Sunday, October 24, 2010

sadkon ke jangal mein pedon se khade log

Who Benefits from Clinical Research in India?

Who Benefits from Clinical Research in India?



Amit Sen Gupta



IN recent months there have been a spate of reports that raise concerns about the conduct of clinical trials on human subjects in India. These ranged from reports of a number of deaths in trial subjects in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 2008, to the gross ethical violations alleged in trials of a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer among adolescent girls in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat in 2010. There have also been reports of growing number of deaths in trial subjects that led, in one instance, to the Drug Controller General of India stepping in to stop the concerned trial in Bangalore. What is disturbing about all these reports is the absolute lack of transparency regarding how these trials are being conducted. The government, when forced by media reports to make a statement, has chosen to maintain this veil of secrecy to the extent possible.



These reports, raising misgivings about the way clinical trials are being conducted in India, coincide with a very rapid expansion of the number of clinical trials conducted in the country. The flood gates opened in 2005 when India changed the rules regulating clinical trials in the country. To understand how this happened we need to understand the process involved while conducting clinical trials.



CLINICAL TRIALS

AND ETHICS

When new drugs are researched, they need to be tested on human subjects before they are given a marketing approval by drug regulatory agencies. Before a new drug is tested on human subjects, they have to be tested on animals to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug. However, this is not enough to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug in humans. The final step involves testing the drugs among human subjects. These tests are carried out in four phases. In the first phase of human trials, the drug is tested on a small number of human subjects to show that the drug is indeed safe for human consumption. Generally phase I trials are conducted on healthy subjects and the intent is to establish the safety of the drug. Phase II and III are conducted on subjects who have a condition that may benefit from the use of the drug, and thus these trials are designed to establish that the drug is effective in treating a particular disease. Phase IV trials are also called post-marketing surveillance and are designed to collect data from an even larger sample of patients, after the drug is introduced.



Because clinical trials are essentially experiments that are conducted on human beings, all countries have rules that regulate how these trials should be conducted. Globally, the Helsinki declaration, sets the benchmark of how such rules should be framed. All rules related to drug trials are concerned with the ethics of how trials are conducted. The first, and perhaps the most important aspect of these rules, are those related to “informed consent”. Because trials are an experiment they carry a potential risk. So it needs to be ensured that those who participate in clinical trials should be aware of the risks and should formally consent to be part of the trial after the risks are explained in details. The concept of informed consent is also premised on the assumption that trial subjects consent to be a clinical trial subject without being coerced, directly or as a consequence of the circumstances in which the person might find himself. The second fundamental concern about ethics in clinical trials is that trials should be allowed in a population who would later benefit from the introduction of the drug that is tested. In other words clinical trials should not be permitted where trial subjects in a particular country or community are used as mere guinea pigs.



There are several other critical issues that determine whether a trial is ethical. In recent years, a major concern has related to “placebo” controlled trials. A placebo is a substance that has no significant effect on a human subject – it could be a capsule containing a small amount of salt or sugar, for example. In placebo controlled trials, some trial subjects are given the placebo while others are given the drug that is being studied. Through this route researchers can decide if the drug is a better alternative to no treatment. However placebo trials are unethical if a treatment already exists for the disease for which the new drug is being tested, for it means that those who are given the placebo are being denied treatment, even though a treatment for the disease exists. The Helsinki declaration clearly states that in general placebo trials should be avoided if treatment already exists. However there is no unanimity on this among researchers. Laws in the US, for example, have different standards for placebo controlled trials depending on whether the trials are being conducted in the US or being conducted in a third country.



CHANGE IN LAW

OPENS FLOOD-GATES

Before 2005, the Indian law was designed to actively discourage the use of Indians as mere subjects for experimentation by foreign companies. The law required that if a foreign company wished to conduct trials in India, it needed to repeat the trials from the same phase in India as had already been conducted in locations outside India. Thus if a company had already conducted phase I trials outside India, it could not directly start phase II trials in India – it would have to conduct phase I trials again in India, before permission was conducted to conduct phase II trials in the country. This allowed Indian regulatory agencies greater control over the kind of trials being conducted in India and was a vital tool for protection of trial subjects against unethical trials. In 2005, however, this requirement was waived (by and amendment to schedule Y of the drugs and cosmetic rules) and concurrent phase II and III trials were allowed. This means that a phase II or III trial can be conducted concurrently in India, along with similar trials in other centres in the world, even if the drug has not undergone a phase I or II trial in India.



The result of this change in the law has been spectacular. In 2005, less than a 100 trials were being conducted in India. The number jumped to over 250 by 1997-98 and is projected to exceed a 1000 by the end of 2010. It is now estimated that one in four clinical trials in the world are conducted in India, and the turnover for the industry is expected to touch US$ 1.52 billion by 2010. The Association of Indian Contract Research Organisations (ACRO) chairman Dr S P Vasireddi is quoted as claiming: "We have now a share of 24 per cent while China has 33.3 per cent of the global business."



REASONS BEHIND BOOM

IN CLINICAL TRIALS

What explains this boom in clinical trials in the country? Does it indicate a rapid expansion of capability and capacity for conducting medical research in the country? Unfortunately the answer to this is largely in the negative. While capacity and capability have increased, the sudden rise in number of trials far outstrips the enhancement in capacity and capability. Even industry sources admit that at present levels there is a need for about 5,000 new professionals trained in good clinical practice (GCP) in the industry to augment the 600 odd who are available in the country. What is perhaps an even bigger concern is that regulatory capacity has not kept pace with the sudden spurt in clinical trials. While the law was changed in 2005, it was only in late 2009 that the government deemed it prudent to make it mandatory to register clinical trials in the country. While rules now specify that all clinical trials need to be overseen by institutional ethics committees, the constitution and functioning of these ethics committees are fraught with numerous problems. Primary among these is the issue of conflict of interest -- ethics committee members can have vested interest in ensuring that a trial is given permission because they have links with the company or the local contractor or the researcher who is engaged in promoting the trial. Further, there is little interaction between ethics committees in different locations, thereby allowing the practice of "ethics committee shopping": sponsors whose trial is rejected by one ethics committee approach a different centre for approval.



The sudden boom in clinical trials, in fact, can be explained precisely because of the incapacity to regulate clinical trials. Companies are rushing to India to conduct trials which they would have problems in justifying in their home countries. This is happening in a situation where most patients in India are particularly vulnerable because they have poor or no access to public health facilities. Thus, poor and vulnerable patients sign up for trials as they see this as the only opportunity to access treatment for their disease. A study done by the Mumbai based Centre for Studies in Ethics and Rights quotes a survey that showed that just 11 per cent of trial subjects enrolled to advance scientific knowledge. In contrast the rest joined the trials because they were looking for better or free treatment, or they were advised by their treating physician to enroll. Five per cent even admitted that they joined because they were paid money to do so! Poor access to public health in India has another advantage that trial sponsors seek to exploit – most Indians are treatment naïve, that is they have not been exposed to treatments before enrolling in a trial. In other words, all that is wrong with the public health system in the country has become the primary motive force for India becoming the favoured destination of clinical trials in the world.



MIDDLEMEN MILK

THE SYSTEM

The story would not be complete without a mention of the prime movers of the clinical trials industry in India. There has been a mushrooming of Clinical Research Organisations (CROs) and Site Management Organisations (SMOs) in the recent past. To put it bluntly, they are the middlemen or fixers who grease the machinery and ensure that more and more clinical trials are outsourced into India. They liaise between the drug companies and the clinical researchers (many of them of extremely dubious quality). They ensure that the drug regulatory authorities are kept happy, they draw up the protocols, advise the researchers as to how patients are to be recruited and even help in formation of the ethics committees. Their prime motivation is not an interest in research but the billions of dollars that are flowing into the industry. When researchers are drawn from the private sector, they are paid on a pro rata basis depending on the number of subjects who are recruited. Such payments can range from $1,500 (Rs 70,000) to $3,000 (Rs1,40,000) per patient.



