, as an ideal to follow and propagate, its fraud is pretty apparent if one could look at its functionings without it playing in one’s head.

An interesting example to begin with is how easily it injects geopolitics in sports, and food, and things like that. We have just seen a glimpse of this in the two sports tournaments held of late: the Euro cup, which saw massive riots between soccer fans of various countries, and the cricket world cup. Having a more personal experience of the world cup, I’d like to point out some telling examples from it. The first most obvious, yet incredibly overlooked aspect is that patriotism is a selling commodity, with highly inelastic demand. In a world where food and other essentials are being kept away from so many, nationalism is the stuff of mass spoon-feeding. Such drivel as put in advertisements, devoid of wit, sense, or aesthetics, is still accepted if it calls out to the patriot in us, much as god calls out to the devotee in us. Commentators on radio and television chant on and on the requirements “for India to win”, seven times often between six balls bowled. The commentator’s purpose seems to be to tell his audience what they must be bothered about. Had this been a gladiator’s fight in a Colosseum, we couldn’t have told the difference. Did we not see a flag representing the Indian Army in the match against Pakistan waving in the crowd? A radio transmission of a cricket match had its commentator suddenly losing his voice in the middle of a sentence; when his co-commentator resumed after an awkward gap of five seconds, we learned that a player of our beloved team, “our player” had just been bowled out. As we understood that our run-rate did not qualify us for the semi-finals, the cameras in the TV transmission flashed to us constantly clips of the supporters of Pakistan, sporting T-shirts of South Africa, since it could now prevent our entry in the semis over theirs. If we took the broadcast company’s bait – which many of us did – we would be among those delusionals who refuse to clap at the rival’s shots because we just cannot see they’re playing good, who feel that those Pakistanis have no moral fibre because “they can stoop down to wear another jersey”, “they are at it again, heckling us”, and such other ruses, not for once recalling our bad mood a few hours ago when they defeated a team we lost to.

The person who’s patriotic – and today this mostly means chauvinistic – because he feels the enemy is constantly scheming feels justified because he is given so many examples, of which even if many are manufactured, many still are true. However, even those examples are reflections of what “the enemy” has seen in us. So even if there is a sense of self-righteousness, but deceit from outside, this exists on both sides. And when we would see the networks of industry and realpolitik between the two sides, this illusion would be broken. Therefore, one is shown as little of this as possible. The problem isn’t that they are bad; the problem is that we aren’t very different from them, and as they cling to their powers and terrors, so do we to ours.

Constraints over entertainment industry, even if real and necessary, have some looseness in application which seems “allowed” in some sense. So, when cricket “analysts” question the Duckworth Lewis score system when their team has lost, but look at it in askance in another hour, we laugh at it but also know that it matters little. However, much more is expected from news-broadcasting. Let us see what is delivered: a radio broadcast on the day of Gandhi Jayanti spoke about “tribals and local officials in the Andamans paying eager homage to the father of our nation in a sarvadharma prarthna (all-religious prayer ceremony)”. This is a rare message from those faraway islands; what is disturbing is that everyday there is an industry waiting to turn those islands into a major tourism zone, even more disturbingly into some sort of a “primitive man zoo”, very much with the permission of the state. But, since “the tribals” have paid homage, they must be “one of us”, so things cannot be bad for them. In Gujarat, the same ceremony was held in the name of that vile rioter Narendra Modi. Likewise, in a state that is liberal in principle, it no matter of shame or oppression for a foreign minister to say angrily, possessively “Kashmir is an integral part of India” at a UN forum, much as one may say that a certain tree falls in my backyard. Apparently, these reasons are adequate to ban the consumption of gutka and liquor from the Andamans and Gujarat (“as was Gandhi’s belief”), to deploy massive armies in “disturbed areas” (an inheritance from colonialism).

That nationalism is a powerful force has been known since long; what truly reinforces this fact is that it is so effective still, in spite of the many indications of its harms to those very people who have espoused it. It is a tribunal for those who are presented with it: the next time you see someone swearing by the nation, do observe if you can see traces of his being coerced into it by our situation. At the same time, it distracts beautifully. Our Prime Minister recently made a strange comment: he equated the opulence of the few rich, “our” economy, to matters of “national security”; apparently, he has faith over the garbing properties of the phrase “national security”, much as this term invokes memories of terrorism, amplified by predatory media that has silenced everybody in its noise. The biggest advantage that nationalism has is that it is like a capsule that can be doled out by a small clique of people, and then spreads on its own. That’s why the state wants to be seen at its fountainhead, and also those nationalist movements that emerge from a large chunk of people eventually tend to statism. We would find plenty of examples: Gorkhaland, Telangana, so on and so forth. Even those “revolutions” that are anti-nationalistic in their outlook – many of the Communist states formed in the 1900s – bear notorious marks of branding as “betrayal” or “counter-revolutionary” any activity that seeks to differ from what the high-command has in mind.

