Communities without Commons

Take Exit “X”, drive for about 10 minutes and then if you make a right turn there’s just our new “community Y”… a great luxurious living with lots of greenery and safety. Or just a few miles or kilometers away from the urban jungle and you are in your enclosed haven of shining highrises: community “Z”, with private pools, golf courses and all modern facilities that makes your world a picture perfect one.

In recent times we are increasingly becoming accustomed to hearing about, viewing and living in such communities. Although such “patterns” first emerged in the developed nations, by far conspicuously in the United States, today the phenomenon remains no more restricted to them. Countries such as China and India are increasingly and proudly embracing such sporadic, enclosed developments.

But there lies a discord within such communities. The idea of community largely rests on the concept of commons, the philosophy of which is that of reciprocity, of social ethics. The principles of such ethics and contingency have developed from traditional ways of life and knowledge and most importantly the simple sense of belonging. Standing at odds with our modern rationality, it does not recognize a homogenous pattern of the globe where each spot on the globe consists merely of coordinates on a grid, or a uniform field where determinants of everyone’s and everything’s rights and roles are prefabricated; but a nexus of human relationships, the right of local people to define their own grid, and the nature-society symbiosis.

The common-ness of suburban communities and their ways of life often eludes such deep-seated philosophy. As compared to organic neighborhoods, it does not only portray the absence of any particular building(s), local shops, or public spaces; but more importantly the absence of the space in between: the social connections that can give life to forms. But barely does this invoke a sense privation or isolation. The insidious erosion of perception, often wrought by economic rationality and social operations “rediscovers” the (lacking) fractions in other sets of common spaces, such as shopping mall or theme parks. Such lifestyle with which a large percentage of the present generation has sought to live or desires to, seems to have confused the needs and necessities of survival with the needs of fulfillment, bolstering the process of “methodical universalism”, that has being categorically engaged in creating “communities” at the cost of “commons” .

Ode to Kolkata

meki ei desh
jodi partam rock-e boshte
adda hoto besh
foockha ar jhalmuri te
shomoy jeto kete
shondhye bela coffee house-er
ghran-er moutaat-e

sumon, dylan, chandrabindoo
chilo cha-er sathe
golpo, podyo , uponyash-o
jute jeto tate
raajneetir-o jhaaj alpo
a(n)tel tho(n)t-er kone
kundera-r madokota
setao khone khone

gariahat ar park street
ar new market ghure
chena golir poth dhore
ghore jetam phire
traffic jam ar dhowa dhulo
hoyto theek-i koshto
kintu oti bilashitai
shomoy aro noshto

Pauls and Peters and the Number Game

Bernard Shaw once said, "A Government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul". And this remains equally true today. Recently a piece by P . Sainath (Neo-Liberal Terrorism in India: The Largest Wave of Suicides in History, Feb 2009) again proved that how we the fortunate Paul's of the society remain content with our existense and keep on seeking conformity with the dominant model while Peter's continue to be robbed. Alas, global omnivores can seldom understand the problem of market refugees. The number of farmer suicides in India and the creation of refugees keep increasing at the same time when our GDP growth astonishes us. To any sensible and sensitive mind this should be more of a puzzle than astonishment! But often in does not. And largely this is where the number game comes in.

Recently in one of the much celebrated cinema "The Slumdog Millionaire", it has been shown that life is like a game, and a game is somewhat a probability which gives anyone a fair chance to win. As much as we like to believe it, cherish a feel good moment, but is it really so in our real world existence!!! Or is it that, to begin with, the game is set in such a way that probabilities are are nullified! The game of numbers does certainly raise such dilemma.

For years now Sainath has been working with farming communities of India and has been fighting for their cause. He has continued to provide disturbing statistics about the farmers and their suffering, especially which has increased significantly through the waves of neoliberal practices. We see more and more discouraging statistics rather than encouraging ones, and clearly that raises question about the policies that are being formulated or implemented to deal with the issue. Now a lot of academicians have argued that "numbers" are necessary to address a cause or to play the cards of our social and economic policies aptly. Indeed they are at times, but it seems that mostly at times when special interests are involved. Otherwise numbers probably lie within the pages as theoretical and sentimental ramblings. And certainly, until now, farmer suicides does not involve such interests. The uncomfortable parameters are cautiously eliminated in such a way that the game only provides the pleasure of playing or watching it.

Thus the astonishment prevails. In return, we the Paul's keep on offering Governments, policy makers and the game-masters our loyalty as long as they keep providing us our "feel good" numbers.... and the game goes on.

Not Change, But Hope

As I watched the inauguration of Barack Obama this morning, again I realized following the course of the past two months of transition of presidency, that what America really wants, and what earned Obama his victory, is not the philosophical urge for "change" to it's core sense(setting aside the phenomenal win of an African American candidate, which is a change in itself), rather the message of "hope" which has always shored up the American dream.

During a hopeless time as this, when failures, quagmires and dismays all over became too difficult to ignore, what was really desirable and important for the majority was reinventing and rejuvenating the dream and life of prosperity which they have been so accustomed to "may be" and "if" required through change. Ofcourse there was also the emotion of black voters for Obama that added to the vote counts (though they were very much for the Clintons too), and the overwhelming "not Bush" sentiment, but it was largely that hope which Obama apparently brought to the table for them.

And the reflection of this was again found in the audience responses of today's speech. People who gathered in millions in D.C., were more cheerful about parts of Obama's speech, that had the hue and the tone of maintaining the way of life and ideology the nation has been so used to, for example phrases such as "ready to lead once more" or "we will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you". In contrast, the parts of the speech where he called upon for a more humble existence, and if read through lines a little carefully, a more fundamental change that was not just required but inevitable, such as " we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it", received a solemn nod (!!) or applause from a fringe crowd.

In the past 2 months, through new appointees of the new administration we have seen reflection of such expectations. Hope does not need to be accompanied by change to it's essence, rather it can be kept alive, and if possible materialized, through the most efficient operation of the instruments that may or may not bring about change. And that's what we have been witnessing. Is it Mr. Obama's somewhat overstreched bipartisan approach, the lack of courage for a very costly gamble for change at times like this, or a cautious step that might unfold into wonderful surprises in the future (!!), that remains to be seen. But surely a shake-up of policies and visions from the core is not what the nation (in majority) is yet prepared to embrace , and thus "change" still lies largely in the placards of slogans.