Recently, in a reply to a question in parliament, the ministry of health reported that deaths among clinical trial subjects increased from 132 in 2007 to 637 in 2009, and 462 deaths had already been reported till June 2010. While deaths can occur among clinical trial subjects (largely in cases where the subjects are suffering from terminal diseases such as cancers), such a rapid increase is a cause for concern. The concern is compounded by the fact that there appears to be an absolute lack of transparency in reporting regarding how trials are being conducted and the outcomes of these trials.



This is not to suggest that good quality researchers are not present in India and that excellent research is not being conducted in several centres. Unfortunately these would constitute a small minority of the total number of clinical trials being conducted in the country. Given the huge and growing concerns about the dubious quality and ethical gaps regarding most clinical trials being conducted, there is a danger that the entire system of clinical research will stand discredited in the global arena. If this is to be avoided drug regulatory authorities and the Indian Council of Medical Research must step in to ensure transparency, ethics and quality in clinical research. At the same time, there is a clear need to separate the unethical and the incompetent from genuine researchers. Only better regulation with much larger regulatory capacity and resources can ensure this. Finally, there is also an urgent need that CROs and SMOs be regulated and perhaps phased out of the entire system of conducting clinical research in the country.

tha kaya hamne socha kya ho gaya

E Jane gajal fir se tu inqlab ho ja

Saffron terror 7

Saffron Terror - 2

Saffron Terror - 1

Saturday, October 23, 2010

gvigyan: UNDEMOCRATIC MARRIAGE INSTITUTION

gvigyan: UNDEMOCRATIC MARRIAGE INSTITUTION

UNDEMOCRATIC MARRIAGE INSTITUTION

UNDEMOCRATIC MARRIAGE INSTITUTION

SAHEED BHAGAT SINGHA NEW FOLK SONG

SAVE PLANET EARTH

BITTER TRUTH

HOW YOU WOULD REACT???

BREKHT

BUFFALOES AND BATAKS IN A VILLAGE POND

A PEASANT WITH BULLOK CARTTHINKING ABOUT HIS FUTURE

T.V.Playing Havoc Also

BOL BAKHAT KE==ASLI PYAR=FOLK

SHEESPAL THE GIRL WHO REACHED UP TO 12 TH CLASSSTARTING FROM JEEVANSHALANOW SHE WAS AKSAR SAINIK IN CAMP IN TEACHING THE WOMEN

IN PATTI KALYANA (SAMALKHA)WOMEN LITERACY CAMP WAS ORGANISED 35 DAYSEVEN MUSLIM WOMEN PARTICIPATED IN GOOD STRENGTH

ATOMY KARAR ===FOLK

Friday, October 22, 2010

JASBIR SAMARAK SAMITI 23 MARCHBHAGAT SINGH, SUKHDEV, RAJGURU MARTYRE DAYSAVITAPAYING TRIBUTE

OUR UNIVERSEFOLK SONG IS VISUALISED FOR ILLITERATES

POOR PEASANT PLIGHT R.S.Dahiya

Seminar -- Chief Guest D. Raghunandan--DSFDr. R.S.Dahiya----HVMSatish Kumar-------HVM

Dr. R.S.Dahiya GAYAK--SATHI GULAB SINGH KHANDELWALSINGING A FOLK SONG ON PLANET EARTH CRISIS

THE EARTH PLANET IS UNDER CRISIS---MEN MADESEMINAR BY HARYANA VIGYAN MANCHSPEAKER---D. RAGHUNANDAN---DELHI SCIENCE FORUM

TO PROMOTE CREATIVE FACULTIES OF CHILDRENSUMMER CAMPS ARE ORGANISED

THE ENDLESS WORLD-- INFINITY CONCEPT

PEOPLE'S HEALTH

PEACOCK IS DANCING

8th March Celebrations

SCIENCE IN WRONG HANDS

BADESHI COMPANY

JHANK KAI DEKHAN

Drop Box

Drop Box

AENASIUS-THE MEALYBUG PARASITOID

AENASIUS-THE MEALYBUG PARASITOID

Sarab Nashe.ke chakkar main

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Last Nazm Written By Habib Tanvir | NewsClick

Last Nazm Written By Habib Tanvir | NewsClick

THE CULTURE OF GLOBALIZATION

The Culture of Globalization
Sudhanva Deshpande, Newsclick, December 16, 2009

There is no question about it. Globalization is changing the way we eat, drink, dress, think. Every day we see events taking place in New York, or London, or Sharjah, or Beijing beamed into our homes via satellite television. We find Hollywood films dubbed in our local languages and running to packed houses. We find beauty contests being organized in our localities, schools, or colleges. We find children asking for two-minute noodles, hamburgers, and canned cola drinks. We find autorickshaw drivers wearing T-shirts proclaiming ‘California! Here I come!’

The TV antenna has become perhaps the most common signpost of human habitation anywhere in the world. Telephones have linked virtually the entire planet. The internet has made it possible for people in all corners of the world to communicate with each other, access and exchange information very quickly, efficiently, cheaply, and without regard to national boundaries. Millions of dollars can be transferred in a matter of seconds across the globe over computer networks that link banks, stock markets, and other financial institutions.

Globalization is changing our culture. Take the case of cinema. Taking its cue from Hollywood, our cinema is becoming more expert at depicting violence. We see cars in films skidding, turning over, sliding, hitting other cars, and exploding into a huge ball of fire. We see severed limbs, blood gushing out as a bullet hits a body, brains being blown apart. There is more and more sex in our cinema. Our heroes and heroines are dressing up like international fashion models. Song sequences in our films have started looking and sounding more and more like western music videos. More and more films are being shot on foreign locations.

A number of people feel very concerned about all this. They lament that Indian culture is being destroyed, and that a foreign, alien culture is being foisted on us. They tell us that Indian culture, Indian values, Indian customs are being degraded.

There is no question that what is happening merits concern. But concern on what grounds? When we are told that globalization is destroying Indian culture, are we to assume that there is a single, monolithic entity called ‘Indian culture’? Or do we assume that all foreign or western cultural influences are pernicious? Or are we to assume that either there are no decadent, reactionary elements in our own culture, or if there are, they are somehow, magically, totally benign? Surely not. We know that there is a no such thing as a ‘pure’, unsullied culture. There is a wide diversity of cultures in India. These cultures have always interacted with each other, they have learned from each other, they have shaped and influenced each other. And this has been happening since the dawn of human civilization. A huge number of things that we regard as essential to our lives in the modern world have been given to us by the west—railways, the printing press, shirts and trousers, cinema and radio, democracy, and, indeed, Marxism itself. We also know that there are as many reactionary elements in what is routinely called ‘Indian culture’ as there are anywhere in the world. Now, if all this is indeed the case, then why does the cultural influx that accompanies globalization cause us worry?

We do not oppose globalization and the culture it brings with it because it is ‘foreign’, much less because it is ‘western’. We do not believe that there is something called ‘Indian culture’ that has remained uncontaminated over the ages. We do not oppose the free intermingling of various cultures. And certainly, we do not believe that Indians have to depend exclusively on imports for their share of decadence.

We oppose the culture of globalization not because it is foreign, but because it is the culture of imperialism. This culture seeks to keep in place, to perpetuate, and to strengthen the highly unequal, inegalitarian, oppressive, and exploitative system of world capitalism.

Capitalism is the first global mode of production. In order to reproduce itself, capitalism needs to do at least two things. First, capitalism needs to reproduce itself on a constantly expanding scale. It needs to annex all those realms where the sway of capital has not yet been established. As Marx and Engels had put it in The Communist Manifesto,

The need for a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

This tendency towards globalization is inherent in capitalism, and the sphere of culture is no exception to this rule.

