de Tocqueville & the news

That the switch from newspapers to digital handheld devices - for the purpose of sourcing all my news - is limited only by my comfort-level with technology is telling of some shortcoming of the print industry.

The changing journalistic scene is a reflection of the way people engage publicly and of how public discourse has changed. Quoting Tocqueville,

A newspaper is an adviser that does not require to be sought.

Believe me, I still do seek out the newspaper to be certain on some matters, but I am also a dying breed. News has changed from page-long pieces to 140-character tweets, but the information we are getting has tripled. As Neil Postman argued in 1990,

Everything from telegraphy and photography in the 19^th century to the silicon chip in the twentieth has amplified the din of information, until matters have reached such proportions today that, for the average person, information no longer has any relation to the solution of problems.

There is too much to read and to process. Today, people are quite likely to be discussing news over coffee, especially in light of the fact that almost all information tends to be "newsified".

Tocqueville says in the same piece,

The power of the newspaper press must therefore increase as the social conditions of men become more equal.

My questions are, thus, two-fold. Do we live in a society that is increasingly unequal? Or have we transformed to become so individualistic that a common voice can no longer exist?

[caption id="attachment_24257" align="aligncenter" width="306"] Alexis de Tocqueville[/caption]

de Tocqueville addresses the newspaper, and the responsibilities of the Press by extension, in terms of their capacity to unite. In the same chapter, he also draws upon democracy’s tendency to leave individuals “very insignificant and lost amid the crowd”, the the responsibility to homogenize which lies with the newspaper.

While these notions may have coincided in Tocqueville’s times, the landscape of governance has changed vastly. For one, Tocqueville was writing in the 1830s, at a time when democracy itself was as new as the emerging print industry, when its spread and depth were both limited.

For another, for me to able to infer that the power of the newspaper is waning, I am also inferring that the newspaper must exist only on paper, that news cannot be delivered in other forms, and that all peoples must unite themselves under the light of one beacon, not any other. Are we right in thinking this?

So, while the newspaper – as an entity comprising words in ink and ink on paper – may be on the decline economically, the responsibilities of the paper are now in different hands. As for Tocqueville’s cautioning against the individualists, much is to be said.

In the execution of goals democratically, Tocqueville’s faith in which mires his thoughts, there will be opportunities to “wrong the people” by desiring an action that feels right personally. In other words, the French philosopher has not considered the evils of populism in vouching for the newspaper.

Today, however, technology enables so much that things work the other way round. Instead of firing up common beacons, discrete ones, classifiable in terms of social status, culture, financial needs, and personal desires, are lit, and people flock to them.

I concede, there is a barrage of news, but there is also democracy in news! I can finally get what I know I will use the most. Is that wrong? In fact, does it even suggest a conflict in any sense?

I must also concede that Tocqueville was right in championing the cause and function of democratic rule, but that it mandates representation above all else is something not to be forgotten.

In the ongoing version of the discourse between public policy and responsible journalism, individuals have the responsibility to cure more evils than they cause, individuals must hone their own moral framework, and individuals are tasked with interpreting democracy in a way that perpetuates its essence. Is this so bad?

Even if the newspaper has left us, the notion of news hasn’t, not in this “post-reporter era”.

A note on the Nobel Peace Prize, 2012

Across six decades, the European Union has stressed repeatedly on the importance of democracy and human rights. In the process, it set up a system that offered great humanitarian, and therefore popular, benefits to nations willing to join it. In return, it asked for the nations to stop warring, start talking, and get voting.

Today, the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 for its continent-wide efforts.

At the end of the Second World War, Europe’s largest economies emerged greatly diminished. The divides between the ruling and the ruled, between the rich and the poor, and between the war-monger and the negotiator were at their most gaping. Germany and France were the most wounded.

Today, conflict between Germany and France is unthinkable. They reside at the heart of the European Union, in mind and in body, and are largely responsible for maintaining order in the region. Their commitment to the cause of peace is vital to Europe’s commitment to the cause of peace. And because they have held on for so long, the smaller Central European nations and the Balkan states are now eyeing prosperity.

The Nobel Peace Prize, at the same time, comes at a crucial juncture. A grave economic crisis is prevalent across the region. Social inequality, as a result, is on the rise. Austerity measures are the order of the day, and industrial slowdown the mantra on the lips of many – both the employed and the jobless, in fact.

