From the time President Nicolas Sarkozy declared in June 2009 that the burqa was “not welcome” in France, it has been clear that his government was serious about introducing a ban on the veil worn by some Muslim women and on another more severe garment called the niqab, which leaves only the eyes uncovered. The French government is now closer to this after the National Assembly approved legislation for it. It has to be passed by the Senate next, and a constitutional Council could yet void it. The proposed law is very much in line with France's inspiring secular traditions that keep religion strictly out of the public sphere, where the social contract is based exclusively on universal values enshrined in the country's laws. In April 2010, similar legislation was approved by the Belgian parliament's lower house, and a vote by the upper house is awaited later this year. Other European countries are also mulling a ban on the veil. But France, which passionately values a secular national identity over the ethnic or religious affiliations of its immigrants, has never shied away from forcing the pace on complex issues relating to religion and their place within the larger national identity. If this was first aimed at checking the influence of the Catholic church on public life, the spotlight is now on Islam. The proposed ban makes eminent sense through a feminist lens. The burqa (not to mention the niqab) is unquestionably an oppressive garment that seeks, as Mr. Sarkozy pointed out, to keep those who wear it imprisoned “behind a screen.” It is nowhere prescribed in the Koran but has been imposed on millions of women by sections of the clergy — all of them male — who have interpreted religious texts to suit their backward-looking religious or political agenda. That many Muslim women seem willing to embrace the veil these days as a symbol of their piety, modesty, and virtue, or as a political statement of their Muslim identity, is no indication of female agency. It speaks more of their successful co-option in a misogynist project that is the antithesis of liberté, égalité, fraternité — values that go back to the French Revolution and are the proclaimed national motto of France.
However, there is a serious downside to the move to ban the burqa and the niqab. In the post-9/11 atmosphere, such a law is likely to be viewed as an instrument to persecute and humiliate Muslims. It could lead to further radicalisation within the fold and inflame tensions between majority and minority populations in Europe. The reality is that only a small number of women in France's estimated five million Muslim population wear the veil. Fears that a ban could end up criminalising Muslims in European societies are not misplaced, given the Islamophobia in the west. The right-wing French government's unfavourable disposition towards immigrant populations does not help either. In March 2010, the Council of State, which will examine the proposed ban for its constitutionality, observed that a complete ban might, in fact, violate the French Constitution and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Conventional Freedoms. It seemed more comfortable with the idea of a limited ban rooted in reasons of security. But even if the Council strikes down the law, the intriguing social, philosophical, and political issues the burqa and the niqab raise will not go away. For literary guidance on what might happen if the tension between an uncompromisingly secular state and radical religious identity assertion — focussed in this case on the mysterious phenomenon of the “headscarf girls” committing suicide in Kars in Turkey during the early 1990s — is allowed to sharpen and grow, there is no better text than Orhan Pamuk's magnificent novel, Snow.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Alternative Policies Bring Amazing Achievements
THE government of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) in Kerala has now completed four years of its tenure with profuse achievements. During this period the government not only fulfilled most of the promises that the LDF made during the 2006 assembly elections; it in fact delivered more than what it had assured. The advantages are evident in all realms of governance. It includes the measures taken to strengthen the public distribution system (PDS) and curb price rise and also to arrest the farmers’ suicide which was very common during the UDF regime. The LDF government has extensively upped its intervention in the health sector, taken steps to strengthen the public sector units and the initiative to set up several industrial units. There have been qualitative changes in the school and higher education, with efforts to curb the commercialisation of education. Imaginative fiscal management and revenue accumulation and wide-ranging welfare pension schemes for disadvantaged sections are among other achievements during the last four years.
MOVES TO ARREST
FARMER SUICIDES
During the UDF regime farmer’s suicide was very common, including many episodes of suicide by whole families of farmers. In Wayanad district alone, more than 500 farmers committed suicide due to the mounting debt and devastation of crops. While media were filled up with the reports of sorrowful stories of farmers’ suicide day by day, the UDF government had a mere spectator’s role to play. Immediately after it assumed office, the LDF government intervened in the matter, set up a debt relief commission which was the first of its kind in the country and launched a debt relief scheme. The government took over the agricultural debts of the families of the farmers who had committed suicide. These measures instilled in them confidence and put a halt to farmers’ suicide in the state. While farmers’ suicides are continuing in some other parts of the country, not a single incident has been reported in Kerala after this intervention.
Also, the UDF policy to slash subsidy for agriculture sector had made the farmers abandon agriculture; consequently vast areas of agricultural land were lying fallow. Under LDF, farmers returned to agriculture and started cultivating paddy in 15000 hectares of such land. This amazing achievement came through duel forms of intervention, i.e. by encouraging agriculture through a variety of supporting programmes and by ensuring people’s involvement.
The PDS in Kerala had been ideal for the rest of the country. But it deteriorated severely due to the central government’s policy to slash food subsidy and the UDF’s insensitive stance. The LDF government allocated Rs 500 crore for giving rice and wheat at Rs 2 per kilo to 35 lakh families. Numerous outlets of the Civil Supplies Corporation and Consumer Fed were opened and essential commodities supplied at highly subsidised price. Compared to other states, the rate of price rise is significantly lesser in Kerala and the prices of many essential commodities are lower than in many of the producing states. This achievement was possible by intervention through thousands of outlets like the Maveli stores, government super markets and hyper markets, people’s bazaars, Triveni stores, Neeti stores, Neeti medical stores etc. in order to cover up the central government’s insensitive attitude towards the menace of price rise, its minister had to advise other states to learn from Kerala about the measures to curb price rise.
STRENGTHENING
THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Four years back, many public sector units (PSUs) and cottage industries were at the verge of closure. The UDF government was out to implement the neo-liberal policies and presided over privatisation or dismantling of the PSUs in the state. It made conscious efforts to create the perception that public sector is inefficient and burdens the society by incurring losses. During the UDF regime, out of 37 PSUs, 25 units were made non-profitable with a total liability of Rs 69.46 crore; consequently the UDF government decided to dismantle and sell out such loss-making (!) units.
Hoever, during the last four years, the LDF government’s consistent efforts have turned 32 such PSUs profitable with the rest five showing steady improvement. The balance sheet of the PSUs no longer shows losses; they have together made a profit of 239.75 crore. The government has opened the sick units and made efforts to modernise all the PSUs in the state. Diversification of cottage industries with innovative methods and intervention to strengthen small scale industries were widely appreciated. What is more, in the age of neo-liberal policies of dismantling the PSUs, the LDF government has initiated steps to set up eight new PSUs.
ALTERNATIVE POLICIES
IN EDUCATION & HEALTH
In the realm of education, alternative LDF policies have harvested significant achievements. The neo-liberal policies of the UDF government had deteriorated public education; it had also outrageously decided to close down 2000 schools in the state under the pretext that they were uneconomic. On the one hand, there was mushrooming of unaided schools and, on the other hand, government schools and aided schools became unattractive. Consequently, entire general education was at stake in the state. There were numerous government schools in the state which scored zero pass percentage in SSLC examinations. But the LDF government provided sufficient infrastructure facilities in schools and boldly reoriented the structure and content of school education by ensuring the involvement of the PTAs, local bodies etc. As a result, uneconomic schools are now not seen in the state. Government and aided schools including the zero pass schools are now showing about 90 per cent and above results in SSLC examinations. Earlier, very few students from government schools were able to get through the entrance test for professional courses; now more than 50 per cent of them get through these tests.
Declining excellence in higher education was a big challenge before the LDF government. It set up the State Higher Education Council and undertook several reforms in higher education on the basis of its recommendation. This brought about a qualitative change in higher education. While the UDF government pursued the policy of commercialisation of education, the LDF government, even after a court verdict in favour of education traders, took several successful steps to curb marketing and to ensure social justice in education. Its efforts, including the total reversal of UDF’s neo-liberal agenda in education, resulted in qualitative change in education.
The LDF government had to undertake a huge task of rejuvenating the entire health sector in Kerala. The state had a widespread and successful public health system which was compared even with developed countries. But the UDF government devastated the health sector with its anti-people policies. Currently, however, the health sector scenario in Kerala has absolutely changed thanks to the firm effort and alternative policies the LDF government executed. Government hospitals and medical colleges have acquired a new face, with an end to private practice by government doctors and enhanced infrastructure in government hospitals. Unlike the UDF regime, sufficient doctors were appointed and proper arrangements made to ensure the availability of medicines. Many hospitals were upgraded and the entire health system was modernised.
WELFARE
MOVES
The Kerala model of decentralisation was widely appreciated and the People’s Plan campaign showed the people’s real participation in planning and execution. With the help of the rightwing media, reactionary forces unleashed blatant attacks against such initiatives in order to sabotage the People’s Plan. The UDF government was keen to kill the People’s Plan. Under the LDF government, the second phase of Peoples' Plan was started with emphasis on productive sectors, especially agriculture. A total housing plan (
The LDF government has initiated or strengthened several social welfare measures including welfare pension schemes and wide range welfare fund schemes for all workers, including those in the unorganised sectors. These have no comparison. The UDF government was reluctant to pay even the agricultural workers’ pension at a very meagre rate of Rs 110. The LDF government is not only distributing all such pensions regularly, including the arrears accumulated during the UDF government; it has also increased the pension amount to Rs 300.