Secondly, capitalism needs to reproduce itself not only at the point of production, but in every realm of human life, including the cultural. In fact, the existence of capitalist production relations depends, to a very large extent, on the acceptance and consent given to these relations by large sections of the people. The sway of capitalist culture is crucial to the maintenance of this consent. The reproduction of capitalist culture is, therefore, a matter of life and death for capitalism. And since capitalism is a global mode of production, it reproduces capitalist culture too globally.

In reproducing itself on a constantly expanding scale, capitalism also tends to concentrate and centralize production. This tendency has made itself apparent in the sphere of cultural production as well. Thus, for instance, only a handful of large multinational conglomerates control the production of the bulk of television programmes produced in the USA each year. These very programmes are the ones that are seen by people across the globe repeatedly: think of the number of programmes of American origin that we can today see in India.

The globalization of culture means, at the simplest level, that cultural goods (films, music, television shows, etc.) can cross national boundaries more and more easily, that the same cultural goods are available for consumption to people across the globe. The direction of flow of cultural goods, however, is by and large the same as the direction of flow of economic goods. That is to say, the countries which import cultural goods are most often also the countries which import economic goods. In other words, the relationship of dominance and subservience which characterizes the relationship of the metropolitan imperialist countries with the third world countries in the economic sphere is more or less replicated in the cultural sphere. This is because the sphere of cultural production, distribution, and consumption is not an autonomous sphere unlinked to the sphere of economic production, distribution, and consumption. On the contrary, the structures which support cultural production and consumption are the very same structures that support economic production and consumption.

The television provides perhaps the best example of this. Increasingly, transmission is taking place via satellites. Manufacturing, launching and maintaining satellites is an expensive proposition. Very few poor countries, if any, can afford the luxury of satellites for entertainment purposes—if they can afford satellites at all, they would prefer to use them for security, meteorological, and other priority purposes. Buying time on existing satellites is not inexpensive either. Rich countries, their broadcasting corporations, and other multinational corporations can, however, afford satellites for a range of uses, including television broadcasting. Further, even running a television station is an expensive venture—apart from all the expensive electronic gadgetry, you require a steady production of programmes to transmit. All this requires a lot of money. Western broadcasting corporations, however, have an immense reservoir of serials, chat shows, films, information-based shows, etc., that are relatively cheap for television stations to buy and transmit (often, by simply dubbing them into the local language).

The globalization of culture also means the homogenization of culture. The sway of capital means the standardization of economic production across the globe. The same tendency is also seen in the realm of culture. Just as, say, a pair of jeans, or a computer, or canned food produced in any country is exactly like any other pair of jeans, or computer, or canned food produced on the other side of the world, cultural products also begin to be more and more standardized. Therefore, for instance, in the early days of MTV in India, the channel was full of only western songs and singers, but increasingly, the share of time given to Indian songs and singers has increased over the past 3-4 years. However, far from representing a weakening of the hold of western culture, this signifies its very opposite: the increasing production in India of cultural goods that are not distinguishable from the cultural goods produced in the metropolitan capitalist countries in any important respect. In other words, what we are witnessing is the standardization and homogenization of cultural goods across the globe.

The capitalist culture which imperialism today seeks to universalize across the world, takes particularly obnoxious forms in countries of backward capitalism where the feudal remnants, especially feudal cultural remnants, are still alive. It not only manifests itself in such societies as the culture of extreme individualism, consumerism, and commodity fetishism, it is also an extremely patriarchal culture, and it commodifies women’s bodies. It is a culture that militates against all progressive, democratic ideas. It is a culture that does not hesitate to promote every kind of backward, reactionary, irrational, and obscurantist idea. This is the reason why ‘mythological’ and other kinds of irrational serials like Ramayana, Shaktimaan, etc., appear with such monotonous regularity on Indian television.

The RSS, BJP, Shiv Sena, and other right-wing communal–fascist parties and organisations pretend to be the only true guardians of Indian culture. Nothing could be farther than the truth. The forces of Hindutva have never stood against the onslaught of imperialist culture in our country. And for good reason. The middle classes, mercantile sections, technocrats, and others who are so seduced by the fantasy of an aggressively Hindu India are the very sections who have benefited most from globalization and the array of goods it has made available for consumption. More: the consumption of the products of Western capitalism becomes ‘proof’ of the forward-looking nature of Hindutva. Thus, for instance, Advani carries out his ‘rath yatra’ in a Toyota van, and the Michael Jackson concert in Mumbai is organised by the Shiv Sena with Bal Thackeray as the presiding deity at the event.

The RSS seeks to take over the very diverse, even conflicting belief structures and practices of Hinduism in different parts of the country and incorporate them into a single, monolithic version of Hinduism. This version of Hinduism is what it calls Hindutva. The RSS argues that religion, not language, is the only basis for nationality in India—thus, Hindus constitute one nation and the Muslims and other minorities constitute other, separate nations. Since India belongs to the Hindus, if any minorities wish to stay here, they must do so as second-class citizens. This is what the ‘cultural nationalism’ of the RSS actually means. Thus Hindutva is a fundamentally authoritarian, anti-minority, upper-caste, patriarchal and masculinist ideology that seeks to destroy the multi-lingual, multi-national character of this country and the syncretic nature of the belief structures and practices that have characterized the religious and spiritual universe of the majority of the people of India. This represents a fundamental assault on not only the cultural and spiritual lives of non-Hindus, but on the cultural and spiritual lives of all Hindus as well.

Thus the cultural offensive of globalization, fascism, and feudalism are not three discrete, unlinked forces—they are very deeply, indeed structurally, welded together. Our fight, then, will have to be against all three

GM Crops

GM Crops: The Societal Context of Technologies
Satyajit Rath, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi & Prabir Purkayastha, Delhi Science Forum/ May 8, 2010

The Bt Brinjal debate has featured technological worries relating to genetically modified crops which appear relatively minor in comparison to the critical issue of who controls Indian agriculture and therefore food security in India. While there cannot be a mere technological fix to the problems of Indian agriculture, technology – and therefore GM will be part of the solutions. The article is an extract from a larger manuscript to be published in the EPW.

The Bt brinjal debate has been largely simplified as an ideological disagreement between camps either anti- or pro-Genetically Modified (GM) crops, at least in the public eye. There is no denying that the vitriol of the debate is in part due to ideological differences. However, what is missing is the public awareness that the disagreements fall into two distinct categories, and that conflating those is a grievous error in determining public policy.

One disagreement is over the anti-GM characterization of GM technologies as intrinsically and catastrophically harmful. A second disagreement is over the nature of the GM crop technology ownership and the effect of such ownership on agriculture in India. Anti-GM groups have sought to brand GM technologies as intrinsically harmful and to identify GM with rapacious multinational corporations (MNCs). This brings ideologically distinct groups together in uneasy and ill-fitting unity. Thus, many socially progressive movements find themselves in awkward alliance with nativist and anti-modernity opinion. On the other hand, pro-GM argument in the public sphere has portrayed GM technology with a patronizing air of triumphalism making the MNC ownership of GM technologies a core component. This has made the weak voice of the Indian scientific community sound like a handmaiden of an international agribusiness juggernaut. It is essential to separate the wheat from the chaff in all this if we are to make public policy about practical social good in agriculture.

The issue of genetic modification of crops and livestock is undoubtedly complex and replete with serious issues. The key questions are, is it practically possible in India to evaluate the risks and benefits of such technologies, and to what extent are the concerns specific to GM technologies?