The Prize reaffirms the Union’s decision to abide by peace and unity, by its decision to pursue a common justice for all violators, by its assumption of democracy as the best mode of governance. However, this is also a time that has questioned the validity of a unified government that has to work with significantly different rates of growth and policy-perspectives from region to region.

These are not decisions that are influenced by any prize.

Essentially, the Nobel Prize does not address the seeming invalidity of the Union based on social issues and economic equality, but awards it only in recognition of historical work, work that was humanitarian in a bold break from tradition. What the Prize should have done is specified the Union's particular roles instead of seemingly reaffirming the Union's decision to stay united and rule united today.

Thus, only time will tell. Until then, one of the most significant developments of the 21st century will have been the bringing of peace to Europe. For this, the European Union deserves all consideration and congratulations.

Science in India

What really is the attitude toward science in India?

In many of the other countries that do or don't have strong science programmes, the attitude toward science is well known. In China, for example, where the space programme is picking up well, high-speed railway lines are being built, and the annual investment in science has grown at more than 20 per cent annually since 2000 (now in the neighbourhood of $100 billion), there is open support for the cause of science and the role it must play in the country's development. In India, however, investments in R&D are half-hearted in that they don't enjoy or suffer either widespread support or cynicism. Moreover, where in most cases science funding is seen at least as a move toward indigenous military empowerment, India lacks that, too.

In a December 2010 report titled 2011 Global R&D Funding Forecast, going with a study sponsored by R&D Mag, India's share of global R&D spending is 3.0 per cent (0.80% of GDP), measly in comparison with the countries it is seen as competing with: America (34.0%), Japan (12.1%), China (12.9% = 1.44% of GDP), and Europe (23.2%). The immediate solution is definitely not to step up spending but to look at why a country that has used science to rise to where it is now is doing so without any support for it at the basic level, as if it sees science as a mere tool that will be dropped the moment its goals are achieved.

Looking at the status quo from a mediaperson's vantage point, a few habits come immediately to light. The first is a lack of outreach programmes by Indian science institutions. For a country brimming with engineers, there are too few fora that cater to the science-minded. On either sides of the locus charted by science-stream in classes XI and XII, engineering education in either the IITs or the NITs, and then a job with the engineering sector, there is no place to engage with scientists and technicians simply because one might enjoy interacting with them, find out more about what they do and how it is impacting the society at large. The one other place to do all this is from within media circles.

Even in the political sphere, there is abysmal engagement by the politicians with the people and vice versa at the scientific level. Granted, we are only now setting out on a path of getting as many people educated as possible through the means of reservations and constitutionally established compulsions. However, that does not mean there is nothing to look at higher up the pyramid: for becoming the focus of the world for its abundance of engineers and doctors, for launching manned missions to the moon in the near future, and for being at the forefront of nuclear science research, the most politicians are willing to talk about is shutting down crucial nuclear power plants.

[caption id="attachment_22951" align="aligncenter" width="540"] The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant[/caption]

Apparently, science has already assumed a degenerate form in the country, where it can be sidelined to accrue people-support ahead of the elections. Unfortunately, these are also some of the more easily-kept promises. Science often isn't public opinion, and there is a lot of work required in that direction to mend the people's idea of its importance and the roles it plays in shaping equanimous progress.

Still, where are the broader ambitions that politicians must have about safeguarding the nation's support in the field of cutting-edge physics? Where are the broader ambitions that address the country's role in nuclear non-proliferation (apart from when heads of state come visiting)? Where are the broader ambitions concerned with furthering nanotechnology research in the country in keeping with its growing domination as a centre for medical tourism?

In fact, let us not attend to such broad considerations now: a look at the attitude toward the IT-sector in South India should do. The most successful R&D contribution of J Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, to date has been the setting up of IT parks in and around Chennai (a move borrowed suspiciously from the Hyderabad- and Bangalore-models without too much foresight). As the subsidization of IT products drew in a large volume of software engineers that led to a siphon effect, so also did focus shift away from other non-subsidized industries. Now, the Pallikaranai marshlands on which most of the IT offices are set up have taken a severe beating.

Why? Because we can't seem to understand the importance of a young man's or woman's employment in the same light as the importance of a healthy local ecosystem.