In terms of law and order situation, Kerala ranks first. Last year national media like the CNN-IBN and
The LDF government lifted the ban on recruitment imposed by the UDF and directed various department heads to report vacancies from time to time to the PSC to ensure timely appointments in the government services.
In power sector, Kerala’s target is to ensure electricity for all and Palakkad district has become the first completely electrified district in the country.
In order to prevent illegal land encroachment, effective steps were taken. On the other hand, lakhs of landless poor including tribal people were given land.
Fiscal management in the state has attained new heights after introduction of innovate methods of resources mobilisation. Tax revenue has increased considerably with the sealing of the loopholes. Previous episodes of treasury ban have become an old story now. All dues are cleared in time and no developmental initiatives are stopped because of scarcity of resources. It is thus that the LDF government has been able to widen the scope of welfare schemes so extensively, and that too at a time of worldwide economic crisis! It is to be noted here that Kerala highly depends on remittances coming from the Gulf countries.
A MODEL
FOR OTHERS
The LDF government’s performance during the last four years is indeed a model of the Left alternative within the parameters of the limited powers in the era of globalisation and neo-liberalism. While the neo-liberal policies are harming the PSUs, public health, education, agriculture, food security and social welfare schemes by slashing subsidies, the LDF government in Kerala is executing alternative policies to ensure people’s welfare and to strengthen the state’s overall economic situation.
Oil Price Manoeuvres
IN a show of bravado, the prime minister Manmohan Singh has declared that the free pricing scheme announced recently for petrol would be applied to diesel as well. This makes clear that the policy on pricing of petroleum products had been decided and what occurred a few days back was a well- planned manoeuvre. Not having got an adequate traction from the Rangarajan Committee report on the pricing and taxation of petroleum products and not wanting to lose the opportunity of pushing ahead with petroleum price decontrol under a government not dependent on Left support, UPA II set up an expert group chaired by former Planning Commission member Kirit Parikh. The committee’s clear mandate was to examine the pricing policy for four sensitive petroleum products (petrol, diesel, PDS kerosene and domestic LPG) and recommend a viable and sustainable pricing strategy for these products. The composition of the committee suggested that it was expected to recommend wholesale liberalisation of the pricing of petroleum products. The expert group did not disappoint, and delivered its recommendations in a period of five months. What is surprising is that the government has decided to accept most of the committee’s recommendations and hike the prices of petrol, diesel, kerosene and LPG, opt for price decontrol for petrol immediately and announce that a similar transition would follow for diesel in the not too distant future.
SURPRISING
MOVE
The move is especially surprising because persisting inflation is already a major cause for concern. The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) figures for May pointed to three worrying trends. First, for the fifth month running, the aggregate annual rate of inflation as reflected in the month-on-month increase in the WPI was near or well above double-digit levels. The figures for May put inflation at 10.2 per cent over the year. Second, the current inflation is particularly sharp in the case of some essential commodities, as a result of which the prices of food articles as a group have risen by 16.5 per cent and of food grain by close to 10 per cent. Finally, there are clear signs that what was largely inflation in food prices is now more generalised with fuel prices rising by 13 per cent and manufactured goods prices by 6-7 per cent.
The immediate and near-term impact of the oil price decisions would be an aggravation of these inflationary trends focused on essential commodities that currently burden the common man. Petroleum products are consumed in some measure by all. Given the fact that these products are universal intermediates, entering into the costs of production of a number of goods and services, the cascading effects of the price hike on the costs and prices of a range of commodities is likely to be significant. With prices of essentials already on the rise, the move threatens a return to the days when inflation was a major economic problem faced by the country. It follows, therefore, that this is the worst time for hikes in and the decontrol of the prices of petroleum products.
The government claims that this was unavoidable because of the “losses” being suffered by the oil marketing companies (OMCs). When the domestic prices of oil products are controlled but the price of imported oil is rising, oil marketing companies receive from the consumer less than what it costs them to acquire the products they distribute. This leads to what are termed “under-recoveries”, which would affect the accounts of the oil marketing companies (Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and IBP) that obtain their supplies of petrol and diesel from the refineries at prices that equal their import price inclusive of customs duty. According to estimates, if retail prices had not been raised, under-recoveries by the oil marketing companies would have exceeded Rs 70,000 crore in the current fiscal year. Since this is unsustainable, it is argued, the hike in prices and a shift out of a controlled pricing regime is unavoidable.
The government’s argument is by no means water-tight. While under-recoveries are a reality, they do not turn oil refining and marketing firms into loss-making enterprises, because those firms deliver a range of products and services, the prices of all of which are not controlled. If, for example, even if we consider the profit after taxes of the most important oil companies over the last ten years, they have remained positive in all years and quite substantially so in some. Under-recoveries are notional losses that only lower book profits relative to some benchmark. Thus, there is little danger that the industry would be bankrupted even if prices were kept at their earlier levels.
There is, of course, the question of fairness. Since there are many players involved in the industry there is no reason why under-recoveries should affect only the books of the oil marketing companies. The returns on net worth earned by the oil marketing companies are far more volatile and vulnerable than that garnered by the upstream oil companies (ONGC, OIL and GAIL). The burden should be shared by the latter, which receive prices that more than compensate for costs; by the central government which garners revenues in the form of customs duties and excise duties (besides dividends from the oil majors); and by the state governments which benefit from sales taxes. This requires, for example, the oil refineries to offer discounts when selling products to the OMCs and for the government to reduce the taxes it levies on oil products in order to absorb part of the under-recovery.
The controversial question as to how the burden should be shared was analysed by a committee headed by C Rangarajan appointed to examine the issue. The committee spent much of its energies on the different stages through which imported and domestic crude is converted into petroleum products supplied to the consumer, and the cost escalation that arises as the raw material passes through these stages. Through that analysis, it found that the upstream oil companies (or oil companies other than the oil marketing companies, such as ONGC, OIL and GAIL) had recorded profits to the tune of Rs 15,600 core in 2004-05 and Rs 14,600 crore in the first nine months of 2005-06. That the oil industry’s contribution to the central exchequer in terms of duties, taxes, royalty, dividends etc. rose from Rs 64,595 crore in 2002-03 to 77,692 crore in 2004-05. That the petroleum sector alone contributed around two-fifths of the total net excise revenues of the centre. That taking Delhi as an example, central and state taxes amounted to 38 and 17 per cent respectively of the retail price of petrol and 23 and 11 per cent respectively of diesel. And that the incidence of taxes as a proportion of the retail price in India was, higher than in the US, Canada, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, though they were lower than in many countries in Europe known for their higher average level of prices. In sum, the numbers suggested that there was an adequate buffer to shield domestic consumers from the effects of increases in international prices, so long as segments that can afford to take a cut in petroleum-related revenues because they have alternative sources of resource mobilisation are willing to accept such a reduction.
MOVE FAVOURING
PRIVATE COMPANIES
Thus, if at all there is an argument for price deregulation, it can only be that it is for some wrong reason to expect the oil companies and the government to bear the burden of the irrational fluctuations in the global prices of oil. That argument too is difficult to justify. When the industry was wholly in the public sector, the prices of oil products were treated as one set of instruments in the tax-cum-subsidy regime of the government. Any losses suffered by the industry or any shortfall in funds required for investment as a result of price regulation were to be met from resources mobilised through progressive taxes rather than from regressive price increases. The government should have adopted a similar approach in the current situation and focused on rules that can and have been devised.
It needs to be noted here that oil prices have not been held constant in recent history. Rather, the average annual increase in prices over the last two decades indicate that the increase (16.5 per cent) has been much higher in the case of retail prices of petrol, for example, than in the wholesale price index for all commodities (9.3 per cent). The common person has indeed borne some of the burden of volatile oil prices. What the government is arguing now is that the burden of irrational shifts in the international prices of oil should largely be borne by the consumer, even if the burden sharing involved is extremely regressive. In what seems an afterthought, the government has declared in its recent pricing policy announcement that it reserves the right to intervene in the market to protect consumers if prices rise to levels too high or price movements are excessively volatile. Nobody can or has taken that right from the government. It is the government that is giving it up, and exposing the common person to the volatility in international prices that has no rational basis.
The question remains as to why the government is choosing this policy direction. Ideological commitment may be playing a role. But, more importantly, the government’s move seems intended to favour the private companies that have been allowed to enter and expand in this sector. Private companies will treat any shortfall in profits as a “loss” and demand price adjustments. The government seems inclined to oblige.
SURPRISING
MOVE
The move is especially surprising because persisting inflation is already a major cause for concern. The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) figures for May pointed to three worrying trends. First, for the fifth month running, the aggregate annual rate of inflation as reflected in the month-on-month increase in the WPI was near or well above double-digit levels. The figures for May put inflation at 10.2 per cent over the year. Second, the current inflation is particularly sharp in the case of some essential commodities, as a result of which the prices of food articles as a group have risen by 16.5 per cent and of food grain by close to 10 per cent. Finally, there are clear signs that what was largely inflation in food prices is now more generalised with fuel prices rising by 13 per cent and manufactured goods prices by 6-7 per cent.