Any significant technological advance generally involves serious issues. Major technological advances have always come with attendant uncertainties and risks. When we have no data to evaluate risk, the situation is one of uncertainty, and little reasonable prediction can be made. But we do know enough to be able to evaluate the risks of GM crops. So long as we are not dealing with catastrophic consequences, we can set a ‘safety’ threshold of a certain low likelihood of adverse consequences in order to permit the use of a given technology. The weight of evidence indicates that GM technology carries the risk of non-catastrophic consequences (as opposed to, say, nuclear weapons, which carry the clear risk of catastrophic consequences), and can therefore be reasonably examined and used with care.

One frequently heard criticism of GM crops is that horizontal gene transfer is an 'unnatural' technology. This is a rather strange argument. All technologies are more or less unnatural since they are human-made and do not occur naturally. Any societal move away from food gathering has always been based on such 'unnatural' technologies. In fact, this has been used by pro-GM groups to claim that the products are there in nature and just transferring traits from one set of organisms to another does not constitute anything radically new and potentially harmful. Interestingly, they would also like to create monopolies through patents claiming these are novel products! The fact is that, like any other technologies, each GM product is a new product and will need careful safety testing before release.

This is an issue that scientists have raised right from the beginning. The Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA in 1975 set out voluntary guidelines on what could be done consistent with safety. Till the guidelines were formulated, they even imposed a moratorium on further research. However, things have changed radically since then. At that time, scientists were in the business of doing science – today a number are closely tied to corporate interests. Scientists are no longer just experts – their personal fortunes could also be riding on their opinions. And while one could say that scientific issues are best resolved by the scientists, the introduction of a technology into society is not a scientific question but a policy problem embedded within social and political issues.

More mundane safety related issues of biotechnology arise from the genetic material thus transferred. There are health safety issues and environmental safety issues. Some of these arise from the imprecise insertion of genes by this technology. A variant of this concern is that the inserted gene, or even the insertion process itself, may re-engineer the biology of the plant and generate poisons. While this possibility certainly exists, it is not unique to GM technology. Breeders of potatoes, for example, know well the possibility that a hybrid potato made from two good varieties can generate high levels of toxic material.

Another safety issue arises from the possibility that genes and proteins may behave differently in contexts other than the one they were taken from. This can give rise to the generation of allergic reactions. A brazilnut protein in GM soyabean and a bean protein expressed in GM peas have, for example, generated significant allergic reactions. Similar studies with many other GM crops, however, did not find any allergogenicity. Once again, food allergies are not unknown with non-GM foods either.

Another issue that arises, and sounds even more appropriate in cases such as Bt brinjal, is the potential of the introduced gene product, such as the Bt toxin, to cause human/livestock harm. While there is a fair amount of understanding about the mechanisms by which, say, the Bt toxin works, this, like all other safety concerns, can only be addressed case-by-case through pre-release testing.

A key question is, for how long is monitoring to be done in the pre-release tests? There is no obvious endpoint, since in theory, it could take years or decades to make the ill-effects of a poisonous substance manifest. But in the absence of any evidence that GM crop technology carries the risk of catastrophic consequences, demands for the unattainable absolute proof of safety begin to sound like ploys to keep the technology out of use no matter what the evidence. Undoubtedly, there was need for abundant caution and rigorous testing when Bt was first introduced into crops. While it was true that Bt in its natural state in the bacteria has been long used as a bio-pesticide, that by itself does not mean that Bt is going to be safe in its new form in a GM crop. However, by now the world has experienced a fair diversity of Bt crops, including food crops. Bt Corn has now been accepted for imports even in Europe. In this context, while food crops require particular attention, almost all crops enter the food chain one way or another; there is no impermeable barrier between food and non-food crops. A case in point is Bt cotton in India. Bt cotton stalks go into cattle feed and milk products obviously come from cattle. Cottonseed oil also enters the food chain. While case-by-case safety testing still remains the correct norm, the argument that there could still be a catastrophic danger from the Bt protein in GM crops seems less and less valid.

The issue of long-term toxicity with GM crops has also been particularly raised since, once a GM crop is released, there is no effective call-back. This is also the context in which the potential threats of GM technology for diversity in both crops and the biosphere have been excitedly discussed, since there is a possibility that the introduced genetic modifications would spread naturally both to other varieties of the same species, and also to other related species. How harmful is such spread likely to be to crop diversity and to biodiversity?

Most GM crops have one (or two) genes introduced into them. These genes can be easily bred into any variety of the crop, as is done, for example, with Bt cotton. This does not appear to lead a 'loss' of the variety in the sense of flattening out the diversity landscape, since the same number of varieties, with differing trait profiles albeit with an introduced gene, would still be available.

However, it is nonetheless true that GM crop usage has led to a reduction in the diversity of crop varieties being planted. It is useful to note that this is not related to the 'GM' nature of the technology, but to the imperatives of the marketplace and to the fact that the technology is owned and marketed by MNCs which, in order to achieve the profit scales they need, will aggressively drive high-volume seed sales. Such corporate control of agriculture is likely to promote the process of monoculture that tends to thin down biodiversity on the ground. Thus, this is not an issue intrinsic to GM technology, but to its ownership.

In essence, the issue is not whether GM crops are without risks, but whether the regulatory protocols developed and used for testing them sufficient for the purpose of evaluating their safety. As noted above, GM crops appear to carry risks of non-catastrophic consequences of the kinds and scales that society is familiar with. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that familiar safety-testing protocols will serve societal needs well in this context too. Protocols for testing GM crops have been developed by international and national bodies over time. They will continue to be strengthened and improved, but either-or positions vis-à-vis GM crops are unlikely to contribute to that process.

One major criticism of the basis on which the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) cleared Bt Brinjal, has been the alleged unreliability of the safety data. Safety data submitted by the company, with a vested interest in a favourable outcome, are deemed to be suspect in this argument. And in this context, the real issue that arises is a question we are depressingly familiar with: do we have strong implementation of these regulatory processes and protocols? The answer to that is likely to tend to be more and more in the negative the greater the involvement of powerful interests, such as deep-pocketed MNCs. This is as true of, say, drug approvals, as of crop approvals. Again, who owns GM technology appears to be far more crucial an issue than its 'GM'ness.

These issues need to be seen in the larger context of Indian agriculture and food security. With a growing population and with persistent problems of poverty and malnutrition to address, there is little doubt that increases in food production would be immensely useful. What is the possible role of GM crop technologies in this context? The anti-GM position is frequently apocalyptic with regard to the risks of GM crop technology, and therefore negates any useful role for it. It is also frequently allied with nativist anti-technology views of agriculture, in which back-to-nature approaches are seen as the most appropriate solution. On the other hand, the pro-GM position frequently sounds as though GM crop technology by itself can be a major solution.

As far as the evidence goes, there is no reason to think that GM crop technology carries catastrophic consequences, and therefore it is indeed proper to consider its possible advantages for Indian agriculture and food security seriously. However, anybody who thinks that any one category of approach, nativist or GM, is going to be a common panacea for India’s food security is refusing to acknowledge the sheer diversity and complexity of agricultural practices and needs across the country. For example, anti-GM favourites such as the integrated pest management system (IPMS) or the system of rice intensification (SRI) depend on their success on rigorous practices and additional equipment, and may be successful in some situations and not in others. Thus, the use of GM crop technology is going to be a part of our food future, not because it is the sole answer to the problems of Indian agriculture, but because it can expand the basket of choices available to a wide variety of farming communities. While GM is certainly not the only answer, there is little doubt that it can very much be a part of the answering strategies. It is possible to grow more drought-resistant or salinity-tolerant crops, or use less pesticides, for example. Some of these do not need transgenic technologies. Molecular genetic marker-assisted selective breeding is another tool that can help in achieving some of these aims. Achieving true breeding of hybrids will also help in a different way. But all of these tactics together would help to expand the basket of choices available.

