Saturday, November 16, 2013
Monday, February 14, 2011
When Revolutions are Televised
It has been amazing over the past few days watching people celebrate the toppling of the “Mubarak Empire”, an empire whose existence became the most hot-seated issue overnight, but remained barely criticized by the general mass (outside Egypt) until the revolution was televised. As I continued to dissect the Egyptian political structure following the “intense” news updates every moment, few disconcerting thoughts kept passing my mind that will hang on for a much longer period after the revolution-tide subsides. Let me put it this way, do we really honor revolutions, or are they celebrated because they give a kick to our humdrum existence of conformity? Why do we need a “televised revolution” to evoke political thoughts, while our conscience remain complacent disregarding (or being ignorant about) hundreds and thousands of struggle that are not “blockbusters”!
My thought on the celebration of revolution is not mere suspicion. Though I certainly feel that heroic acts (by individuals or the people) needs to be celebrated, but if we reflect on ourselves, how many of us are ready to share a slice of “unconventionality” (set aside revolution) and walk the walk in our everyday lives, from choosing grocers to making decisions about livelihoods! The overthrowing of symbolic “dictators” are cheered, but the faceless forces that dictate our lives are “re-established” on their thrones after the most shameful abuse of power, with little scorn, and a lot of relief (reserving fringe incessant criticisms). Our emotions overflow with the “liberated” crowd in Egypt, but remain dry for the people of Dhinkia Village in Orissa, where thousands just lost their independence and livelihoods to POSCO!
Revolutions are mostly culminations of discontent, discontent towards the oppression by “power”. But following the pattern of recent upheavals around many parts of the globe, it seems that we have significantly narrowed our understanding of power. As our “free” society matures, we grow increasingly intolerant towards the dominance of individuals, while yielding to more complex and far more demanding power structures. That is why we probably choose to contend Mubarak and celebrate his demise, but not Wall Street.
P.S: Please do not confuse me with Mubarak sympathizer
Friday, October 1, 2010
Countercurrets Pieces
Democracy in a Full World
www.countercurrents.org/banerjee160110.htm
Whose Development! The Political Economy of Land Grab under SEZ and Associated Costs
www.countercurrents.org/banerjee150410.htm
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Shohor-er Kobita-r Chobi
Poorono oneek ba(n)ka oligoli
khorkhori aa(n)ta janlar sari
rongchota kichu rongeen dewal
moleen tobu aukritrim bhari
Din-er aloi shajeeb hashe
nitya jibon raatri sheshe
kaaj-er majheo okaaj ashe
onyo swad-e, muchki heshe
Coffee-r cup-e toofan othe
sotyi othoba kolpito sur
kalponar-o jaiga ache
swapno taito noi bohudur
Neelche alo ch(n)uyiye ele
onyo roop-e onyo ghran-e
shohor jeno amai matai
mayabi kono pichutaan-e
khorkhori aa(n)ta janlar sari
rongchota kichu rongeen dewal
moleen tobu aukritrim bhari
Din-er aloi shajeeb hashe
nitya jibon raatri sheshe
kaaj-er majheo okaaj ashe
onyo swad-e, muchki heshe
Coffee-r cup-e toofan othe
sotyi othoba kolpito sur
kalponar-o jaiga ache
swapno taito noi bohudur
Neelche alo ch(n)uyiye ele
onyo roop-e onyo ghran-e
shohor jeno amai matai
mayabi kono pichutaan-e
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
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” .
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” .
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