The immediate and near-term impact of the oil price decisions would be an aggravation of these inflationary trends focused on essential commodities that currently burden the common man. Petroleum products are consumed in some measure by all. Given the fact that these products are universal intermediates, entering into the costs of production of a number of goods and services, the cascading effects of the price hike on the costs and prices of a range of commodities is likely to be significant. With prices of essentials already on the rise, the move threatens a return to the days when inflation was a major economic problem faced by the country. It follows, therefore, that this is the worst time for hikes in and the decontrol of the prices of petroleum products.
The government claims that this was unavoidable because of the “losses” being suffered by the oil marketing companies (OMCs). When the domestic prices of oil products are controlled but the price of imported oil is rising, oil marketing companies receive from the consumer less than what it costs them to acquire the products they distribute. This leads to what are termed “under-recoveries”, which would affect the accounts of the oil marketing companies (Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and IBP) that obtain their supplies of petrol and diesel from the refineries at prices that equal their import price inclusive of customs duty. According to estimates, if retail prices had not been raised, under-recoveries by the oil marketing companies would have exceeded Rs 70,000 crore in the current fiscal year. Since this is unsustainable, it is argued, the hike in prices and a shift out of a controlled pricing regime is unavoidable.
The government’s argument is by no means water-tight. While under-recoveries are a reality, they do not turn oil refining and marketing firms into loss-making enterprises, because those firms deliver a range of products and services, the prices of all of which are not controlled. If, for example, even if we consider the profit after taxes of the most important oil companies over the last ten years, they have remained positive in all years and quite substantially so in some. Under-recoveries are notional losses that only lower book profits relative to some benchmark. Thus, there is little danger that the industry would be bankrupted even if prices were kept at their earlier levels.
There is, of course, the question of fairness. Since there are many players involved in the industry there is no reason why under-recoveries should affect only the books of the oil marketing companies. The returns on net worth earned by the oil marketing companies are far more volatile and vulnerable than that garnered by the upstream oil companies (ONGC, OIL and GAIL). The burden should be shared by the latter, which receive prices that more than compensate for costs; by the central government which garners revenues in the form of customs duties and excise duties (besides dividends from the oil majors); and by the state governments which benefit from sales taxes. This requires, for example, the oil refineries to offer discounts when selling products to the OMCs and for the government to reduce the taxes it levies on oil products in order to absorb part of the under-recovery.
The controversial question as to how the burden should be shared was analysed by a committee headed by C Rangarajan appointed to examine the issue. The committee spent much of its energies on the different stages through which imported and domestic crude is converted into petroleum products supplied to the consumer, and the cost escalation that arises as the raw material passes through these stages. Through that analysis, it found that the upstream oil companies (or oil companies other than the oil marketing companies, such as ONGC, OIL and GAIL) had recorded profits to the tune of Rs 15,600 core in 2004-05 and Rs 14,600 crore in the first nine months of 2005-06. That the oil industry’s contribution to the central exchequer in terms of duties, taxes, royalty, dividends etc. rose from Rs 64,595 crore in 2002-03 to 77,692 crore in 2004-05. That the petroleum sector alone contributed around two-fifths of the total net excise revenues of the centre. That taking Delhi as an example, central and state taxes amounted to 38 and 17 per cent respectively of the retail price of petrol and 23 and 11 per cent respectively of diesel. And that the incidence of taxes as a proportion of the retail price in India was, higher than in the US, Canada, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, though they were lower than in many countries in Europe known for their higher average level of prices. In sum, the numbers suggested that there was an adequate buffer to shield domestic consumers from the effects of increases in international prices, so long as segments that can afford to take a cut in petroleum-related revenues because they have alternative sources of resource mobilisation are willing to accept such a reduction.
MOVE FAVOURING
PRIVATE COMPANIES
Thus, if at all there is an argument for price deregulation, it can only be that it is for some wrong reason to expect the oil companies and the government to bear the burden of the irrational fluctuations in the global prices of oil. That argument too is difficult to justify. When the industry was wholly in the public sector, the prices of oil products were treated as one set of instruments in the tax-cum-subsidy regime of the government. Any losses suffered by the industry or any shortfall in funds required for investment as a result of price regulation were to be met from resources mobilised through progressive taxes rather than from regressive price increases. The government should have adopted a similar approach in the current situation and focused on rules that can and have been devised.
It needs to be noted here that oil prices have not been held constant in recent history. Rather, the average annual increase in prices over the last two decades indicate that the increase (16.5 per cent) has been much higher in the case of retail prices of petrol, for example, than in the wholesale price index for all commodities (9.3 per cent). The common person has indeed borne some of the burden of volatile oil prices. What the government is arguing now is that the burden of irrational shifts in the international prices of oil should largely be borne by the consumer, even if the burden sharing involved is extremely regressive. In what seems an afterthought, the government has declared in its recent pricing policy announcement that it reserves the right to intervene in the market to protect consumers if prices rise to levels too high or price movements are excessively volatile. Nobody can or has taken that right from the government. It is the government that is giving it up, and exposing the common person to the volatility in international prices that has no rational basis.
The question remains as to why the government is choosing this policy direction. Ideological commitment may be playing a role. But, more importantly, the government’s move seems intended to favour the private companies that have been allowed to enter and expand in this sector. Private companies will treat any shortfall in profits as a “loss” and demand price adjustments. The government seems inclined to oblige.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Bhopal and the Nuclear Liability Bill
THE verdict on the
The whole sorry episode which has dragged on for 26 years has starkly brought out some class truths. The first is that the central government of the day and successive governments have served the interests of big capitalists and corporates of
The
The Nuclear Liability Bill introduced in parliament is meant to safeguard the interests of the
The government has tried to obfuscate the issue by arguing that a foreign supplier can be liable if such a clause is included in the contract between the operator and the supplier. What it does not say is that neither the public sector Nuclear Power Corporation of
The cap put on the liability of the operator is Rs 500 crore while the overall financial liability for a nuclear accident is capped at around Rs 2140 crore. The reason why the liability of the operator is limited to Rs 500 crore is because the government wants to bring in private operators in the nuclear sector. The law will, therefore, limit the liability of Indian or foreign private companies who operate reactors to Rs 500 crore. Any amount to be paid above this cap will be footed by the government. In this manner, the government will subsidise private operators, including foreign companies, in the future.
The class outlook of the government is evident. The people will have to pay with their lives or health in the case of a nuclear accident, but the profits of US companies and the corporate sector in
The government has made much of the fact that it wants to accede to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. By joining this international convention, the government claims that it can access international funds to compensate victims of nuclear accidents. What the government does not say is that this is a Convention favoured by the
How eager the Manmohan Singh government is to fulfill its commitment to the
The Civil Nuclear Liability Bill bears the handiwork of the
The pressure on the Manmohan Singh government to fulfill its commitment is relentless. William Burns, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations “
No more Bhopals and Warren Andersons should recur. For this, Dow Chemical which took over Union Carbide should be made to pay all the costs for cleaning up the
If there are lessons to be learnt from the tragic episode of
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Free right turn
As the second United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government completes its first year in office, there are signs that 2009 could constitute a second turning point in India's post-Independence economic history. UPA-II is different from its predecessor inasmuch as this coalition government, although still led by the Congress and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is not “hampered” by Left support for survival. It, therefore, was and is widely seen as capable of adopting policies that could not be implemented by the previous government because of the role of the Left. Hence, at the end of year one of its tenure, attention is focussed on the direction policy is taking and whether the absence of the Left has resulted in a significant shift or turning point in economic policy.
The first turning point was, of course, in 1991, when under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Manmohan Singh India experienced a remarkable turn in its post-Independence economic trajectory. The trigger for that turn was the balance of payments crisis that resulted from a combination of trade liberalisation and deficit-financed government spending. Yet, leveraging that balance of payments crisis and the “inevitability” of relying on the support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the government of the time embarked on a policy road that fundamentally altered the country's development path.
In a series of steps adopted over the subsequent years of that decade, the state's role as a driver of economic growth, a regulator of private investors and an agent working to reduce inequalities of various kinds was altered. Regulatory intervention was substantially diluted or dismantled, the state was increasingly presented as a facilitator of private initiative, and through various acts of omission and commission the government contributed to a shift in the distribution of income in favour of asset owners and a thin upper crust of the middle class.
Even though this shift was initially presented as the result of the requirements and conditions set by the IMF in return for its support in the form of an SDR 5 billion loan, it soon became clear that the economic policy establishment and a section of the Congress clearly favoured such policies. The IMF loan, which in any case was not used in full, appeared to be more a ruse, providing these sections with the instrument needed to push through policies that the people had for long been taught to distrust.
Not surprisingly, when the UPA came to power in 2004 and Manmohan Singh was made Prime Minister, the government was expected to push ahead with similar and even more radical measures of liberalisation such as accelerated privatisation, full convertibility on the capital account and dilution of financial sector regulation. There was indeed movement in these directions under UPA-I. But the government faced roadblocks at each point and had to withdraw on a number of occasions. Many measures favoured by the economic policy establishment could not be implemented because of opposition from the Left, support from which was crucial.
