[Reader-list] On Delhi

Mon Aug 3 16:41:14 IST 2009

Dear Rana, Shudda,
The use of the concept 'socialist' was a minor part of your very interesting
piece, so debating the point further may seem a bit excessive. However ...
I guess the interesting part also is not just whether the term 'socialist'
was mainstream or not but how and why it was mainstreamed. Hence, like
Shudda says, the insertion of the word in the Constitution along with the
Emergency. Obvious legitimizing tool.
It is now a commonplace that the period of centralized planning was a
compulsion. More signficantly, Indian capital in the 1940s was quite happy
with state handouts and investment in certain areas, but not with the
conditions and discipline that the state tried to impose, a point Vivek
Chibber makes in his very interesting book whose name I have completely
forgotten. And how the Congress floated unions to fragment more radical
unions at the time.
And 'socialist' Nehru was cheerfully imposing AFSPA in Kashmir (1958), and
bombing villages in the Naga Hills (1955 onwards), incorporating by force
regions that had never been parts of the Empire. Anyhow...
warmly,
Naga

On 01/08/2009, Rana Dasgupta <rana at ranadasgupta.com> wrote:
>
> You are right: my use of "Socialist" in the essay was essentially the same
> as that in mainstream contemporary parlance - in newspapers, for instance -
> where the word is used to characterise a period of centralised planning (and
> to make the contrast with the "liberalised" India of post-1993).
> Nevertheless there was indeed sharp irony - as you suggest, Shuddha ("The
> only way, to my mind, to echo these pretences today, is by way of some sharp
> irony") - about the way the word was used in this piece.  For those attuned
> to irony, phrases such as "the Socialist elite" or "the Socialist ruling
> class" must surely seem a trifle wry.
>
> But my essay is not the issue here.  The question you are raising is
> larger: do we accept the meanings of mainstream speech, and use them to our
> own purposes, or do we reject mainstream speech as a deception, a lapsed
> form ("ill-educated and foolish"), and insist on purer meanings of our own?
> In the particular case at hand, do we ignore the immense degradations that
> the word "Socialism" has gone through in the last century, say that none of
> these things was in fact "Socialism" - and claim that "Socialism" continues
> to refer to something else?  Or do we accept the weight of those
> degradations, allow that the word can never be restored to its pristine
> origins, and reconcile ourselves to new usages - and perhaps the necessity
> of coinage?
>
> There is no single answer to this question.  Sometimes it is useful to
> accept the shorthands of mainstream speech.  Sometimes it is important to
> use a word strategically in a restored context.
> Though you say "even if we were to consider the 'nationalization' of
> industries and enterprises, and the adoption of centralized planning as
> 'Socialist' measures (which I certainly do not)" there are many who would
> see this as the defining feature of Socialism - including, since you bring
> it up, the British Labour Party, which was said to have left behind its
> Socialist origins when it deleted Clause 4 - the commitment to
> nationalisation of industries - from its constitution.  As far as the list
> of would-be "Socialist" leaders that you give is concerned, it is pretty
> clear that state control of a capitalist economy was what was in the minds
> of many of them when they espoused the word.  Personally I think this
> meaning is too well-entrenched for us to claim it is only "fools" who would
> use it.
>
> Even if you were to agree with that, it would by no means be the end of all
> the questions, however.  The real question is the future of all the ideas
> that have historically operated under the word "Socialism" - which do not
> require this word in order to retain their force.  As you say, eloquently: a
> state is not a social formation.
>
> R
>
>
>
>
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta wrote:
>
>> Dear Rana, (and Naga)
>> Thanks for the discussion.
>> Just a note of caution, in which I would agree with Naga's comments on
>> your usage of the term 'Socialist' which I think mars an otherwise very well
>> argued and etched out piece.
>>
>> Various political figures, ranging from Mussolini, to Hitler, to Nye
>> Bevan, to Stalin, to Pilsudski, to Indira Gandhi, to Atal Behari Vajpayee,
>> to Chiang Kai Shek and Idi Amin described (at some time or the other, or
>> throughout their political careers) their politics as 'socialist' and their
>> parties/movements as 'Socialist'. Others, such as The only way, to my mind,
>> to echo these pretences today, is by way of some sharp irony.