Nationalism takes the place of other tendencies that are not so emotional, so irreflexive, and so inflexible as it is. All sorts of movements where people have raised protest over legitimate demands have known, often have been stunted by, the heavy hand of patriotism of some kind which tells them what they think is unimportant compared to what the powers have planned. Or else, they are co-opted by it. We are seeing this in Koodankulam and Kalapakkam, where even the judiciary believes the real question is not what the people think about the plant, but whether the nuclear plant is safe or not. We saw this in the case of the Maruti Suzuki Workers’ Union struggle in IMT-Manesar, Haryana, where the state unambiguously supported the management in every way possible, first in apathy towards a management’s high-handed and violent attempt to break the workers’ right to organize themselves, and then in hounding them with greatest judicial speed possible. Moreover, when Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. showed signs of moving out of Haryana, Narendra Modi (an icon of today’s nationalism) sprang up to invite them, saying he could build a bigger garrison for them to set up their factory in, to exploit cheap, desperate hands, and keep them under the leash of hired muscle-power of the same class of men. The truth is that everyone is well aware of these things: demolition of shanties, rural distress, casualization of labour, all these are tied, eventually, to the fingers of the state. However, there’s a veil of nation and allegiance to nation (hence to state) that makes these seem legitimate state of affairs.

Today, Indonesia is added to all those places in Africa, Arabia, Europe and the Americas where people have discarded questions about whether the nation is important or not, and asked if power must be entrusted to the state. In Indonesia, millions of workers have entered the streets denouncing their casualization. Even this list is not exhaustive: there are many other places where protest is the norm of the day. Meanwhile, how we can look above the questions of nation would decide what we can do for ourselves as autonomous people. There’s definitely a lot to be done.

2.10.12

Making sense of Anonymous' Operation India

The wave of protests that the world was swept with in 2011 is claimed to have trickled down in India: how far and to what effect, that's the question we ask. The controversy over Anna Hazare aside – that is, whether or not it should be considered a part of that world-wide wave – this time Anonymous has managed to put up an Operation India. They have managed to reach to a huge class of internet users, especially those social-network friendly people centred across many cities (even if this network misses out many places systemically), and has managed to put in place a physical protest. Hence, trying to understand them is somewhat justified, in spite of the many temptations against such an exploration.

AI opposes certain developments in internet-regulatory laws, which broadly imply:

1. that the govt. has access to social-network postings of users of these social networks
2. that there will be increased regulation of 'objectionable material' online, and provided that complaints are made by those aggrieved by something, such material would be asked to be taken offline
3. that public hosting web-sites (torrents, certain video web-sites) will no longer be permitted to operate, in toto

Much of the present furore is limited to these demands. Which is a pity, because one expects much more from them when one reads of them. (Details found on the OpIndia page)

The parent of AI – A – claim that their purpose is to expose “government and establishment hypocrisy”. In their version of history, “The Indian Government has been making strong laws that allow them to invade your privacy and to censor your free speech since 2008.” From the outset, two things are clear: the outlook of AI coincides with the most ignorant of presuppositions that fills the dominant Indian discourse, media, and thereby common sense; they are largely unaware of violent state-repression, and their freedom must be solely understood in the sense of internet rights (though we shall see that even their idea of internet freedom is somewhat skewed). This outlook produces such gems like “Fifty years ago, your freedom fighters laid down their lives for your freedom. Today, your Government has taken away those freedoms.” Or, often, abrupt dosages of Anna-wisdom: “The Government of India is shielding its ministers who are involved in corruption scandals. The Government plans to keep you ignorant about its tricks. They have censored out several websites that share information. Your Ministry of Communications & Information Technology & it’s minister Kapil Sibal is to blame.” Another, now irretrievable, went: “We stand for freedom. We stand for free internet. We stand against corruption.” Secondly, they largely target that audience which finds it comfortable to stick to these presuppositions, and hence AI is also unwilling to engage in questions about freedom and repression by a hypocritic establishment on any serious level. In a way, it helps: it creates the impression that history was fair till now (and hence our quiescence), and now that suddenly things have gone bad, we must speak against them. However, it helps only in adding numbers; it does not help at all in understanding the problem as it stands in its entirety. Anonymous OpIndia (Operation India) fails because it is innocent of the history of state-repression, of what it thinks it addresses.