Moreover, a tendency in the Congress to publicly advocate pro-poor policies but do little to ensure their implementation, to adopt progressive rhetoric but ignore it in practice, proved difficult to sustain. Policies that were seen by the economic policy establishment as good on paper or in public speeches but inappropriate and “a waste of money” on the ground, such the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), had to be implemented once included in the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) because of Left pressure.
This loss of full control over the levers of policy was particularly disconcerting for the advocates of “reform”, because it was during UPA-I's tenure that some of the ostensible “benefits” of the reforms of the 1990s were beginning to be experienced. During the 1990s, after a brief period of high growth during 1993-97, the economy experienced a slowdown with only a moderate revival after the injection of demand in the late 1990s when the Fifth Pay Commission's recommendations were implemented. Compared with this, from 2003 growth picked up substantially, and an economy that seemed to be falling off its 5-6 per cent annual growth trajectory moved on to a much higher, 8-9 per cent growth path for a relatively long period of time. That growth was seen as having legitimised past reform and provided the case for further liberalisation.
The effect of the high growth was that although poverty and deprivation persisted and were even increasing in some areas, the language of the UPA had come to resemble the “India Shining” slogan that spelt the downfall of its predecessor, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Fortunately for it, the CMP and the pressure exerted by the Left and sections of civil society ensured that it adopted at least some measures such as the NREGS and the Right to Information Act. This enabled the Congress, to its own surprise, to become the single largest party in the Lok Sabha and form a coalition government without relying on outside support from the Left. But that did provide the basis for a shift in policy from the so-called progressive policies, dismissed as “populism”, to the ostensibly “technocratic” neoliberalism.
However, the first Union Budget under UPA-II did not reflect this shift in full. One reason was, of course, the realisation within the Congress that its surprise performance in the elections was not unrelated to some of the ostensible populism of the UPA-I government. This meant that it had to give more credence to its own campaign promises than it would have otherwise done. The other important reason was that though the global financial and economic crisis had not overwhelmed India, it had slowed down the gross domestic product (GDP) growth and adversely affected employment and livelihoods, necessitating a response from the government.
Fiscal stimulus
The fiscal stimulus adopted in response to the crisis, combined with the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendations, resulted in an expansionary fiscal stance. This did benefit business inasmuch as it moderated the impact of the crisis, increased demand in the economy and injected liquidity, which supported credit-financed expenditures even in a time of crisis. India proved to be a country that rode the crisis well. Industrial growth during financial year 2009-10 is estimated at a creditable 10.4 per cent compared with 2.8 per cent in 2008-09. But for the fact that the growth of agricultural GDP is estimated at 0.2 per cent, the services expansion facilitated by the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendations would have taken aggregate GDP growth well beyond the advance estimate of 7.2 per cent for 2009-10.
One consequence of this performance is that even the case for a further dose of populism based on the surprising election results seems to have lost its strength. Policies such as the provision of social security benefits for unorganised workers or guaranteeing food security for all, which were made much of by the Congress propaganda machine, are being diluted and delayed. Even with regard to those initiatives that have been legislatively launched, such as the NREGS or Right to Education, the actual funds allocated in the UPA-II Budget point to a complete lack of seriousness.
What is more, the cutback in allocations is being defended using the fact that the implementation of the Pay Commission recommendations and the announcement of a number of stimulus packages in response to the crisis have widened the fiscal deficit. Fiscal adjustment, the government argues, is crucial. Not that it is serious about this either, judging by the tax concessions it has provided in the Budget. An income tax-paying minority has been offered an unexpected bonanza through a widening of the income slabs subjected to different rates of progressive taxation. In addition, the surcharge on corporate taxation has been reduced from 10 to 7.5 per cent. Not surprisingly, losses of direct tax revenues are estimated at upwards of Rs.25,000 crore. The Budget was in this and other ways clearly inequalising.
This process of contributing to inequality is being intensified by hikes in administered prices, including of intermediates such as petroleum and gas, and by reductions in subsidies for food and fertilizer. The increases in administered prices would have cascading effects on prices across the economy, and the subsidy cuts would reduce the degree to which the government moderates inequalising tendencies in the economy. All this occurs in a period when the prices of essentials are already rising sharply and the government appears to be doing little to halt the price rise other than call upon State governments to come down heavily on hoarders and speculators. Finally, despite its rhetoric, the pattern of public spending as reflected in the second Budget of the UPA-II government points to further erosion of real spending on crucial social sector projects.
Overall, economic management under UPA-II is not just characterised by a reduced commitment to redress inequality, but by the willingness to adopt initiatives that are very obviously inequalising.
On the other hand, the willingness of the government to accommodate and promote the interests of private capital is obvious. Access at relatively cheap rates to land, mineral and forest resources; easy access to credit from the public banking system for activities that are even speculative in nature; public-private partnerships in forms where the private sector is the principal beneficiary; a commitment to accelerated privatisation of public assets; liberalisation of the rules governing the operation of financial entities; and easy access to foreign exchange for forays by Indian capital abroad are the many ways in which UPA-II has been, and promises to continue, supporting the private sector. The influence of private capital on government decisions, in areas as diverse as gas pricing to regulation of mining, is palpable even if not always provable.
In the rush for quick profit that this new environment has generated, allegations of fraud and corruption have become routine. Whether it is the public sale of 2G spectrum or the private organisation of the Indian Premier League, allegations of huge profits in short periods with little sweat have become common. Nobody is fooled any more that “market-friendly”, neoliberal policies promote greater transparency and reduce rent-seeking. They only seem to make the state a facilitator of the private quest for profit, and sometimes a willing or unconscious accomplice in efforts at profiteering.
With the Left wielding little influence on its behaviour and four more years of power before it, UPA-II is intensifying its pursuit of such policies. If it persists in this direction, 2009 will indeed be a second turning point in India's post-Independence economic evolution where the quick enrichment of a few would be at the expense of the well-being of the poor majority.
The first turning point was, of course, in 1991, when under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and Finance Minister Manmohan Singh India experienced a remarkable turn in its post-Independence economic trajectory. The trigger for that turn was the balance of payments crisis that resulted from a combination of trade liberalisation and deficit-financed government spending. Yet, leveraging that balance of payments crisis and the “inevitability” of relying on the support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the government of the time embarked on a policy road that fundamentally altered the country's development path.
In a series of steps adopted over the subsequent years of that decade, the state's role as a driver of economic growth, a regulator of private investors and an agent working to reduce inequalities of various kinds was altered. Regulatory intervention was substantially diluted or dismantled, the state was increasingly presented as a facilitator of private initiative, and through various acts of omission and commission the government contributed to a shift in the distribution of income in favour of asset owners and a thin upper crust of the middle class.
Even though this shift was initially presented as the result of the requirements and conditions set by the IMF in return for its support in the form of an SDR 5 billion loan, it soon became clear that the economic policy establishment and a section of the Congress clearly favoured such policies. The IMF loan, which in any case was not used in full, appeared to be more a ruse, providing these sections with the instrument needed to push through policies that the people had for long been taught to distrust.
Not surprisingly, when the UPA came to power in 2004 and Manmohan Singh was made Prime Minister, the government was expected to push ahead with similar and even more radical measures of liberalisation such as accelerated privatisation, full convertibility on the capital account and dilution of financial sector regulation. There was indeed movement in these directions under UPA-I. But the government faced roadblocks at each point and had to withdraw on a number of occasions. Many measures favoured by the economic policy establishment could not be implemented because of opposition from the Left, support from which was crucial.
Moreover, a tendency in the Congress to publicly advocate pro-poor policies but do little to ensure their implementation, to adopt progressive rhetoric but ignore it in practice, proved difficult to sustain. Policies that were seen by the economic policy establishment as good on paper or in public speeches but inappropriate and “a waste of money” on the ground, such the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), had to be implemented once included in the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) because of Left pressure.
This loss of full control over the levers of policy was particularly disconcerting for the advocates of “reform”, because it was during UPA-I's tenure that some of the ostensible “benefits” of the reforms of the 1990s were beginning to be experienced. During the 1990s, after a brief period of high growth during 1993-97, the economy experienced a slowdown with only a moderate revival after the injection of demand in the late 1990s when the Fifth Pay Commission's recommendations were implemented. Compared with this, from 2003 growth picked up substantially, and an economy that seemed to be falling off its 5-6 per cent annual growth trajectory moved on to a much higher, 8-9 per cent growth path for a relatively long period of time. That growth was seen as having legitimised past reform and provided the case for further liberalisation.
The effect of the high growth was that although poverty and deprivation persisted and were even increasing in some areas, the language of the UPA had come to resemble the “India Shining” slogan that spelt the downfall of its predecessor, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Fortunately for it, the CMP and the pressure exerted by the Left and sections of civil society ensured that it adopted at least some measures such as the NREGS and the Right to Information Act. This enabled the Congress, to its own surprise, to become the single largest party in the Lok Sabha and form a coalition government without relying on outside support from the Left. But that did provide the basis for a shift in policy from the so-called progressive policies, dismissed as “populism”, to the ostensibly “technocratic” neoliberalism.