>> It is true, that Nehru (and some of his other colleagues) did propose the
>> goal of moving 'towards Socialism' to the Congress Party. And the word
>> 'Socialist' was inserted into the Indian constitution during the darkest
>> days of the Emergency as a fig leaf to cover the reality of repression.
>> But the policies adopted by Nehru's government, and his immediate
>> successors, (right up to Indira Gandhi) even if we were to consider the
>> 'nationalization' of industries and enterprises, and the adoption of
>> centralized planning as 'Socialist' measures (which I certainly do not),
>> were arguably less far-reaching than even the policies followed by the post
>> war Labour government in the UK.
>> No one, as far as I know, describes the United Kingdom under Clement Atlee
>> as a 'Socialist' society. It would be difficult to reconcile the depth of
>> the British class system's bite in the 1950s with any thing even remotely
>> approximating 'Socialism'. One of the founding documents of the British
>> Labour Party - the resolution adopted by the Labour Representation Committee
>> of 1905 (moved by W. Atkinson of the Paperstainers Union, and seconded by
>> Will Thorne, of the Gasworkers Union, which stayed on the Labour Party's
>> books until its quiet, and embarrassed removal, in the 80s) commits the
>> emergent Labour Party to the goal of
>> 'This annual conference of the LRC hereby declares that its ultimate
>> object shall be the obtaining for the workers of the full results of their
>> labour by the overthrow of the present competitive system of capitalism and
>> the institution of a system of public ownership of all the means of
>> production, distribution and exchange.'
>> Despite this, it would be hard to call the Liberal-Labour Governments of
>> Ramsay Macdonald, or of Bevan and Atlee, right on to the 'New Labour' of
>> Tony Blair or Gordon Brown - as anything even remotely resembling Socialism.
>> And yet, Post War Britain, had more extensive  measures taken for state
>> control of key industries than India ever had.
>>
>>  If that be the case, how could we (by the same yardstick) describe India
>> as 'Socialist'. Is it just that we are (or have become) more accustomed to
>> identify Capitalism with affluence, and hence, the seemingly 'affluent'
>> reality of the UK seems more persuasively 'Capitalist' than other realities,
>> elsewhere, such as in India. Hence, newspaper editors in the Indian English
>> Press routinely call the state-capitalist measures taken by Nehru and Indira
>> Gandhi, 'Socialist'. I can forgive Indian English Newspaper editors, because
>> they (by and large) tend to be ill-educated and foolish, but I expect better
>> from you.
>> Finally, is it at all necessary to ascribe to nation states, qualifiers
>> that are more appropriate when speaking of social formations? A nation state
>> is not a social formation. Those who thought  so, and tried to carry their
>> thought into practice, ended up leaving us with two of the twentieth
>> century's greatest tragedies - 'Socialism in One Country' (Stalinism) and
>> 'National Socialism' (Nazism).
>>  I think that the current loose way in which the term 'socialist' is
>> bandied about in the media, and in fulsome political rhetoric, both here, as
>> well as elsewhere, might have, unconcsiously seeped into your writing in
>> this article. I think that for a person of your acuity, it would be best to
>> be on guard, in the future.
>>
>> an eager reader of your writing,
>> Shuddha
>>
>>
>> On 30-Jul-09, at 5:40 PM, Rana Dasgupta wrote:
>>
>>  Thank you for good thoughts, Naga: all the things you list are, of
>>> course, deeply relevant - and many more.  In retrospect the "land" section
>>> could probably have had more bite.  I did hope the Nanda incident, as well
>>> as the Ethiopian land acquisition, would give a sense of the impact -
>>> literal and figurative - between this emerging class of global capitalists
>>> and farmers and workers.
>>>
>>> On socialism: though I agree that such shorthands are never satisfying to
>>> categorise a whole era and system - who has a monopoly on the meaning of the
>>> word?  Nehru called the society he built a "socialist" society, and the
>>> India of that era had in place many of the features - eg centralised
>>> production - that characterise other nations that call themselves
>>> "socialist".  The meaning that the word thus acquires is surely real...?