Consider some other parts of the argument: we'll give AI that they've been consistent about their demand for freedom of expression on the internet. However, what about torrents and other web-hosting rights? “Torrents are widely used to distribute open source and free software such as linux distributions, and many other books and publications that are in the public domain. .. Many small - medium businesses use vimeo to showcase their services and individuals including filmmakers and designers use it to promote their work. .. Most of these sites provide a mechanism for illegal and copyrighted content to be taken down, but the GoI and Indian ISPs decided to bypass this mechanism and block these sites entirely.” AI is unwilling to recognize, or at least discuss, peer-to-peer rights like the ones used in torrents. If I wish to lend or borrow something I possess, and there's already a system existing that facilitates that, why block those systems? This is a question AI refuses to ask; it is a spokesperson for business rights, and seeks to even out the creases that have come into the surface of a cyber-operating business class. How much of the internet freedom argument, then, is to be considered seriously? (Interestingly, many enthusiasts and supporters, in spite of this open stand, express their solidarity on the fb pages, saying they want their movie/game sources back.)

I put an open question on fb (with some substantiation): shouldn't AI be addressing broader questions of state policy, and acknowledge it's historically aggressive role in society? Two replies to it, each interesting in its own right: first read “tl;dr”. Urban Dictionary says this means “too long, didn't read”. The second reply was a URL to the Anonymous India website, with two things written underneath: first, that primary focus was internet freedoms, other things being secondary. Second, “we are Anonymous, we are legion, we are an idea”. It's perplexing, but true: such slogans (if we may allow them this label) have become signatures of hundreds of AI enthusiasts. Two things are interesting to note: there's a very strong narcissistic spin in everything, borrowing from everything popular, from Guy Fawkes imageology to Anna Hazare-like verbage. The romanticist air of the revolutionary leaving for work is hard to miss. Secondly, related to this: the protest is a good occasion to come out in one's latest apparel, a mask and black overalls. The facebook pages of have turned into advertisements of mask-manufacturers (the second most asked question is: has anybody called the media?). Claims to represent “the 99 percent!”, and such paraphernalia seem incompatible, not just by the price (which would seem exhorbitant anyhow to most of the 99 percent), but by the very apparent absurdity and incongruity of the paraphernalia in regard to a protest. But again, this is just another pointer to the scope of OpIndia.

But let's just look at this hooh-hah in light of some other facts: paranoid shreiks in AI pages, highlighted in all sorts of ways (emboldened, reddened, UPPERCASE, etc.) beseeching all anonymous protesters “this is a nonviolent protest”. A little enquiry yeilded insights into what was meant by “non-violent”: the venue for the Mumbai protests was shifted from Gateway of India (the pride of Mumbai) to Azad Maidan (the prison house for all protests in Mumbai). When I asked for reasons on the fb page, I was told due to lack of permissions. I pointed out that one doesn't usually request permission from those one protests against. To this came the reply: the protest is non-violent. I inferred that this is not the non-violence we usually talk about, but is rather more akin to abiding by a benevolent, peace-loving state with it's golden laws. I was also told that a shift of venue doesn't mean anything. My feeling is that this protest has already been marked by state authorities as 'safe'. More facts; invitation procedure: simply sending invites to everybody on your friend-list. However, what goes on the posters, what goes in the slogans has been decided by a small clique of AI operants. The shift of venue itself was simply announced. Then came the calls for 'volunteers'. We keep everything in this paragraph in account, and look at the first claim of Anonymous: “Anonymous is a decentralized network of individuals.” Definitely not; if you're into event-management, you cannot afford to be decentralized. This is, unfortunately, true of AI.

OxbloodRuffin, in an article hosted by Kafila, has made two interesting observations:

“Any discussion of Anonymous is problematic. One is never sure which Anonymous is being referenced: the meme, the group as a whole, or an individual operation.” Hence we find these inconsistencies within what seems the same Anonymous umbrella. A question of importance here is the relative role of cyber-freedom in the different societies Anonymous has had operations in.