However, the first Union Budget under UPA-II did not reflect this shift in full. One reason was, of course, the realisation within the Congress that its surprise performance in the elections was not unrelated to some of the ostensible populism of the UPA-I government. This meant that it had to give more credence to its own campaign promises than it would have otherwise done. The other important reason was that though the global financial and economic crisis had not overwhelmed India, it had slowed down the gross domestic product (GDP) growth and adversely affected employment and livelihoods, necessitating a response from the government.
Fiscal stimulus
The fiscal stimulus adopted in response to the crisis, combined with the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendations, resulted in an expansionary fiscal stance. This did benefit business inasmuch as it moderated the impact of the crisis, increased demand in the economy and injected liquidity, which supported credit-financed expenditures even in a time of crisis. India proved to be a country that rode the crisis well. Industrial growth during financial year 2009-10 is estimated at a creditable 10.4 per cent compared with 2.8 per cent in 2008-09. But for the fact that the growth of agricultural GDP is estimated at 0.2 per cent, the services expansion facilitated by the Sixth Pay Commission's recommendations would have taken aggregate GDP growth well beyond the advance estimate of 7.2 per cent for 2009-10.
One consequence of this performance is that even the case for a further dose of populism based on the surprising election results seems to have lost its strength. Policies such as the provision of social security benefits for unorganised workers or guaranteeing food security for all, which were made much of by the Congress propaganda machine, are being diluted and delayed. Even with regard to those initiatives that have been legislatively launched, such as the NREGS or Right to Education, the actual funds allocated in the UPA-II Budget point to a complete lack of seriousness.
What is more, the cutback in allocations is being defended using the fact that the implementation of the Pay Commission recommendations and the announcement of a number of stimulus packages in response to the crisis have widened the fiscal deficit. Fiscal adjustment, the government argues, is crucial. Not that it is serious about this either, judging by the tax concessions it has provided in the Budget. An income tax-paying minority has been offered an unexpected bonanza through a widening of the income slabs subjected to different rates of progressive taxation. In addition, the surcharge on corporate taxation has been reduced from 10 to 7.5 per cent. Not surprisingly, losses of direct tax revenues are estimated at upwards of Rs.25,000 crore. The Budget was in this and other ways clearly inequalising.
This process of contributing to inequality is being intensified by hikes in administered prices, including of intermediates such as petroleum and gas, and by reductions in subsidies for food and fertilizer. The increases in administered prices would have cascading effects on prices across the economy, and the subsidy cuts would reduce the degree to which the government moderates inequalising tendencies in the economy. All this occurs in a period when the prices of essentials are already rising sharply and the government appears to be doing little to halt the price rise other than call upon State governments to come down heavily on hoarders and speculators. Finally, despite its rhetoric, the pattern of public spending as reflected in the second Budget of the UPA-II government points to further erosion of real spending on crucial social sector projects.
Overall, economic management under UPA-II is not just characterised by a reduced commitment to redress inequality, but by the willingness to adopt initiatives that are very obviously inequalising.
On the other hand, the willingness of the government to accommodate and promote the interests of private capital is obvious. Access at relatively cheap rates to land, mineral and forest resources; easy access to credit from the public banking system for activities that are even speculative in nature; public-private partnerships in forms where the private sector is the principal beneficiary; a commitment to accelerated privatisation of public assets; liberalisation of the rules governing the operation of financial entities; and easy access to foreign exchange for forays by Indian capital abroad are the many ways in which UPA-II has been, and promises to continue, supporting the private sector. The influence of private capital on government decisions, in areas as diverse as gas pricing to regulation of mining, is palpable even if not always provable.
In the rush for quick profit that this new environment has generated, allegations of fraud and corruption have become routine. Whether it is the public sale of 2G spectrum or the private organisation of the Indian Premier League, allegations of huge profits in short periods with little sweat have become common. Nobody is fooled any more that “market-friendly”, neoliberal policies promote greater transparency and reduce rent-seeking. They only seem to make the state a facilitator of the private quest for profit, and sometimes a willing or unconscious accomplice in efforts at profiteering.
With the Left wielding little influence on its behaviour and four more years of power before it, UPA-II is intensifying its pursuit of such policies. If it persists in this direction, 2009 will indeed be a second turning point in India's post-Independence economic evolution where the quick enrichment of a few would be at the expense of the well-being of the poor majority.
Economic Crisis: Why More Of The Same Will Not Work
A visit to Western Europe in early March provided some slightly different -- if unsettling -- insights into global economic arrangements and their socio-cultural co-ordinates. As the crisis unfolds, people everywhere are questioning current economic institutions and processes, and naturally enough their fears, insecurities and concerns also affect their visions for the future. The fundamental issues relate to income and resource distribution (don't they always?) but in this time of global crisis, the expression of these issues can become sharper and even more openly divisive in spirit.
Two features of some current public responses in these societies are especially relevant in this context. The first is the barely concealed animosity towards China and India (inevitably clubbed together, despite all the huge differences) as perceived beneficiaries of globalisation and voracious consumers of global resources. The second is the general inability to conceive of a way out of the current global economic crisis in any way other than simply replicating the past, even though those past trends clearly cannot be sustained.
European attitudes towards Asia have long been characterised by varying combinations of fear and fascination, respect and revulsion, competition and colonialism -- as studies of Orientalism have made only too evident. But the current public perceptions are somewhat different: fed by sensationalising media that cannot waste time or space on complexities, they move in pendulum swings from seeing populous Asia as the breeding ground for poverty and terrorism to believing that aggressive exporting based on underpriced labour is causing more than two billion people to lead "middle class lives" that draw unsustainably on the world's resources.
Of course, sheer ignorance explains a lot. Among the general public in Europe, and even in the more informed sections, there is almost no realisation of how globalisation has adversely affected livelihoods and employment of the majority of the population in the developing world including in fast-growing Asian countries. The agrarian crisis is largely seen to be history, supposedly vanquished by the rising prices of agricultural goods in world trade between 2002 and mid 2008, even though farmers' incomes continue to stagnate and cultivation is still barely viable in large parts of the developing world. Because of the volumes of manufacturing exports from Asia, there is still widespread perception of shift of manufacturing jobs from North to South -- even though manufacturing employment has declined in the developing world as a whole, has barely increased in most countries of Asia and has actually declined since 1997 in what is generally accepted to be the workshop of the world, China.
A member of the audience at a public debate in London asked whether China and India, newly enriched by exploiting the globalization process, would therefore use the current crisis as opportunity to ride through the global economic tsunami that threatens to engulf everyone else and emerge stronger than the US and Europe. A distinguished-looking and apparently eminent elderly gentleman at a large conference in Berlin was even sharper: "China and India", he claimed, "benefited from the Asian economic crisis in 1997-98 at the cost of their neighbours, and now they will benefit from the global crisis". Another participant from the floor expressed it slightly differently: "These countries are not poor, they are full of billionaires and have four out of ten of the world's richest people, and yet they come blaming us for the crisis and demanding assistance from us".
These are obviously not politically correct positions, nor are they necessarily even the majority view, since they were opposed by other participants in each of these events. Yet the sheer honesty of their expression is useful, since it provides some idea of what must be a widespread underlying perception. And the concerns do not relate only to potential shifts in geopolitical or economic power. Even among more progressive people in Europe, there is a palpable fear (sometimes unspoken and sometimes expressed only in subtle and qualified arguments) that growing consumption of such a large part of the world's population will put an unbearable strain on global resources and therefore cannot really be supported.
There is certainly some degree of truth in this -- there is no question that current "Northern" standards of life cannot be sustained if they were made accessible to everyone on this planet. This means that future economic growth in the developing world has to involve more equitable and sensible patterns of consumption and production. But that hardly deals with the basic problem. Even if the elite and middle class of the developing world, and particularly China and India, just stopped increasing their consumption, simply bringing the vast majority of the developing world's population to anything resembling a minimally acceptable standard of living will involve extensive use of global resources. It will necessarily imply more natural resource use and more carbon emissions.
So the stark reality is that the developed world must, on the whole, consume less of the world's resources and reduce its contribution to global warming absolutely. This in turn has effects on income as well. It is not immediately clear why rich countries with falling populations necessarily need to increase their GDP, and why they should not focus instead on internal redistribution and changing lifestyles, which could in fact improve the quality of life of every citizen.
The current crisis is an excellent -- even unique -- opportunity to bring about such shifts in socially created aspirations and material wants, and to reorganise economic life in the developed world to be less rapacious and more sustainable. But sadly, this message is not being heard at least among the major policy makers in the core capitalist countries. In the United States, even the relatively environment-friendly Obama administration simply talks about promoting "cleaner, greener technologies" rather than altering absurd and wasteful consumption patterns. For example, it is still basing its transport strategy on excessive reliance on private automobile use rather than more extensive and efficient public transport.
In Europe, too, the focus is on reviving and increasing the old (outdated?) patterns of consumption. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy has just pleaded with his people not to change their lifestyles because of this crisis, because this would reduce economic activity immediately! The implication is that wasteful and excessive consumption is socially desirable because that is the only way to preserve employment.