It is thus clear that, while there cannot be a mere technological fix to the problems of Indian agriculture, technology will be part of the solutions. The farm sector is also seeing a huge squeeze on its income – the prices of inputs are rising faster than the output prices. The increasing corporatisation of inputs, as exemplified by the Monsanto-driven Bt-crops, exacerbates this squeeze further, and must be an issue of concern. The technological worries relating to GM crops appear relatively minor in comparison, yet, sadly, it is these techno-worries that hold centre-stage in the ongoing debates

Prof C.P Chandrashekhar on Currency Wars | NewsClick

Prof C.P Chandrashekhar on Currency Wars | NewsClick

Monday, October 11, 2010

"Superbug" Controversy: Concerns & Debates | NewsClick

"Superbug" Controversy: Concerns & Debates | NewsClick

Millennium Development Goals: A Travesty of Justice

Millennium Development Goals: A Travesty of Justice
Prasenjit Bose, Newsclick, September 20 2010

“Poverty rates have reduced substantially in the world but the number of people in risk of falling into poverty has increased” announces the World Bank PovertyNet as world leaders gather in New York today to attend the UN summit on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The agenda for the summit has already been set. The latest UN review of the MDGs says:

"The world is on track to meet the MDG target of halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015. Overall poverty rates fell from 46% in 1990 to 27% in 2005 in developing regions, and progress in many developing countries is being sustained. This is despite setbacks caused by the 2008-09 economic downturn and the effects of the food and energy crises."

The UN is apparently not satisfied by this progress. The Secretary General has reminded the world leaders of their Millennium Declaration pledge ‘for a better world’ adopted in 2001 and urged upon the international community to fulfil their promises. The unkept promises have been identified by the UN: a $152.7 billion deficit in official development assistance by the OECD donors vis-à-vis the UN target till 2009. The summit would therefore predictably end by further urging upon the rich countries to step up assistance to fill the aid ‘gap’ in order to match the MDG slogan: ‘We can end poverty’. So is poverty going to ‘end’? Let us take a closer look.

Sham of ‘Ending’ Poverty

The poverty reduction being claimed by the World Bank and the UN is based on the following finding:1

"Between 1981 and 2005, the share of the population in the developing world living below $1.25 a day was halved from 52 to 25%…reducing the number of poor by 500 million (from 1.9 billion to 1.4 billion) between 1981 and 2005."

How can the fact of 500 million people increasing their earnings beyond $1.25 a day, in a span of 24 years, be construed as a reduction of poverty? The same research also reports that in these 24 years the number of people earning less than $2 a day across the world remained unchanged at around 2.5 billion. Evidently, a bulk of those who have started earning more than $1.25 a day in these 24 years have continued to earn less than $2 a day. Therefore they have continued to remain in the ‘risk of falling into poverty’. But can those who are at the ‘risk of falling into poverty’ be at all considered to have moved out of poverty in the first place?

The problematic nature of this measure of poverty becomes clearer if we compare it with the poverty line of the US, the richest country in the world measured in terms of GDP. There is no single poverty line the US. Poverty estimates are done on the basis of household income thresholds, with different thresholds depending on the number of family members and dependents in a household. If we take the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2009 as a benchmark, the poverty line in the US stands roughly at $15 per day (per capita). The poverty line is a little less for households with higher family sizes, but even for the highest family size it would not be less than $13 per day (per capita). The poverty rate as per the latest findings of the US Census Bureau stood at 14.3% in 2009, up from 13.2% in 2008. The total number of poor people in the US increased from 39.8 million in 2008 to 43.6 million in 2009.2

Thus, poverty is increasing even in the richest country of the world, in terms of its official poverty line. And if everything else remains the same, the 500 million people living in the poor countries, who have moved from earning around $1 a day to $2 a day in 24 years as per the World Bank finding, will take at least another 264 years to reach the current minimum poverty threshold of the US at $13 a day. Yet, it is being claimed on the basis of this finding that ‘poverty rates’ are coming down.

The facts revealed by the latest stocktaking of the MDGs by the UN are more telling.3 The absolute number of people living in extreme poverty (below $1.25 a day) will be 920 million in 2015. The effects of the economic crisis will push an additional 64 million people into extreme poverty in 2010. Moreover, the absolute number of undernourished people increased from 817 million in 1990 to 830 million in 2007, i.e. an increase of 13 million. In effect, therefore, we are witnessing an increase in both poverty and hunger even as the world is supposedly ‘on track’ to meet the MDG target. What a sham.

Inane Discourse

What sustains this sham is the mainstream academic discourse on poverty, which evades any serious analysis of the causes behind it and obsessively revolves around issues of definitions and measurements. It is not that definitions and measurements of poverty are irrelevant. But making that the starting point of analysis serves the purpose of relegating the causes behind poverty to the background. The entire focus shifts to whether poverty has increased here or declined there and endless hair splitting on the direction and extent of change. When causes are at all discussed, they are done so within a framework, which through a chain of circular reasoning brings the discourse back to definitions and measurements of poverty. The question of causes gets buried in the process.

For instance, the first chapter of World Bank’s Handbook on Poverty and Inequality is titled ‘What Is Poverty and Why Measure It?’4 This chapter defines poverty as the ‘pronounced deprivation in well being’. What is well being? Conventionally, it is linked to whether ‘enough’ income or consumption is earned by people to put them above some ‘adequate minimum threshold’. This definition of threshold has been progressively expanded over time by including access to specific types of goods and services like food, housing, education and health. The latest approach further broadens the notion of well being to include ‘capabilities of the individual to function in society’, like ‘political freedoms’. The stated purposes of defining well being and measuring poverty is: “to keep poor people on the agenda…identify the poor people…target appropriate interventions…to help poor people”. But how do we ‘help’ poor people without understanding the causes of their poverty?

This comes in the eighth chapter of the Handbook, titled ‘Understanding the Determinants of Poverty’, which states that while a ‘poverty profile’ is only meant to describe the pattern of poverty and not explaining the causes of poverty, “yet, a satisfactory explanation of why some people are poor is essential if we are to be able to tackle the roots of poverty”. So at last we come to the roots. So what are they? We are served a whole menu of ‘main determinants’ of poverty, which are summarized by the authors themselves in a table (given below).




What is remarkable about this menu of ‘determinants’ of poverty is that it neither suggests any hierarchy within these myriad determinants, nor any cause effect relationship. As per the World Bank Handbook, poverty can be caused by anything, from typhoons and earthquakes to age or ethnicity. It may also be caused by lack of access to assets or lack of proximity to schools and clinics. It may perhaps be caused by the social structure and inequality too. We need to find out or establish through regression analysis, which of the determinants correlates better with poverty.5 We simply do not know yet.

To be fair to the authors of the Handbook, they are acutely aware of the vacuity of such analysis. They admit that “the ‘causes’ of poverty identified are ‘immediate’ (or ‘proximate’) causes, but not necessarily ‘deep’ causes”, and that while regression analysis can show lack of education as a cause behind poverty, it cannot explain why some people lack education. They further accept that “the weakest part of poverty analysis…is developing a clear understanding of the fundamental causes of poverty in a way that leads naturally to an effective strategy to combat poverty.” Yet, they justify their methodology in the following terms: “Because there is no reason to believe that the root causes of poverty are the same everywhere, country-specific analysis is essential.”

So there may be root causes of poverty. But these root causes are different for different countries. In order to get to those root causes, we have to do ‘country-specific analysis’. But if we do not have any a priori theory of the root causes of poverty, on what basis do we do the analysis? We go back to the first chapter of the Handbook on definitions and measurements of poverty. It is this circular reasoning which contributes to the inanity visible in the World Bank PovertyNet we noted at the beginning: “poverty rates have reduced substantially in the world but the number of people in the risk of falling into poverty has increased.”