“Anonymous India and Why This Kolaveri di have two things in common. Both have achieved their fame through the Internet. And both are engagingly superficial.” Anonymous India has considered the possibility of a physical protest. However, it has surrendered it, in spirit, from the outset, to state leash. It has refused to delve deeper into state-repression in India while making claims addressing state hypocrisy, taking away of freedoms, etc. It fails to differentiate between a papparazzi event and a protest. However, there is at least one serious positive we must look at: it has managed to mobilize to a sizeable group of people, and to connect to an even bigger mass. Whatever the character of this mobilization, it is an important occasion for discussion, if there be concerted efforts. Unfortunately, efforts are not visible in the e-sphere in which the mobilization has taken place, but there's no need to think 9th June to be the deadline. AI OpIndia not only succeeds in mobilizing, but also in becoming a case to be considered for discussion.

It also holds a special place in the internal affairs of India. It is not a protest, but the image of one. However, much energies, much frustration could possibly find vent here, and there might be satisfaction of feeling one has lodged one's protest, even by help of such an image. The political class are already happy for two related reasons – many believe this is a protest, yet the protesters are already toeing the line. (Look at this for some protest guidelines) It's true that AI poses little danger as such; but still, it makes 'administrative sense' to award cyber concessions as a decoy-victory to ensure that that safety-valve is well-open (though this move also depends on other factors, like the interests involved in those cyber-laws, the relative trade-off between the safety-valve and those interests, the perception of the political class of this issue, etc.). We still await the events of 9th June, 2012, and thereafter, to come to conclusions.

On modern cleanliness

It is perhaps the greatest irony we live in today that we, who strive to keep ourselves clean in every act we perform, leave around us a mess that can be considered nothing if not unclean even in terms set by us. We have created such a divide between our body and our surroundings that we cannot see that what is dirty around us will get inside us forthwith. So immediately, we must see how ironic it is that we find such an evident thing ironic.

Firstly, most of us who consider ourselves the cleanest create the most of the unhygienic conditions we live in. Consider the most elementary measures of modern hygiene: hand sanitizers, soaps, brooms, electrical appliances. Are these not packaged in plastic? Does not the disposal of that plastic become a most serious problem for modern social cleanliness? But 'modern social cleanliness', insofar as it rests in our minds, believes in buying as much of these as it can, and 'disposing of' unnecessary plastic bottles and covers as soon as their purpose is met. As it rests in the lexicon of the state, the plastic ought to be taken to the dumpyard and let be. In the scheme of do-good voluntarists, the solution lies in reusing or recycling plastic. However, they are not willing to admit that 'modern' man would rather 'dispose it of', even after reuse, and that a lot more would be found 'disposed of', blocking drains and other sewer-outlets, than would be found being recycled. Nor would they challenge the blind use of plastic, lest the industry be enraged. Considering modern perspectives on orgainic waste is even more harrowing: the 'modern' individual can vomit anywhere in hordes after booze-parties, and forget about it as if disowning it. The 'modern' man does not seek to know what happens to his shit after he dispels it. Using soap water to clean himself, 'modern' man would then consider that soap water dirty, and what would have been used for other purposes simply as water, otherwise, is now let to flow away in the drains as carrying soap and 'bacteria'. All of the 'modern' elite class' conception of cleanliness consists of 'disposing of' something at a distance decided as agreeably far away. And when they must pass that dump of garbage, each would mutter, or whinny: "How dirty!".

But for every such 'modern' man, there must also be ‘a few good men’. For who picks up the garbage from the carts to the dump-yard? Who mops up our vomit when we have disowned it? Who but the rag-picker can realize the task the the do-gooder when he says, "Recycle, Reuse!"? The 'next-generation' conception of social cleanliness lies in throwing of all garbage at an agreeable distance, but for even this they need somebody to stay regularly with that garbage, to transport it, and hence their picture of man will always stay fragmented and dichotomized. One group of men, for them, are responsible for things which are more important than such petty tasks as pertaining to cleanliness, however important being clean "themselves" might be. Another class of men must take responsibility of throwing garbage at a distance; their justification is that he gets paid for it. Often, when pressed, they would tell you “to each according to his merit”. Because one has taken the pains to study, one deserves a “better” job, or a “job suited to his qualifications”. Because the other did not, he must maintain toilets for two-rupees-a-person. But we know only too well how our money economy facilitates the production of those without schooling, and also of those left with no other alternatives as work but the refuse of all: garbage disposal. Feudal arguments often enter here: "they have been traditionally doing it as their caste-profession, let them do it". Even when the burden of the entire society's cleanliness falls upon the other man, the 'modern' state seeks to extract as much labour from him for as little remuneration as possible. Whence arrives contractualization of social cleanliness workers, and with that "cutting-down" on their gloves, clothes, and other gear required to protect them from dangers and indignity. Modern social cleanliness believes in creating a class of men who will deal with filth at the least possible cost, and in having them banished from the midst of a society that it cleans.