Globally, too, policy makers are displaying the same startling lack of imagination. The focus is on the US and all eyes are on the Obama recovery package, since direct or indirect dependence on exports to the US is so great for most countries that this is seen as the only way for all economies to recover. Yet the US simply cannot continue to be the engine of world growth, given its huge external debt and current deficit, nor is it desirable that it should do so. This creates an inevitable and urgent need for other economies to redirect their trade and investment, at least at the margin. And associated with that, it also creates an opportunity for other countries to think about generating different, more sustainable and possibly more desirable, consumption patterns.
Why is it that so few people, especially those in a position to influence economic policies today, are raising these rather obvious questions? What we do not seem to realise is that unless we sort out these basic issues, we will not only be marching with lemming-like intensity and desperation to the sea, but we will also be squabbling, fighting and even killing each other for the privilege of getting there first.
Jayati Ghosh is Professor of Economics and currently also Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, in New Delhi, India. With C.P. Chandrasekhar, she co-authored Crisis as Conquest: Learning from East Asia.
Two features of some current public responses in these societies are especially relevant in this context. The first is the barely concealed animosity towards China and India (inevitably clubbed together, despite all the huge differences) as perceived beneficiaries of globalisation and voracious consumers of global resources. The second is the general inability to conceive of a way out of the current global economic crisis in any way other than simply replicating the past, even though those past trends clearly cannot be sustained.
European attitudes towards Asia have long been characterised by varying combinations of fear and fascination, respect and revulsion, competition and colonialism -- as studies of Orientalism have made only too evident. But the current public perceptions are somewhat different: fed by sensationalising media that cannot waste time or space on complexities, they move in pendulum swings from seeing populous Asia as the breeding ground for poverty and terrorism to believing that aggressive exporting based on underpriced labour is causing more than two billion people to lead "middle class lives" that draw unsustainably on the world's resources.
Of course, sheer ignorance explains a lot. Among the general public in Europe, and even in the more informed sections, there is almost no realisation of how globalisation has adversely affected livelihoods and employment of the majority of the population in the developing world including in fast-growing Asian countries. The agrarian crisis is largely seen to be history, supposedly vanquished by the rising prices of agricultural goods in world trade between 2002 and mid 2008, even though farmers' incomes continue to stagnate and cultivation is still barely viable in large parts of the developing world. Because of the volumes of manufacturing exports from Asia, there is still widespread perception of shift of manufacturing jobs from North to South -- even though manufacturing employment has declined in the developing world as a whole, has barely increased in most countries of Asia and has actually declined since 1997 in what is generally accepted to be the workshop of the world, China.
A member of the audience at a public debate in London asked whether China and India, newly enriched by exploiting the globalization process, would therefore use the current crisis as opportunity to ride through the global economic tsunami that threatens to engulf everyone else and emerge stronger than the US and Europe. A distinguished-looking and apparently eminent elderly gentleman at a large conference in Berlin was even sharper: "China and India", he claimed, "benefited from the Asian economic crisis in 1997-98 at the cost of their neighbours, and now they will benefit from the global crisis". Another participant from the floor expressed it slightly differently: "These countries are not poor, they are full of billionaires and have four out of ten of the world's richest people, and yet they come blaming us for the crisis and demanding assistance from us".
These are obviously not politically correct positions, nor are they necessarily even the majority view, since they were opposed by other participants in each of these events. Yet the sheer honesty of their expression is useful, since it provides some idea of what must be a widespread underlying perception. And the concerns do not relate only to potential shifts in geopolitical or economic power. Even among more progressive people in Europe, there is a palpable fear (sometimes unspoken and sometimes expressed only in subtle and qualified arguments) that growing consumption of such a large part of the world's population will put an unbearable strain on global resources and therefore cannot really be supported.
There is certainly some degree of truth in this -- there is no question that current "Northern" standards of life cannot be sustained if they were made accessible to everyone on this planet. This means that future economic growth in the developing world has to involve more equitable and sensible patterns of consumption and production. But that hardly deals with the basic problem. Even if the elite and middle class of the developing world, and particularly China and India, just stopped increasing their consumption, simply bringing the vast majority of the developing world's population to anything resembling a minimally acceptable standard of living will involve extensive use of global resources. It will necessarily imply more natural resource use and more carbon emissions.
So the stark reality is that the developed world must, on the whole, consume less of the world's resources and reduce its contribution to global warming absolutely. This in turn has effects on income as well. It is not immediately clear why rich countries with falling populations necessarily need to increase their GDP, and why they should not focus instead on internal redistribution and changing lifestyles, which could in fact improve the quality of life of every citizen.
The current crisis is an excellent -- even unique -- opportunity to bring about such shifts in socially created aspirations and material wants, and to reorganise economic life in the developed world to be less rapacious and more sustainable. But sadly, this message is not being heard at least among the major policy makers in the core capitalist countries. In the United States, even the relatively environment-friendly Obama administration simply talks about promoting "cleaner, greener technologies" rather than altering absurd and wasteful consumption patterns. For example, it is still basing its transport strategy on excessive reliance on private automobile use rather than more extensive and efficient public transport.
In Europe, too, the focus is on reviving and increasing the old (outdated?) patterns of consumption. Silvio Berlusconi in Italy has just pleaded with his people not to change their lifestyles because of this crisis, because this would reduce economic activity immediately! The implication is that wasteful and excessive consumption is socially desirable because that is the only way to preserve employment.
Globally, too, policy makers are displaying the same startling lack of imagination. The focus is on the US and all eyes are on the Obama recovery package, since direct or indirect dependence on exports to the US is so great for most countries that this is seen as the only way for all economies to recover. Yet the US simply cannot continue to be the engine of world growth, given its huge external debt and current deficit, nor is it desirable that it should do so. This creates an inevitable and urgent need for other economies to redirect their trade and investment, at least at the margin. And associated with that, it also creates an opportunity for other countries to think about generating different, more sustainable and possibly more desirable, consumption patterns.
Why is it that so few people, especially those in a position to influence economic policies today, are raising these rather obvious questions? What we do not seem to realise is that unless we sort out these basic issues, we will not only be marching with lemming-like intensity and desperation to the sea, but we will also be squabbling, fighting and even killing each other for the privilege of getting there first.
Jayati Ghosh is Professor of Economics and currently also Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, in New Delhi, India. With C.P. Chandrasekhar, she co-authored Crisis as Conquest: Learning from East Asia.
Fixing Planet Earth: A Not-So-Modest Proposal
Only a nonviolent revolution, like the one led by Gandhi, can meet the challenge of the climate crisis
Mahatma Gandhi is widely regarded as the father of the Indian nation, which he was. But the founding of the nation was not his only aim. He was, as he freely admitted, using India to demonstrate to the whole world how nonviolence could change history. The swell of mostly nonviolent revolutions that has followed in the last 30 or so years would seem to indicate that his bold scheme worked.
We need to be no less daring now, in the face of the coming climate chaos. To rebalance and stabilize the planet’s climate, which we probably have to do in the present decade, is daunting; but it doesn’t go far enough. We need to do it the right way, and we need to unleash a domino effect that will end up—maybe by the end of the century—eliminating not just human-caused climate change, which is the most urgent problem, but many, if not all, of the problems linked to it.
Let me explain why I think this is necessary, and doable.
In the years since Gandhi and King we have seen many insurrections overthrow unjust regimes—in South Africa, the Philippines, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere—only to see the same injustices come back with different faces (or even, as in the Ukraine, the same old faces). As a passionate participant in the Free Speech Movement in the incredible ‘60s, I was deeply shocked to see, as time went by, that not only did our inspiring movement lead to few lasting changes, it indirectly propelled Ronald Reagan into the presidency. Similarly, we have seen ecological successes here or there dwarfed by the ongoing deterioration of Earth’s miraculous life-supporting systems. In some of these cases, e.g. whaling or offshore drilling in the United States, even apparent successes proved to be temporary. The only permanent fix for any of these problems is a deep and broad solution for all of them.
And it might just be possible, because that’s not the only thing that’s happening. Nonviolence has increased remarkably as Gandhi and King’s ‘ocular demonstration’ has told on the imagination of peoples around the world. According to one calculation, more than half the world’s population now lives in a regime that has seen a major, usually successful, use of nonviolence (rarely reported in the mainstream media). As time goes on, these movements are starting to get more sophisticated. Participants have added new institutions to their repertoire, like Unarmed Civilian-based Peacemaking (UCP), that places trained nonviolent internationals in zones of serious conflict around the world. They are waking up to the need for training and education, some of it embodied in organizations like my own Metta Center for Nonviolence Education, the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), or the Center for Advanced Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) founded to impart best practices wherever needed—from the successful Otpor Rebellion of 2000 in Serbia to similar insurrections in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. A fascinating body of theory is being gradually developed that draws on eye-opening new findings in several branches of science.
In short, we are beginning to unpack the Gandhian legacy. And there’s no reason to think that the methods that can overthrow a regime cannot be globalized—that they cannot be so extended as to replace a dysfunctional civilization with a new, nonviolent world.
A secret of nonviolent power is practitioners’ ability to maintain an unwavering respect for the person of their opponents while resisting the latter’s misdeeds. When Martin Luther King urged his followers not to hate their white brothers he not only made it easier for the latter to give in, to a degree he was rehumanizing the entire culture—think of the difference that could make as we continue the legacy.