Why is the international poverty line set at $1.25 per day? As per the World Bank’s explanation, it is the average of poverty lines found in the 15 poorest countries. But what accounts for the average poverty line of 15 poorest countries being set at $1.25 per day? The rich and affluent sections in many of these countries earn several hundred times more than that. Yet, the bare subsistence level in the poorest countries is set as the standard for international poverty. And even then, poverty alleviation targets are not being met. Just imagine the consequence of the entire poverty discourse, if the American poverty line of $15 per day is made the international poverty line.

Policy Cruelty

These conceptual inanities have grave repercussions for policy and the plight of the poor. Let us take the case of India, which is often showcased as a success story in today’s world. The national poverty line, obtained by weighting the World Bank’s $1.25 per day rural and urban lines with respective population shares, is Rs. 16.30 per day, as per which 41.6% of people in India are poor. However, the Indian Planning Commission’s poverty estimates for 2004-05, based on poverty lines of Rs 11.88 per day for rural areas and Rs 17.95 per day for urban areas, shows poverty in India to be only 27%. In contrast, the proportion of people not being able to acquire a minimum of 2,100 calories consumption in India is 62%, way above both the poverty estimates.6

What happens as a consequence of this unhealthy competition, between national and international policy establishments, to downplay and underestimate poverty? In India’s national capital Delhi, the below poverty line (BPL) population is estimated by the Planning Commission as only 2.29 million, which in a city of over 15 million population is a gross underestimate. Moreover, while only 418000 households in Delhi currently have BPL ration cards, a survey conducted by the Delhi Government (under its ‘Mission Convergence’) has already estimated over 800000 households (50 lakh people) residing in slums and resettlement colonies as ‘vulnerable’.7 The survey was conducted with the intent of identifying ‘vulnerable households’ and awarding them BPL cards. Yet, this huge number is still not being considered as BPL and provided access to subsidised food available through the PDS. Dividing the poor by drawing arbitrary poverty lines is only serving the purpose of denying basic entitlements like access to cheap food to large segments of the poor population. This injustice happens even as precious resources from the exchequer get expropriated by the powers that be under the cover of public funded jamborees of the elite like the Commonwealth Games.

India continues to be home to around 25% of the world’s hungry population currently estimated at 925 million by the UN World Food Programme. Nearly half of India’s children under three years of age continue to remain malnourished alongside half of pregnant mothers who are anaemic. And even as per capita cereal supply and consumption in India falls below that of the least developed countries (156 kg in 2008), 60 million tons of foodgrain stocks are being allowed to accumulate and overflow the granaries today, to rot or to feed the rats.8 Despite all this, the ruling dispensation in India, which thrives on the slogan of ‘inclusive growth’, continues to desperately latch on to its concepts of poverty, BPL and the targeted PDS. What underlies the veneer of MDG targets and ‘inclusive growth’, therefore, is a policy culture of cruelty and deliberate injustice towards the poor.

Two Ideas of Justice

The fundamental problem with the concept of poverty being used by the World Bank, UN or India’s Planning Commission today and its policy outcomes, lies in its underlying notion of justice. The problem arises because the principal cause behind poverty, which lies in the exploitation of labour by capital on the one hand and the poor countries by the rich on the other, are permanently shoved under the rug. The entire discourse on poverty is built by taking this exploitation for granted and shying away from discussing capitalism and imperialism.

Adam Smith, who authored one of the most celebrated of treatises in political economy, The Wealth of Nations (1776) – which justifies the individual self-interest driven order under capitalism because it creates wealth and leads to greater social good – also wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) which termed the disposition to ‘despise’ or ‘neglect’ of poor persons as a ‘corruption of our moral sentiments’ and forcefully urged for more ‘sympathy’.9 Karl Marx, writing almost a century later, criticised Adam Smith’s views as that of a ‘fatalist’ economist; who looks at poverty merely as a birthpang of capitalism and not as one which gets reproduced alongwith wealth under capitalism; and who thereby remains ‘indifferent’ towards the ‘sufferings of the proletarians’.10 These divergent views on poverty arise out of two notions of social justice, which need to be contradistinguished.

Underlying Adam Smith’s framework is an apologetic notion of justice, based on the categories of ‘neglect’, ‘despise’, ‘sympathy’ and ‘moral sentiments’. If we try to develop these implicit notions of injustice and justice into explicit social objectives, the former would require an a priori identification of the aspects of ‘neglect’ of the poor, on whose removal the social effort needs to be channelised. The problem is that categories like ‘neglect’ are purely subjective and have no benchmark. What comprises ‘neglect’ would always vary, both across time and societies. Therefore, what is realizable as justice would forever remain loosely defined. And within this loosely defined framework of justice, it can never be concluded, whether justice is being or not being done. Needless to say, it is this framework that drives the MDGs today.

To this complacent moral universe of justice as apology, Marx’s notion of justice delivered an electric shock. Its superiority arose from the fact that by rigorously establishing the category of class exploitation as ensconced in the production process, it provided a firm anchor to social justice. The idea of justice was dragged out from the sphere of morality and ethics into the material sphere of production, distribution and ownership of wealth. Thus defined, the attainment of ultimate justice becomes the end of exploitation. Whether a society is more or less just, or moving towards more or less justice, can also be judged on the basis of whether there is more or less exploitation. In other words, the goalposts of justice cannot be shifted.

The acute relevance of Marx’s idea of justice today is borne by the emptiness of the mainstream academic and policy discourse on poverty. However, it is argued by some that the clarity in its notion of justice is also the main weakness of Marxism, because by taking a maximalist position – end exploitation to end poverty – it actually fails to achieve either, because ending exploitation entails a radical revolution against capitalist property. Since the revolution either happens or it doesn’t, there is nothing to do in between. This confusion arises from a misunderstanding of Marxism.

What Marxism does is to historicize exploitation under capitalism, by tracing its origins through the process of ‘primitive accumulation’ into the evolution of modern industrial capitalism. This demystification of the exploitation process enables concrete praxis on the part of the exploited against their exploitation, on the one hand, and universalises that praxis, on the other. Within this framework of justice, a whole body of socio-economic rights can be clearly conceived, struggled for and actualized over time, signifying progress towards ultimate justice. This framework, moreover, suggests that efforts to stabilise and ameliorate exploitation under capitalism through policy interventions can succeed only if struggles against exploitation simultaneously persist alongside those efforts, in order to ensure progress towards ultimate justice. In the absence of those struggles or in the case of their gradual decay, exploitation will once again intensify under the spontaneous tendencies of capitalism, snatching away extant rights and entitlements. The struggle against exploitation therefore becomes the bulwark of justice for the poor under capitalism.

There are of course serious forms of oppression and inequities which exist in society that are distinct from class exploitation – based on gender, caste, race, language or ethnicity. Marx, during his lifetime, did not deal with them independently. But what he did, and uniquely so, was not to limit the notion of social justice within the bounds of exploitative property and production relations. Marxism therefore creates space for the poor, cutting across gender, caste, race, language or ethnicity, to come together to struggle against their class exploitation, advance their rights and make progress towards a society free from such exploitation. It is the weakening of such struggles today – locally and globally, both on the ground and in the realm of ideas – which has not just made the discourse on social justice poorer but also robbed the discourse on poverty of all substance and vitality.

Conclusion

The exploited in the poor countries today; the poor peasants, the wage labourers, the unemployed and self-employed petty producers; continue to live a life of drudgery, insecurity and impoverishment, in the swamp of the informal sector. They are watching the cruel joke being played on them by the national and international policy establishments, in the name of ‘poverty reduction’, ‘inclusive growth’, ‘MDGs’ and so on even as rising prices of food and fuel eat away the pittance that they make after a very hard day’s work. And even those low paying jobs have been stolen away from many of them by the global economic crisis.

These two and a half billion plus people in the poor countries are yearning for freedom from their exploitation. They will not wait and watch endlessly. History and commonsense will inexorably drive them towards the next tide of revolutionary transformations in this century.