These attitudes enshrined in modern-day social cleanliness resonate with two strongly held socio-psychological prejudices held by men of today. Firstly, that for some men, it is unhealthy to come into contact with dirty things due to low immunity, while some others have developed immunity because of their social class. Secondly, that for some men, their merit makes it below their dignity to touch such base things as organic waste, while others must pay for their laziness and/or ungifted nature by cleaning the mess others make. Concern for health and for dignity mix together and claim justification every time any of us 'modern' men refuse to touch the flush-knob, fearing it has been already touched by dirty hands; notice that our concern for physiological health also means that we distrust those of our own class (however, refusing to consider distrust ourselves even). But more importantly, this also explains how coolly we watch as others clean up after us. The truth is that those classes upon whom we thrust our filth are not blessed with any magical immunity as we like to believe; class-based studies of health indicators have established since long that those whom we abet towards garbage suffer from worse health conditions. Meanwhile, our cleanliness and our affluence brings its own afflictions, trumping any possibility of a one to one correspondence between cleanliness and good health. Secondly, there is no serious evidence to show that some men are innately more gifted or meritorious than others, and hence the only explanation of social inequalities are social mechanisms.

Modern hygiene has been stamped with the inequalities that are part of our political economy, for which function its own particular assumptions. By exposing their irrationality and inhumanity, we move towards challenging that very political economy. But most importantly, social cleanliness offers us a window-view of this political economy right from our homes, and at once we realize that we are part of something big.

An Anarchist Diary

As one promises, so one must deliver. I was, since some time, ardently looking for ways by which I could be more frequent on this blog, but did not have the motivation to. I realized that I hadn't thought much about the many topics I could write on. To call this an anarchist diary is to be bashful in many ways; now that one is bashful, one would have to work too. Moreover, anarchism, if what I understand of it is true, is the most apt label to go for the variety of things I have in mind to put down in thoughts.

Some reflections on the "Population Problem"

It always confuses me how, on the one hand, so many people must stay without resources and with all sorts of man-made dangers in a city, while the countryside has such vast expanses of land we pass by in buses or trains, or which we see from planes. Upon a little thinking, I see that in cities itself there are such stretches of resource that are utilizable, but generally guarded by a man, or a lock, or by something hard or fierce. So often has one heard that there are simply too many people. If one were sincere in saying that, and ashamed of it as one seemed, one would have to be ashamed of oneself's being born, of his being one of the too many. But that is something unacceptable to the most hard-core believer of this one-too-many philosophy, and hence we must leave him at that. It is worth asking if by bearing a few children lesser, a poor man would be any less poorer than he would otherwise be. For him, poverty is already a condition, with which he must cope. In such a state, it is difficult to decide whether the more children one has are more mouths or more hands.

On military history and militarism

I suffer from some reservations, and a feeling that I am wasting time, whenever I read military history. This is one reason why I couldn't understand Tolstoy's War and Peace and the second part (titled 'Cosette') of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, which began with the narration of Napolean's final fall at Waterloo. The problem was, firstly, that there seemed to no landscape that I could see things happening in, so when I would be told that a division was cut by another or that one division gained advantage due to being higher than its opponent, I couldn't sum up what it meant. But even when I did pick up the major events and the general course of the battle, I would want this narration to get done with quickly. I didn't see how it added to the story (and haven't realized till today) and wondered why such beautiful and comprehensible, even to a thirteen year old, writing should ruin the simplicity and flow by the addition of such seemingly insignificant but exasperating events.