A mature nonviolent movement does not get stuck on a single technique—typically on protest—but can adjust its approach to the stage of the conflict—starting with petitions and votes, going on to civil disobedience if that doesn’t work, and finally being ready to make major sacrifices if even that fails.
Let’s talk about that for a minute. While there will be a continuing place for legislation to curb climate abusers, if we want a lasting solution the major burden of change will have to be carried by persuasion. In nonviolence, persuasion is not limited to sitting around a table. There is a much deeper kind of persuasion happening when someone bears witness to the truth, if necessary by taking on some of the suffering in an unjust situation rather than inflicting it on others. This is Satyagraha. And in the enormous ‘tea party’ climate of irrationality and self-righteous rage that prevails today, the climate that Noam Chomsky has rightly called pre-fascist, nothing less will work. As Gandhi said, “Things of fundamental importance to the people must be purchased with their suffering. You must be able to appeal not only to reason, but to the heart also,”—in other words by your willingness to risk injury if there’s no other way to reach your opponent. He also explained, with great insight, that
What Satyagraha in these cases does is not to suppress reason but to free it from inertia and to establish its sovereignty over prejudice, hatred, and other baser passions. In other words, if one may paradoxically put it, it does not enslave, it compels reason to be free.
In other words, it is a form of deep persuasion, and that is crucial. Those who are coerced look for the first chance to bolt; those who are convinced are with you for the long term.
But the campaign we need—and it’s within our reach—would have a whole other dimension. It would deploy an array of constructive activities as well—education, community and farming experiments, etc. As King would put it "cooperating with good" and "non-cooperating with evil." What is more—now this is really new—there will be some kind of strategic overview to help us decide when to do which. It is the "constructive programme" (as Gandhi called it) that will guarantee the continuity of the campaign; the "obstructive program" (my term for protests, blockades, etc.), held in readiness and used when needed, will guarantee its effectiveness. Ten years is not much time to awaken a civilization. But it can be done.
It is not clear where, in this anti-authoritarian climate of ours, this strategic vision and leadership would come from. It could well be reached by a kind of self-organization, or we could even—why not?—see the emergence of a visionary and effective leader. However it is achieved, the movement will have to have coherent direction and enough inspiration to hold on to its nonviolent standards (including a way to win over or, failing that, neutralize would-be disrupters). Virtually all the nonviolent episodes since King and Gandhi have been either constructive or "obstructive," but rarely both, and almost never with a coordinated strategy of the kind Gandhi achieved over decades of work in South Africa and India.
With that exception, note that all the elements are already in place for a sustained, effective campaign that could—and must—reverse climate disruption and go on to complete the job. All we need to do is become aware that they are the potential ingredients of the great movement we have been looking for.
To make climate the number one priority doesn’t necessarily mean dropping whatever else we’re doing. It means understanding how what we’re doing relates to that core project. I’m a nonviolence educator, and what I do is help people find the tools they need to do this job properly and permanently; you could be working on anything from corporate accountability to saving seals, which are all parts of the new paradigm (unless there’s a way to do it without corporations at all!). All of us have to be psychologically and otherwise ready to put our “own” project on hold if the opportunity arises for a direct push for climate legislation or against coal plants, knowing full well that when the climate is secured we will be able to get back to them if necessary, while if the climate is not secured there will be no one to work on anything!
In short, we need to address climate change with the full power and vision of nonviolence, and we need to stay the course. We are "using" climate change as Gandhi used the liberation of India, to address an even deeper change, a spiritual revolution that will liberate us from addictive materialism and move us on to beloved community, so we need to come out of our campaign with not only a stable physical climate but a method and a community of practitioners who can go from success to success until we—or our children—have the world we want.
Michael Nagler wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Michael is professor emeritus of Classics and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, where he co-founded the Peace and Conflict Studies Program, and the founder of the Metta Center for Nonviolence.
YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Mahatma Gandhi is widely regarded as the father of the Indian nation, which he was. But the founding of the nation was not his only aim. He was, as he freely admitted, using India to demonstrate to the whole world how nonviolence could change history. The swell of mostly nonviolent revolutions that has followed in the last 30 or so years would seem to indicate that his bold scheme worked.
We need to be no less daring now, in the face of the coming climate chaos. To rebalance and stabilize the planet’s climate, which we probably have to do in the present decade, is daunting; but it doesn’t go far enough. We need to do it the right way, and we need to unleash a domino effect that will end up—maybe by the end of the century—eliminating not just human-caused climate change, which is the most urgent problem, but many, if not all, of the problems linked to it.
Let me explain why I think this is necessary, and doable.
In the years since Gandhi and King we have seen many insurrections overthrow unjust regimes—in South Africa, the Philippines, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere—only to see the same injustices come back with different faces (or even, as in the Ukraine, the same old faces). As a passionate participant in the Free Speech Movement in the incredible ‘60s, I was deeply shocked to see, as time went by, that not only did our inspiring movement lead to few lasting changes, it indirectly propelled Ronald Reagan into the presidency. Similarly, we have seen ecological successes here or there dwarfed by the ongoing deterioration of Earth’s miraculous life-supporting systems. In some of these cases, e.g. whaling or offshore drilling in the United States, even apparent successes proved to be temporary. The only permanent fix for any of these problems is a deep and broad solution for all of them.
And it might just be possible, because that’s not the only thing that’s happening. Nonviolence has increased remarkably as Gandhi and King’s ‘ocular demonstration’ has told on the imagination of peoples around the world. According to one calculation, more than half the world’s population now lives in a regime that has seen a major, usually successful, use of nonviolence (rarely reported in the mainstream media). As time goes on, these movements are starting to get more sophisticated. Participants have added new institutions to their repertoire, like Unarmed Civilian-based Peacemaking (UCP), that places trained nonviolent internationals in zones of serious conflict around the world. They are waking up to the need for training and education, some of it embodied in organizations like my own Metta Center for Nonviolence Education, the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), or the Center for Advanced Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) founded to impart best practices wherever needed—from the successful Otpor Rebellion of 2000 in Serbia to similar insurrections in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. A fascinating body of theory is being gradually developed that draws on eye-opening new findings in several branches of science.
In short, we are beginning to unpack the Gandhian legacy. And there’s no reason to think that the methods that can overthrow a regime cannot be globalized—that they cannot be so extended as to replace a dysfunctional civilization with a new, nonviolent world.
A secret of nonviolent power is practitioners’ ability to maintain an unwavering respect for the person of their opponents while resisting the latter’s misdeeds. When Martin Luther King urged his followers not to hate their white brothers he not only made it easier for the latter to give in, to a degree he was rehumanizing the entire culture—think of the difference that could make as we continue the legacy.
A mature nonviolent movement does not get stuck on a single technique—typically on protest—but can adjust its approach to the stage of the conflict—starting with petitions and votes, going on to civil disobedience if that doesn’t work, and finally being ready to make major sacrifices if even that fails.
Let’s talk about that for a minute. While there will be a continuing place for legislation to curb climate abusers, if we want a lasting solution the major burden of change will have to be carried by persuasion. In nonviolence, persuasion is not limited to sitting around a table. There is a much deeper kind of persuasion happening when someone bears witness to the truth, if necessary by taking on some of the suffering in an unjust situation rather than inflicting it on others. This is Satyagraha. And in the enormous ‘tea party’ climate of irrationality and self-righteous rage that prevails today, the climate that Noam Chomsky has rightly called pre-fascist, nothing less will work. As Gandhi said, “Things of fundamental importance to the people must be purchased with their suffering. You must be able to appeal not only to reason, but to the heart also,”—in other words by your willingness to risk injury if there’s no other way to reach your opponent. He also explained, with great insight, that
What Satyagraha in these cases does is not to suppress reason but to free it from inertia and to establish its sovereignty over prejudice, hatred, and other baser passions. In other words, if one may paradoxically put it, it does not enslave, it compels reason to be free.
In other words, it is a form of deep persuasion, and that is crucial. Those who are coerced look for the first chance to bolt; those who are convinced are with you for the long term.
But the campaign we need—and it’s within our reach—would have a whole other dimension. It would deploy an array of constructive activities as well—education, community and farming experiments, etc. As King would put it "cooperating with good" and "non-cooperating with evil." What is more—now this is really new—there will be some kind of strategic overview to help us decide when to do which. It is the "constructive programme" (as Gandhi called it) that will guarantee the continuity of the campaign; the "obstructive program" (my term for protests, blockades, etc.), held in readiness and used when needed, will guarantee its effectiveness. Ten years is not much time to awaken a civilization. But it can be done.
It is not clear where, in this anti-authoritarian climate of ours, this strategic vision and leadership would come from. It could well be reached by a kind of self-organization, or we could even—why not?—see the emergence of a visionary and effective leader. However it is achieved, the movement will have to have coherent direction and enough inspiration to hold on to its nonviolent standards (including a way to win over or, failing that, neutralize would-be disrupters). Virtually all the nonviolent episodes since King and Gandhi have been either constructive or "obstructive," but rarely both, and almost never with a coordinated strategy of the kind Gandhi achieved over decades of work in South Africa and India.