Those within the scientific community are no exception, either. Forget the science outreach programmes—they are only secondary considerations. Instead: where are the science magazines a la Scientific American? Don't Indians possess a tradition of invention and discovery dating back to about 4,000 years? What killed it, then? A couple of days ago, a friend of mine had a tough time locating doctors working on stem cell research in India because university websites were severely outdated! The popular opinion of the sports-and-political-news hegemon is that the paucity of media representation would have driven researchers to speak about their research with quite some zeal, but no. Even contacting a scientist has become a hassle.

[caption id="attachment_22958" align="aligncenter" width="540"] A good example of a science institution's website that goes nowhere is that of the Department of Biotechnology (affiliated with the Government of India)[/caption]

Moreover, the contactable ones are often tight-lipped when answering questions on studies done by them, and not necessarily on subjects that have debatable ethical concerns attached, such as soil sedimentation, state of plumbing, safety in power plants, metallurgy and materials engineering, greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy (quoting from experience). Have their ought-to-be profligate opinions dried up because of the subjects' misguided depiction in the media in the past? How do we fix it?

It is hard to imagine that the answer to these and such questions is colonialism because India's rapid rise to a position of power seems to have caused all the problems. For example, sustained mishandling of the planning, construction and operation of dams alone is sure to have dented rural India's idea of technology. Now, with a disturbing experience of the national government's contumacious attitude toward rural authority, we are obliged to push harder even for all-round legitimate projects. In fact, perspectives have turned so skewed that "all-round legitimacy" has become the rallying point for contention between environmentalists and any kind of developers. Now, you can't say "development" and not be expected to be tossed into a political maelstrom.

Circling back to the first point: what is the attitude toward science in India? The nation has enjoyed a pluralism of cultures, languages, and traditions for centuries now, and is it that science, too, is being granted that privilege? If you think that isn't too bad, think again: the thing about science that it always has one right answer, ergo there is always only one way to use it. Of course, the course of its action can be deftly regulated, but not to a point where many journalists don't or can't understand what science really is up to in the country.

Science is not the Big Dam, the Big Metro Line, the Big Power Plant that displaces thousands of people without sufficient recourse, that robs livelihoods and impregnates men and women with carcinogens, that is the call to arms of the poor against the rich. No!; science is now the helpless instrument in the hands of the short-sighted power-monger, and it must be removed from there. To do so, at least all that I have mentioned in this post must be fixed.

Another look at the displacement v. development debate

What is development?

I would interpret all development as a biological process, one that mimics natural processes. In this framework, development is the process through which each system attains maturity, a position of sufficiency and sustainability.

Maturity in whose interest? In the interests of the people? That is a secular definition that assumes everybody has all kinds of information required to make the decision. Therefore, development comes down to transparency that enables as well as reflects informed decision-making. I say secular because in such a definition of development, it becomes easy to exclude a world of foreign nations, which is not the case.

Consequently, a nation’s developmental trajectory is dictated significantly by foreign interests. In my opinion, thus, the developmental mechanism must work toward increasing the regional purchasing power so that our say in the international trade arena holds more weight.

The problem

Displacement versus development is a problem particularly difficult to explore because, beyond the initial recognition of the government’s role as being “villainous”, there is not much that has been said or done to establish a line beyond which displacement becomes simply necessary. The pursuit of developmental goals by the Indian government has resulted in over 21.3 million being displaced internally according to a 1998 report by the Indian Social Institute. Almost 5.8 per cent, or 1.25 million, of them have been displaced by the establishment of industrial estates1.

Development seems like a two-faced engine: (1) it works toward increasing our purchasing power regarding resources we may need in the future and (2) it consumes important resources required for its sustenance that the nation may not be in a position to provide. For instance, the proposed installation of two nuclear reactors at Kudankulam will generate 2,000 MW of power, which is over and above Tamil Nadu’s shortage (659 MW). Apart from this, another 11,540 MW is to be added between 2012 and 2016 with the installation of 17 power plants around the state, eight of them having already been sanctioned2.

Now, as environmentalists and others in the area protest against constructing a plant that poses significant risks to the livelihoods of residents, a question that goes under-attended is that of necessity: which are the quarters that require this 12,881 MW(the total 13,540 MW minus the deficit) of energy? What has been done, either by private parties or the government, to determine if such demands are legitimate? We must ask why Kudankulam and why not in Chennai, whose population actually stands to benefit from the operation of the reactors. What else is being done to whittle down unnecessary losses that have resulted in such huge power shortages?

In light of such seeming discrimination, the problem statements are two.