Notes

1. Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, 2008, “The developing world is poorer than we thought, but no less successful in the fight against poverty”, Policy Research Working Paper 4703, World Bank, 2008
2. As per the Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison, the total number of people living below the official poverty line in the United States (US) was 39.5 million (22% of population) in the late 1950s. This had declined to 23 million by the early 1970s (11%) but rose to 31 million by 2000 (11.3%). Since then it has gradually increased to 37 million in 2005 (12.6%) and further to 39.8 million (13.2%) in 2008. Primary source of data is the US Census Bureau. The poverty estimation methodology has been revised in the US four times since the 1950s, the last time being 1981.
3. MDG Report 2010, United Nations.
4. See Jonathan Haughton and Shahidur R. Khandker, Handbook on Poverty and Inequality
5. Regression analysis is a method of testing causal relationships between variables on the basis of statistical data.
6. The comparisons are from Himanshu, What Are These New Poverty Estimates and What Do They Imply? 25 October 2008, Economic and Political Weekly
7. See Dipa Sinha, “PDS in Delhi” and Albeena Shakil, “On Mission Convergence”, Commission Papers for Delhi State Conference, All India Democratic Women’s Association, September, 2010.
8. See Utsa Patnaik, “The Early Kalidasa Syndrome”, The Hindu, 13 September 2010. Also see Arindam Banerjee, “The Political Economy of Rotting Foodstocks”, 17 September 2010, http://www.pragoti.org/node/4130
9. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments Part I, Section III, Chapter III, 1759.
10. Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, “The Method”, 1847.

Failed States: Globalisation’s Blowback

Failed States: Globalisation’s Blowback
Prabir Purkayastha
Newsclick, 27 January, 2010

Globalisation today has created its blow-back: failed states haunt the world. Why do some states fail and why is it that India in spite of its divisions hangs together? What constitutes third world nationalism?

The 60 years of the Indian Republic raises some important questions for the world. How is it that India with its multiple religious, linguistic and ethnic identities still holds together as a nation state when the prediction after independence was that it would splinter soon and fail as a national entity? Why did India not become a failed state like so many others in the world today? Why do Indians hang together, while many others have failed to do so?

It is now clear that failed nation states are not just the concern of the people of these states or nearby countries. A failed nation state becomes quickly a global issue. In an earlier era, failed states did not bother the big countries who shaped global politics. If various African countries “failed”, the global powers could wash their hands off and blame the people. Now they are of global concern. It is not just Afghanistan and Yemen. Increasingly, Somalia, restricted earlier to only news about piracy is appearing on the radar screen as a failed state. The fear of Pakistan joining the ranks of failed state is even scarier as it is a nuclear weapon state.

The dominant world view is that countries fail because their people are divided by ethnic and tribal identities and cannot create a nation state. The role of the colonial powers or the neo-colonial powers is rarely brought into this issue. The colonial pillage, the policies of setting one ethnic group against the other, consciously aborting any nationalist identity which could turn against neo-colonial plunder, is never the focus. The only concern in this discourse is the question of stability: are the countries stable enough to allow global corporations to strike legal bargains and continue their operations.

The fall of the socialist block and the emergence of a uni-polar world produced a further triumphalist neo-liberal account: finally the obstruction to globalisation of capital was over. Capital could flow anywhere and mould the country’s institution to suit its needs. In this view, the nation state was now passé, its sole role being merely to police the people. Everything else was the domain of the market – from infrastructure to education.

A scant decade of remaking the world in this vision was the first crack. September 11, 2001 showed that not only was capital now truly global, so was “terror”. A motley group, armed with pen knives and box cutters, managed to launch a major strike in heartland of the sole global super power, the US. What started as a game in Afghanistan to suck the Soviet Union into its Vietnam and had come back to haunt the US. Shoe bombs and underwear bombs – both of which failed – have only heightened the sense of siege that the US now feels. That is why the argument that not only has the US to be made a fortress with full-body scanners and a huge security apparatus, but the US now must consider the entire globe as its strategic sphere. If it does not, terror strikes can be launched on it from anywhere.

This is globalisation’s blow back: if the nation state is weak and illegitimate in the eyes of its people, you now have the recipe for a failed state. If the US – and its European allies – want not to police the whole world, it will have to rework its view of nationalism and the nation state. And here a look at Indian Republic’s 60 years might be quite instructive.

Much of the discourse on nation states have been coloured by the template of Western European nations, that too only a handful. A France, England and Germany are the basis of this narrowly constructed template. In this view of the nation state, there is a “national identity” which is shared by its people – largely ethnic and linguistic. It is this “common” identity which is the basis of a nation state.

The problem with this view of the nation state is that then the post colonial states are an anomaly. They do not fit into this picture as most of the states came into being within earlier colonial boundaries. Of course this view of West European nationalism is not historically accurate either. Historians have shown that it was the state that quite often produced the national identity – homogenizing its people. But that is a separate story.

So how do we look at third world nation states, states that were quite often created out of drawing lines by colonial powers on maps? I would suggest that the basis of third world nationalism was first, the anti-colonial struggles and later, the attempt to build self-reliant and relatively independent economies. This was how Indian nationalism was born and this is why the nationalist project continued after independence. This is what Indian republic is all about, apart from also incorporating regional and linguistic identities in a federal structure. It is this economic nationalism that gave the Indian state its devlopmentalist role. The state was not only an instrument of redistribution but also an engine of development. It is abandoning this nationalist role by the Congress that allowed a far more divisive view of India -- a Hindu identity based nationalism -- to gain hegemony.

When we see the third world, we see how country after country, the nationalist project was undermined and aborted. A Mossadeq’s attempt in Iran to take over its oil wealth led to US and British backed coup that brought Shah into power. Mossadeq, a deeply nationalist figure, quite anti-socialist in his views, had to be overthrown in 1953 and spent the rest 14 years of his life in till he died, first in solitary confinement then under house arrest. Patrice Lumamba was killed, again a joint project of the Belgians and the US. Congo was mineral rich, and Joseph Mobutu, who was the CIA Belgian instrument in killing Lumumba, helped convert Congo into a neo-colony and its long plunge to a failed state. The impact of aborting Congo’s nationalism was not restricted to Congo alone. It spread to Rwanda and also to nearby states.

So afraid were the Belgians and the US of Lumumba even after his death, they exhumed his body, cut it up and dissolved it in sulphuric acid. Only a few teeth were left, “proudly” displayed on Belgian television by the Belgian Police Commissioner Gerard Soete, responsible for this act of destroying the body. A CIA officer even bragged that he had carried Lumumba’s body in the trunk of his car. It was very much a US-Belgian joint operation, with authorization from the highest authorities in both countries.

While Iran and Congo bring out the neo-colonial project of destroying third world nationalism most sharply, this was the thrust almost everywhere. The ex-colonial powers wanted only puppets, who would continue their colonial plunder. The US became the leader of this coalition. Not surprisingly, the nationalist forces looked to the Soviet Union for support. The non-aligned movement was not just about remaining outside of military alliances but also about decolonization of the world.

The neo-liberal ideology is continues this adverse view of third world nationalism. It is seen as a barrier to global capital and must be weakened, if not destroyed. What they forget is a state that is illegitimate in the eyes of its people cannot then survive as a successful state. This is why India, with all its problems, still continues to survive. Imagine a Nehru replaced with a pro-western military figure through a British-US coup in India, pursuing aggressively the policy of handing over the Indian economy back to British and US capital. Would the Indian republic have survived or would we now be having a number of failed states within our borders? Yet, this is what the British, the French, the Belgian and the US have done in whole swathes in the world – Africa, West Asia and South East Asia. It is what it seeks to do even today – building a neo-colonial Iraq and believing it will become a viable nation state. It is why Karzai will have legitimacy only if he is seen to confront the US. Puppet states do not become viable nations – they lack the most important ingredient that constitutes a nation, nationalism. And nationalism built out of ethnic identities as the US wanted at one stage to do – Kurd, Shia and Sunni regions – will only fragment such nations and create even more failed states.