>>>
>>> Thanks again
>>>
>>> R
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nagraj Adve wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very nice piece Rana, thanks. I sometimes have this unspoken and
>>>> somewhat sinking feeling when I think of this segment of the capitalist
>>>> class your piece discusses. Fear may seem a strong word but I can't think of
>>>> any other to describe the emotion. As activists in this city for some years
>>>> now, I don't think we even grapple with the realities of this class; perhaps
>>>> those who are trade unionists do.
>>>>
>>>> Just some specific reactions to parts of the piece, reactions that are
>>>> disjointed. I liked the bits with the therapist Anurag Mishra, an
>>>> interesting angle. And also MC at the end of the piece. And Tarun Tejpal's
>>>> comments sadly are not too bleak, though there's also a growing resistance
>>>> to the intensifying rape of resources.
>>>>
>>>> Couple of observations: The absence of any line or comment on the
>>>> working poor of this city - women working as domestic help and increasingly
>>>> as construction labour who build the stuff that DLF makes its money from;
>>>> factory workers; adivasi migrants who leave their own homes and communities
>>>> to work in the homes of the rich here - was striking. I do realize that the
>>>> piece was about the very rich, but as EP Thompson said in his famous intro
>>>> to 'The Making ...", you can't have the one without the other. Also, a
>>>> mention of the destruction of jhuggis in 1996 and 2001 (30,000 homes along
>>>> the Yamuna Pushta) would have been relevant. And also the closure of
>>>> industries that happened at the time. Or the decline in real wages.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, in passing: you refer about half a dozen times to India as
>>>> being 'socialist' in earlier decades. It has never been even remotely so,
>>>> not for a single day. Gunnar Mrydal had some blunt stuff to say about that
>>>> during a visit to Delhi in 1958.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the piece.
>>>> warmly,
>>>> Naga
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29/07/2009, *Sudeshna Chatterjee* <sudeshna.kca at gmail.com <mailto:
>>>> sudeshna.kca at gmail.com> <mailto:sudeshna.kca at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    Its a really good read! Highly recommended.
>>>>
>>>>    Sudeshna
>>>>
>>>>    On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Rana Dasgupta
>>>>    <rana at ranadasgupta.com <mailto:rana at ranadasgupta.com>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My recent essay about Delhi, and the culture of its new rich,
>>>>>
>>>>    from the
>>>>
>>>>> current edition of Granta magazine.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ranadasgupta.com/texts.asp?text_id=47
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy!
>>>>>
>>>>> R
>>>>> _________________________________________
>>>>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>>>>> Critiques & Collaborations
>>>>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net <mailto:
>>>>> reader-list-request at sarai.net>
>>>>>
>>>>    <mailto:reader-list-request at sarai.net> with
>>>>
>>>>> subscribe in the subject header.
>>>>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>>>>> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    --
>>>>    Sudeshna Chatterjee, PhD
>>>>    New Delhi, India
>>>>    _________________________________________
>>>>    reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>>>>    Critiques & Collaborations
>>>>    To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<mailto:
>>>> reader-list-request at sarai.net>
>>>>    <mailto:reader-list-request at sarai.net> with subscribe in the
>>>>    subject header.
>>>>    To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>>>>    List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> "I'm an ex-citizen of nowhere. And sometimes I get mighty homesick."
>>>
>>> Rana Dasgupta
>>> www.ranadasgupta.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________
>>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>>> Critiques & Collaborations
>>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net <mailto:
>>> reader-list-request at sarai.net> with subscribe in the subject header.
>>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list List
>>> archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>>
>>
>> Shuddhabrata Sengupta
>> The Sarai Programme at CSDS
>> Raqs Media Collective
>> shuddha at sarai.net <mailto:shuddha at sarai.net>
>> www.sarai.net
>> www.raqsmediacollective.net
>>
>>
>>
> --
> "I'm an ex-citizen of nowhere. And sometimes I get mighty homesick."
>
> Rana Dasgupta
> www.ranadasgupta.com
>
>
>