That was still a piece of literature (the purpose of which one can't dictate nor prescribe beyond practice); in history, military records enjoy a more formidable and already justified position. The object of a military historian's narrations is military strategy; pages and pages are filled with description of the slightest of details of the events and itinerary of battles, tales of courage and cowardice, and as a cherry on the cake, some witticism as to how things would have turned out differently had different things happened. The account simply buzzes through everything else – what happened to the civilians living there, what thoughts went through the minds of those fighting, and such things – unless such observations would help further the narration's cause. Moreover, all are inextricably immersed in the dogma of making believe, by means of the ingenious tool of accounting, that one side gained more than the other, or that the other side was in some way more unjust than this one.

Take for example footnote 78 from chapter 15, India After Gandhi (pg. 815), “In his memoirs, (B N) Kaul argues that Se La was a well positioned and well fortified garrison that could have held out for a week or more; he blames its fall and the flight of troops on the failure of nerve of the man in charge, Maj Gen A S Pathania.” In his choice of words, the lieutenant-general preferred “failure of nerve” rather than, let's say, love and respect for life, or valuing life, or something such. For the military, and the state that seeks refuge in it's force, acquiring arms, displaying them, keeping territory, spreading jingoism, such aims are of worth; concerns of civilians in conflict-wrought areas, individually made decisions of those on the battle-field, non-militaristic approaches to peace, such things are not really of much importance to think about. Moreover, the military could hardly be expected to diagnose the cause of conflict in anything but brute-confrontation, so that even its solutions reflect the same. The case for beneficent militarism is well in place, considering peace keeping missions like the ones during LTTE-Sri Lankan state conflict, Rwanda, Serbia and Bosnia, etc. Or at least the rationale of them. Two issues come to mind: in places that have little media attention, or when such arrangements are made possible, the military is known to indulge in excesses. It is worthy to note Jagmohan's excuses to initiate draconian measures by the Indian Army in Kashmir, citing complete deterioration of law and order, and prevalence of bloodshed (pg. 21, “Everyone Lives In Fear: Patterns Of Impunity In Jammu And Kashmir”, HRW, 2006). Even when the rationale is held sacred, beneficent militarism does little to mitigate the harms of general militaristic doctrine. In fact, never has beneficently motivated military force been used in the first place; the purpose of arms was always to secure gains than to prevent trouble. The argument for beneficent militarism, like beneficent dictatorship, arises as a defense of militarism after its flaws have been pointed out.

It is worthy to direct attention to a few important trends pertaining to the military in its present state. Note, for example, how formidable a class has the military become, not only in national politics, but in the very fabric of society: reservations in education, housing, recreation (these at the expense of taxes), informal sector. Also note cases like the Pune Land Scam and Mumbai Adarsh Society scam, and such others, wherein military men have found to abuse position to gain wrongful ends. One can't help, as always, but wonder, if this is only the tip of the iceberg. Also note that such privileges are reserved only for the upper echelons of the military. This is perhaps also because a military job, at least for a subaltern, does not resemble anything like a standard service: no fixed timings, no well-defined working conditions, no unionization (to think of it, now even other non-military jobs have started to resemble these). Traditional political theory, as far as balance of power is concerned, fails to grasp the autonomy of a military; so that we diagnose a military as a tumour in a nation-state wherein it is seen to exert undue influence, and as a unit leashed to the executive or legislature in states in which it seems sedentary. However, in all societies, it possesses the capability to become autonomous if not appeased. Further, consider the pomp with which one shows one's military technology during national events; accepting that arms may be necessary for territorial defense (as defined, importantly, by political bigwigs, not people), is it any help to display them, just so that another state may take cue and put more economic fuel in procuring ordnance? Which means that even during peace-time, we were busy preparing for a war that would mean increased annihilation. With every Republic Day, we diminish our chances at survival by big measures by showing pride in gadgets meant to destroy.

Real solutions to peace do not lie is the hope that we would exterminate the enemy and prevail when time comes. The fault lies not in beefing up defense, but in ensuring that conditions that cause conflict are confronted non-militarily, on a plane of reason and negotiation. This cannot come to be in a society in which most people are not allowed to speak for themselves. And military history doesn't seem to add to any intelligence upon these matters. I remember stories my grandma told me about the '65 war, how rumours would spread like wild-fire, how homes would have to be made bunkers lest bombs be dropped, how rationing of resources underwent radical change, how people's words and the manner in which these were spoken transformed. Not much military detail or accuracy of events or of strategy; but arguably more consequential knowledge for evaluation and shaping of society.