Showing posts with label @ShashiTharoor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label @ShashiTharoor. Show all posts

Sunday, December 11, 2016

An Era of Darkness



A book launch was held yesterday at the former residence of the Commander-in-Chief of British India, now called Teen Murti Bhavan. At an estate that placed symbolically behind the imposing Viceregal Lodge, two Indians sat on the stage to launch a book, and to demolish the notion that 200 years British rule was "good" for India.

The venue at Teen Murti Bhavan - NMML auditorium - was packed. Folks who lingered outside to tuck in a few more chai-pakora's had to stand by the doorway as the author, Shashi Tharoor and historian R. Mukherjee too the stage to discuss the book, "An Era of Darkness - The British Empire in India".

The discussion took on a predictable course with Tharoor outlining the reasons why he thought a such book was necessary; the realization that most of his countrymen were blissfully unaware of the methods used by the British to systematically reduce the country from an global economic heavyweight to a basket-case, and of contemporary notions of nationalism.

One point that stuck in my mind came up in the Q&A session. An elderly person sitting on the front row asked, "Throughout history, why is it that we were betrayed by our own people?"

Tharoor skirted this question, and restricted his answer to the usual suspects - the Mir Kasim's and Mir Jaffer's - of the British Era. In introduction to his book he tosses the ball back to the other court by saying, "...when a marauder destroys your home and takes away your cash and jewelry, his responsibility for his actions far exceeds that of the servant who opened the door for him, whether hout of fear, cupidity or because he simply didn't know any better".

It is difficult to imagine that the grand quislings in our history were acting out of fear, cupidity or ignorance. The Mir's of Bengal seemed to be driven primarily by ambition, greed and self-interest. Ditto for Jaichand, the king of Kannauj, who allied with Mohammad of Ghor, to settle a personal insult, or political score with the Chauhan ruler of Delhi.

Clearly, there is something more basic at work in our minds. In a country that has always been a slow-cooking melting pot of different races, languages and habits, almost every ruler would have sought out existing fissures, divisions and rivalries to consolidate their own power-base. It is a trend that continues to this day.

Greed and self-interest was also apparent in the manner in which the audience jostled around Tharoor, doggedly ignoring all pleas to come in an orderly line. A singular lack of concern for others that was also being played out at the traffic roundabout outside where vehicles refused to give way, and slowing themselves in the process; along the footpaths where bikes and scooters rushed into a space that belonged to pedestrians, and, finally in the metro trains where perfectly healthy men squatted on the train floor, while others struggled to find space to stand upright.

Clearly, the era of darkness is yet to disappear into our history books.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LINKS

* BL review - http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/books/uday-balakrishnan-reviews-an-era-of-darkness-by-shashi-tharoor/article9391768.ece

* IE review - http://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/books/shashi-tharoor-book-an-era-of-darkness-british-colonialism-in-india-3741446/




Thursday, August 20, 2015

Coercive Instrumentalities of the State

I heard about "monopoly on violence", for the first time at a lecture hall in Tsukuba-U. It as one of those eye-opening sessions that brought out the inextricable linkages between academic theories and the practice of statecraft.

Prof. H. Klienschmidt was at the podium, talking about Max Weber's theory. According to this theory, one of the pre-conditions for the existence of a successful state is its capacity to to uphold a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force' (German: das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges) in the enforcement of its order.

It is from this theory that modern nation states enforce strict control on its citizens over the pocession and use of firearms and weapons. But the theory starts wobbling when the state is forced to cope with acts of terror.

Recently in India, we had a terror convict who was hanged after a trial that lasted 20 years. The execution was widely perceived as a decision that lacked balance. Here is an interesting talk by Ajit Doval, NSA that addresses some of these concerns:



"How does the values of the state manifest themselves? They are exercised by a few individuals...in dictatorships and monarchies by one or two. In large democracies there may be a coupel of hundred people...leave aside the theoritical model, a recent survey concludes that the USA is controlled by 173 individuals...the real power is exercised by them. And actually, the substantial strategic power is exercised by a much smaller group...what matters is that they are all human beings. And they carry with them... their own prejudices, their own values, their own likes, dislikes, and also their self interests. And therefore the dilemma arises because of that."

---------------------------------------------------

LINKS:

- Lalit Doshi Memorial Lecture (4 August 2015) - http://www.thehoot.org/free-speech/media-freedom/national-interest-trumps-media-freedom-8862

- Michael Bakunin 's Immorality of the State - http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/bakuninimmorality.html