1. Why is the government intent on displacing those peoples who are poised to benefit the least from the projects that displace them?


2. Can development become necessary under any conditions and assume precedence over displacement?

The real villain, the real villainy

In India, I believe that the problem has never purely been one of displacement v. development, even though the conflict between those who champion either cause is what birthed it. According to Dr. Prabhat Patnaik, one of India’s leading economists, the central government’s adoption of a capitalist economic model will produce problems unique to the country because capitalism is being superimposed on an “old order” that hasn’t fully been dismantled. This is where the adivasi resides.

1. Developmental cap - When it comes to the displacement of adivasis, a symbolic cap is necessary to discourage the government from favouring one section of the population more than the other, in the process expanding a gap that it has been elected to work against! Since government accountability for state-instituted displacement, especially as a result of land acquisition, is virtually absent, there is nothing to prevent the problem from worsening except an undertaking on the state’s part.
   
   It must undertake to frame its growth rate according to a plebiscit decreed by the people in the absence of congressmen and patricians at the order of a magistrate or a tribune, and it must work with the plebiscit as a strict guideline. This is similar to what has already been mandated by the new Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill, 2011.


2. Consumption cap - If, at the policy level, a framework can be built that prioritizes the rights of the Dongria Kondh over the demand for bauxite mined from the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa, what are the processes on the other side of the wall that will determine how much we reduce our consumption of aluminium by? Because we cannot plug a hole at one end of the pipe and expect the water levels at the other end to not rise up.

Conclusion

Yes, someone must suffer a loss of some kind for the sake of development, but instead of sustaining growth rates at precarious costs, why isn’t there any faith in the aspirations of the adivasis themselves? Why is it that adivasis are being targeted again and again instead of the state inculcating a program that will successfully reintegrate them into modern society, moderate growth rates to reasonable levels, and ensure that the notion of progress is no longer mired in controversy?

I hold that integration into modern society is more desirable than tribalizing the modern society because of the mechanisms we require to remain on a competitive note with our traders and strategic partners. At the same time, there is no doubt that we have lost control over our own internal homogenization. It is true that our first duty is toward ourselves, but what it has been lost to requires a look at India’s foreign relations and political history, which possesses its own special share of flaws. However, regression in the post-globalization age would be incredibly painful.

My answer is that under some circumstances, displacement could become simply necessary. While, there can be no excuse for the government to snatch land from its citizens for any use, except those expediently required (such as national defence, etc.), that is a matter of enforcement: without rehabilitation and resettlement, it is just unconstitutional.

It would be more harmful for the Indian economy, and the important subsidies it provides that sustains large sections of the rural population, in the short- and long-terms to cease its current trade partnerships and other strategic commitments than to resist globalization and modernization and start on a path toward complete self-sufficiency. The only leeway on top of it is that we need an equitable distribution of development because only that promises the convergence of globalization with our social harmony to some extent.

Sources

1. http://www.fmreview.org/FMRpdfs/FMR08/fmr8.9.pdf


2. http://www.tn.gov.in/policynotes/pdf/energy.pdf

A velvet fist in an iron glove

The United Progressive Alliance ruling the country has to get tougher, more resilient, if it expects the period of its rule to be smooth and unmarred whatsoever. One of the principle differences between the BJP and the Congress (which forms the majority in the coalition) is the commanding of loyalty. Everybody knows that the lesser the party does for the ministry, the lesser it is considered to have done for the people, and the more it demands loyalty than commands it.

There have already been three instances during which unreasonable demands have been the order of the day. The first one was the Telengana issue, which has found new vigour today with AP's Congress MLAs demanding a separate state against the sanction of an en masse resignation from the legislative assembly. Sri Krishna report or no, the Congress must do what the BJP does best: large-scale mobilization of emotions.

The second was the Baba Ramdev fiasco. What the Congress failed to do, he thought he did. Demanding the death penalty for black money hoarders and not safeguarding against communal influences did quite damage the credibility of Anna Hazare's campaign, but how much is Ramdev to blame when the ruling government constantly allows such people to come up? Apart from arguing it out for the media, the leaders haven't galvanized support for even when the government is right about something.

The third is the ongoing Anna Hazare tussle. If the UPA's rebuttal is that Hazare is a stubborn man hardly budged from his position, I'd say valid argument, invalid sufficiency. The government's very much in a position to take the battle to Hazare, and all it must do is what he's doing very well against it: isolating people support.