With that exception, note that all the elements are already in place for a sustained, effective campaign that could—and must—reverse climate disruption and go on to complete the job. All we need to do is become aware that they are the potential ingredients of the great movement we have been looking for.
To make climate the number one priority doesn’t necessarily mean dropping whatever else we’re doing. It means understanding how what we’re doing relates to that core project. I’m a nonviolence educator, and what I do is help people find the tools they need to do this job properly and permanently; you could be working on anything from corporate accountability to saving seals, which are all parts of the new paradigm (unless there’s a way to do it without corporations at all!). All of us have to be psychologically and otherwise ready to put our “own” project on hold if the opportunity arises for a direct push for climate legislation or against coal plants, knowing full well that when the climate is secured we will be able to get back to them if necessary, while if the climate is not secured there will be no one to work on anything!
In short, we need to address climate change with the full power and vision of nonviolence, and we need to stay the course. We are "using" climate change as Gandhi used the liberation of India, to address an even deeper change, a spiritual revolution that will liberate us from addictive materialism and move us on to beloved community, so we need to come out of our campaign with not only a stable physical climate but a method and a community of practitioners who can go from success to success until we—or our children—have the world we want.
Michael Nagler wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Michael is professor emeritus of Classics and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, where he co-founded the Peace and Conflict Studies Program, and the founder of the Metta Center for Nonviolence.
YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Bhopal: Justice Buried
Everyone uses the China card when talking about growth. But when it comes to governance, no one in India ever uses the Chinese examples. I am talking about the toxic milk scandal that killed six babies and 300,000 fell ill after drinking Melamine tainted milk in early 2009.
For the death of six babies, and another 300,000 who fell ill, China executed two top officials and one of China’s top dairy company bosses spends the rest of her life in jail after she accepted her responsibility. Death penalty for the death of six babies and thousands who got ill after drinking infant milk powder that was deliberately tainted with an industrial chemical is a classic example of justice delivered.
Why can't we make the seven accused (the eight accused had died last year) in Bhopal gas tragedy to spend the rest of their life behind bars?
In India, a quarter of century after the worst industrial disaster in history, a Bhopal district court sentenced seven people, including business leader Keshub Mahindra, to two years in jail and a fine of Rs 1 lakh each. They were later released on bail. On top of it, a 'former Chief Justice of India Justice A M Ahmadi, who delivered the judgement on Sept 13, 1996, diluting charges in the Bhopal gas leak tragedy, insulted the dead by likening the disaster to a car accident'.
"We all owe cars. If my driver is involved in a fatal accident I don't become liable under Section 304 (Part II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)." Mr Ahmadi told a TV channel while justifying his decision to dilute the charges against Union Carbide officials (Economic Times, June 9, 2010). Even the corporate mouthpiece, The Economic Times has in a curt headline, said: "Mr Ahmadi, Warren Anderson had removed car's brake."
If I were to comment on this, the Supreme Court will haul me up for contempt. But how can the Supreme Court be quiet when the Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily himself says: "This is one such case where justice is delayed and practically denied. I would like to say justice is buried," (Economic Times, June 8, 2010). If this is true, we are still awaiting to hear what the Chief Justice of India, Justice S M Kapadia, has to say. If the Civil Aviation Minister can offer to resign taking moral responsibility for an aircraft accident, I wonder why shouldn't the Law Minister accept moral responsibility for 'justice buried'.
The newspapers today have prominently displayed US President Obama's remarks yesterday -- he told NBC that he was talking to experts to know "whose ass to kick" for 11 deaths in BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We all know that the US is historically known to be always playing a double game -- we know what happened in Iraq, for instance -- but can't we even figure out whose ass to be kicked for the the death of over 15,000 people in the gas tragedy? Why is that we are hoping to get justice from the US (if it all agrees to repatriate Warren Anderson) while we are for one reason or the other refraining to kick the butt of those who were involved in diluting and delaying justice in India?
1. Arjun Singh, the then chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, had acknowledged that he received "a call" that made him release Warren Anderson. If you have been following the media reports yesterday, Law Minister Veerappa Moily has refuted the charges being made by a former director of Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) saying that an investigating officer has tremendous powers and he can simply withstand any kind of pressure. In fact, he goes a step ahead and holds the former CBI officer responsible for 'culpable homicide."
2. Mr Moily, I thought the Chief Minister had still more powers than a CBI officer. He could have easily refused to accept 'orders' from the top. How come Mr Arjun Singh is not responsible for 'culpable homicide'? Why is he not being booked for being a party to gross injustice?
3. The Hindustan Times (June 9, 2010) says: "A year after the Bhopal disaster, the Union government introduced the Bhopal Claims Processing Act, 1985, taking away the victims legal right to demand compensation from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), on the ground that the underprivileged victims would not be able to take on a big company." Instead the centre argued, it would execute their legal rights as their 'sole guardian'.
4. But now, the victims feel betrayed. Mr Moily needs to explain under whose directions this dilution of the legal provisions were made. Obviously it cannot be the handiwork of a joint secretary till he receives 'oders' from the top. And who is this 'top'?
5. The answer is perhaps provided by the Convener of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan Abdul Jabbar, who has been quoted as saying: "it began with Warren Anderson being escorted out of Bhopal on a State plane. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi even apologised to Anderson for his temporary detention in Bhopal." (Indian Express, June 9, 2010).
It is time to kick the butt of our own people involved in this great cover-up. It is Indians who have failed India.
For the death of six babies, and another 300,000 who fell ill, China executed two top officials and one of China’s top dairy company bosses spends the rest of her life in jail after she accepted her responsibility. Death penalty for the death of six babies and thousands who got ill after drinking infant milk powder that was deliberately tainted with an industrial chemical is a classic example of justice delivered.
Why can't we make the seven accused (the eight accused had died last year) in Bhopal gas tragedy to spend the rest of their life behind bars?
In India, a quarter of century after the worst industrial disaster in history, a Bhopal district court sentenced seven people, including business leader Keshub Mahindra, to two years in jail and a fine of Rs 1 lakh each. They were later released on bail. On top of it, a 'former Chief Justice of India Justice A M Ahmadi, who delivered the judgement on Sept 13, 1996, diluting charges in the Bhopal gas leak tragedy, insulted the dead by likening the disaster to a car accident'.
"We all owe cars. If my driver is involved in a fatal accident I don't become liable under Section 304 (Part II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)." Mr Ahmadi told a TV channel while justifying his decision to dilute the charges against Union Carbide officials (Economic Times, June 9, 2010). Even the corporate mouthpiece, The Economic Times has in a curt headline, said: "Mr Ahmadi, Warren Anderson had removed car's brake."
If I were to comment on this, the Supreme Court will haul me up for contempt. But how can the Supreme Court be quiet when the Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily himself says: "This is one such case where justice is delayed and practically denied. I would like to say justice is buried," (Economic Times, June 8, 2010). If this is true, we are still awaiting to hear what the Chief Justice of India, Justice S M Kapadia, has to say. If the Civil Aviation Minister can offer to resign taking moral responsibility for an aircraft accident, I wonder why shouldn't the Law Minister accept moral responsibility for 'justice buried'.
The newspapers today have prominently displayed US President Obama's remarks yesterday -- he told NBC that he was talking to experts to know "whose ass to kick" for 11 deaths in BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. We all know that the US is historically known to be always playing a double game -- we know what happened in Iraq, for instance -- but can't we even figure out whose ass to be kicked for the the death of over 15,000 people in the gas tragedy? Why is that we are hoping to get justice from the US (if it all agrees to repatriate Warren Anderson) while we are for one reason or the other refraining to kick the butt of those who were involved in diluting and delaying justice in India?
1. Arjun Singh, the then chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, had acknowledged that he received "a call" that made him release Warren Anderson. If you have been following the media reports yesterday, Law Minister Veerappa Moily has refuted the charges being made by a former director of Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) saying that an investigating officer has tremendous powers and he can simply withstand any kind of pressure. In fact, he goes a step ahead and holds the former CBI officer responsible for 'culpable homicide."
2. Mr Moily, I thought the Chief Minister had still more powers than a CBI officer. He could have easily refused to accept 'orders' from the top. How come Mr Arjun Singh is not responsible for 'culpable homicide'? Why is he not being booked for being a party to gross injustice?
3. The Hindustan Times (June 9, 2010) says: "A year after the Bhopal disaster, the Union government introduced the Bhopal Claims Processing Act, 1985, taking away the victims legal right to demand compensation from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), on the ground that the underprivileged victims would not be able to take on a big company." Instead the centre argued, it would execute their legal rights as their 'sole guardian'.
4. But now, the victims feel betrayed. Mr Moily needs to explain under whose directions this dilution of the legal provisions were made. Obviously it cannot be the handiwork of a joint secretary till he receives 'oders' from the top. And who is this 'top'?
5. The answer is perhaps provided by the Convener of Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan Abdul Jabbar, who has been quoted as saying: "it began with Warren Anderson being escorted out of Bhopal on a State plane. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi even apologised to Anderson for his temporary detention in Bhopal." (Indian Express, June 9, 2010).
It is time to kick the butt of our own people involved in this great cover-up. It is Indians who have failed India.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)