Those sections of the Lokpal Bill that are meaningful and constructive could be tabled separately in the Parliament, even in the absence of Hazare. For the contentious points: work around Hazare and force him to suffer the people's ire if he doesn't seem to be complying with the intentions of a government that is doing something.

The sooner these people are put down, the better. While that's the truth, it's only a partial truth: it's even better when such people are not given opportunities to turn up. Kapil Sibal talking jurisprudence with Karan Thapar is going to keep the educated urban population from thinking the UPA is trying to blindside the anti-corruption fight. In the eyes of everyone else, on the other hand, the govt. is easily accused of dereliction of duty.

In the Telengana issue, discordance in the ranks of the MLAs has reached a maximum. Yes, too many things cropped up, but that's no excuse to let the matter slide out of focus. A reworking of the state's legislature as recommended by the SKC report would have sufficed to quell the unrest in its early stages. Then, there was the case of certain sections of the report indicating an assumption of liberty more than was entitled to the SKC. If the UPA had gone through it beforehand, they could've easily removed it and prevented it from acting against their interests. That wasn't done.

Next, against an earlier threat of losing the majority in the AP state assembly, the Congress let a debate even begin as to whether the separation of the state was necessary. This was so even when the only difference between the proposed statutorily-empowered Telengana Regional Council and a separate state was the existence of a line on the map - a fact known by both factions. Now, it's assumed heinously political proportions.

As for Baba Ramdev: the forced eviction was the right thing to do but only at that point of time.

A velvet fist in an iron glove

The United Progressive Alliance ruling the country has to get tougher, more resilient, if it expects the period of its rule to be smooth and unmarred whatsoever. One of the principle differences between the BJP and the Congress (which forms the majority in the coalition) is the commanding of loyalty. Everybody knows that the lesser the party does for the ministry, the lesser it is considered to have done for the people, and the more it demands loyalty than commands it.

There have already been three instances during which unreasonable demands have been the order of the day. The first one was the Telengana issue, which has found new vigour today with AP's Congress MLAs demanding a separate state against the sanction of an en masse resignation from the legislative assembly. Sri Krishna report or no, the Congress must do what the BJP does best: large-scale mobilization of emotions.

The second was the Baba Ramdev fiasco. What the Congress failed to do, he thought he did. Demanding the death penalty for black money hoarders and not safeguarding against communal influences did quite damage the credibility of Anna Hazare's campaign, but how much is Ramdev to blame when the ruling government constantly allows such people to come up? Apart from arguing it out for the media, the leaders haven't galvanized support for even when the government is right about something.

The third is the ongoing Anna Hazare tussle. If the UPA's rebuttal is that Hazare is a stubborn man hardly budged from his position, I'd say valid argument, invalid sufficiency. The government's very much in a position to take the battle to Hazare, and all it must do is what he's doing very well against it: isolating people support.

Those sections of the Lokpal Bill that are meaningful and constructive could be tabled separately in the Parliament, even in the absence of Hazare. For the contentious points: work around Hazare and force him to suffer the people's ire if he doesn't seem to be complying with the intentions of a government that is doing something.

The sooner these people are put down, the better. While that's the truth, it's only a partial truth: it's even better when such people are not given opportunities to turn up. Kapil Sibal talking jurisprudence with Karan Thapar is going to keep the educated urban population from thinking the UPA is trying to blindside the anti-corruption fight. In the eyes of everyone else, on the other hand, the govt. is easily accused of dereliction of duty.

In the Telengana issue, discordance in the ranks of the MLAs has reached a maximum. Yes, too many things cropped up, but that's no excuse to let the matter slide out of focus. A reworking of the state's legislature as recommended by the SKC report would have sufficed to quell the unrest in its early stages. Then, there was the case of certain sections of the report indicating an assumption of liberty more than was entitled to the SKC. If the UPA had gone through it beforehand, they could've easily removed it and prevented it from acting against their interests. That wasn't done.

Next, against an earlier threat of losing the majority in the AP state assembly, the Congress let a debate even begin as to whether the separation of the state was necessary. This was so even when the only difference between the proposed statutorily-empowered Telengana Regional Council and a separate state was the existence of a line on the map - a fact known by both factions. Now, it's assumed heinously political proportions.

As for Baba Ramdev: the forced eviction was the right thing to do but only at that point of time.