Will the US and the coalition of the willing, read ex-colonial powers, understand the dynamic of nations? All evidence is to the contrary. Instead of what makes nations tick, they have the imagery of clash of civilizations, the “other” threatening “their” western values. To interrogate the true meaning of failed states would have to interrogate the current globalisation paradigm and its dominant ideology. It means not seeking just military fixes to political problems but understand the complex process that builds nations. The quick fix, have gun and shoot your way out of trouble, is the more likely immediate response.

History however has a way of catching up: you buck its forces at your peril. So the question is how long can the US build a fortress America and post its troops and navy everywhere? How long can this imperial over-reach continue before it sinks the US economy?

KALMANDI ATTEMPTED SUICIDE

Sudhanva Deshpande, Newsclick, September 25 2010

Head of the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee (OC) Suresh Kalmadi (56) attempted suicide by hanging in a toilet in the Games Village today. However, the ceiling collapsed, taking with it a part of the wall. The incident happened at 1.23 p.m.

The suicide attempt came to light when an unnamed Games official, who was answering the call of nature on the other side of the wall, unexpectedly found himself spraying the inside of a toilet rather than the outside.

Mr Kalmadi, it is reported, suffered minor injuries and was discharged after first aid.

Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit dismissed the matter as a 'minor glitch' and said that it would have no effect on the success of the Games. She pointed out that while the said toilet was inside the Games village, it was not meant for athletes. The Urban Development Minister, Mr Jaipal Reddy, refused to react to media reports, saying only that such incidents are 'part and parcel' of any big sporting event. The Sports Minister, MS Gill, refused to take responsibility, saying that the PWD department was in charge of the construction of the Games village. The playing stadia are in perfect shape, he said, and invited Kalmadi to do a stress analysis test on any ceiling therein.

Mani Shankar Aiyar, MP, a long-time critic of the Games, held the rain gods responsible for the collapse of the ceiling. However, he clarified to Barkha Dutt on NDTV, he had not prayed to the said god. If he had, he added jocularly, the ceiling would not have collapsed.

Commonwealth Games Federation chief Michael Fennell said this would not have happened if his warnings of nine months ago had been heeded. 'India had committed to delivering world-class games, so how can I be responsible?' he asked. When asked if delivering world-class games included non-collapsing ceilings, he said, 'absolutely'. When asked if he held Mr Kalmadi responsible for the collapse, he refused to comment.

A foreign official, on condition of anonymity, wondered in a lighter vein why Kalmadi sought to hang himself in a toilet. 'They're filthy', he said. Mr Kalmadi's close aide and spokesperson for the OC, Lalit Bhanot, refused to react to 'speculative' comments, saying only that 'their standards of hygiene are different from ours'. He also reiterated that these Games would be better than the Beijing Olympics.

The Cabinet Secretary, KM Chandrasekhar, said that it is everybody's national duty to see that ceilings do not collapse. 'We must all work together to see that India is not put to embarrassment.' He said that a number of steps had been taken to improve the condition and that authorities are 'on top of the situation'. Principal Secretary to the PM, TKA Nair, who is also part of the high-powered committee mandated to oversee the smooth functioning of the Games, said that the government will take action and the contractor responsible for the weak ceiling, if traced, will not go unpunished.

Congress Party Spokesperson Manish Tiwari refused to comment, saying that Mr Kalmadi was there in his personal capacity, and not as a Congress MP. He pointed out that the Prime Minister had convened a high-powered meeting to ensure that all ceilings could withstand their designated load. Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj said that this is a matter of national shame. She reminded journalists that no ceiling collapsed under the NDA regime. Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi congratulated Kalmadi on his narrow escape and wished for his speedy recovery.

Mr Kalmadi was unavailable for comments.

Unconfirmed media reports have it that Mr Kalmadi has submitted a drycleaning bill to get his somewhat wet and stained white kurta-pyjama spotless clean and dry in time for the opening. While the amount is a subject of media speculation, it is rumoured that the bill runs into six figures.
.InternationalIndiaCWGournewssudhanva deshpandeSuresh Kalmadi

Millennium Development Goals: A Travesty of Justice | NewsClick

Millennium Development Goals: A Travesty of Justice | NewsClick

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

AYODHYA VERDICT

The response of the people to the verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has shown that the people find a settlement of the dispute by the judicial process acceptable. The general reaction of the people has been that the matter should not be once again used in a divisive manner.

The verdict for a three way division of the land is, however, based on "faith and belief". This aspect of the set of judgements is disturbing as it accords primacy to religious belief and faith over and above the facts and the record of evidence. It will set a dangerous precedent for the future. When the matter goes to the Supreme Court on appeal, it is to be hoped that this issue will be addressed.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992 was a criminal offence and an assault on the secular principle. It is true that this was not a matter being considered by the Special Bench. However, there are apprehensions that the reasoning set out in the judgements may be taken as a post-facto justification for the demolition. The cases pertaining to the demolition which are being heard by other courts have to be seriously pursued.





In the secular democratic set-up ordained in the Constitution, the way to resolve the matter is through the judicial process and the decision of the Supreme Court would be final. I am confident that all sections of the people will uphold and support this course of action.

मेरा कसूर क्या है

मैंने ईमानदारी से जीना चाहा
शायद यही मेरा कसूर है
मैंने देश को देश समझा न क़ि
मुठी भर लोग
मैंने इन्सां को इंसान समझा
न क़ि कोल्हू का बैल
मैंने दुनिया को वास्तव में
हसीं देखने क़ि हसरत की
शायद यही मेरा कसूर है
मैंने जाँ लिया की लोगों को
भूख से मरने का कोई अधिकार नहीं
ऐसा करने से दूसरे देशों में
बदनामी होती है भारत की
मैंने jaan लिया की मुठी भर
लोगों ने लाखों लाख करोड़ों करोड़
लोगों से मुकाबला करने के लिए
bhagwan रुपी ढाल को घड़ा है
मैंने समझ लिया की इस देश में
हाथी के dant khane ke aur
dikhane ke aur vali baat ka kaya
matlab hai




बहुत ऊँचाई पर सफेदी करता मजदूर


बहुत ऊँचाई पर सफेदी करता मजदूर

Monday, October 4, 2010

विवाह की संस्था बदलनी चाहिए

विवाह की संस्थाओं में भी बाकी चीजों में आ रहे बदलाव की तरह ही बदलाव आ रहे हैं मगर आज की परिस्थितियों के अनुसार उसमें जिस तरह का बदलाव होना चाहिए था उस तरह का बदलाव नहीं हो पा रहा आपकी राय क्या है ?मानववादी और जनतांत्रिक नजर से तो विवाह स्त्री -पुरुष के बीच समानता ,प्रेम,और सहयोग का संबंध होना चाहिए लेकिन परंपरागत विवाह एक संबंध नहीं बल्कि एक बंधन होता था स्त्री-पुरुष को विशेष रूप से स्त्री को बाँधने वाला बंधन कहने के लिए तो पति पत्नी की गृहस्थी या परिवार की गाड़ी के दो पहिये कहा जाता था जिससे लगे की गाड़ी के दो पहियों की तरह दोनों बराबर हैं , दोनों संमान रूप से महतवपूर्ण हैं लेकिन वास्तव में पत्नी को पति की दासी या संपति माना जाता था यह तो मानवीय संबंध नहीं अमानवीय बंधन ही हुआ कह सकते हैं की आधुनिक बदलाव के समय से पहले के दौर में भी विवाह की संस्था में बदलाव की जरूरत रही है साथ ही यह भी एक सवाल है क़ि विवाह एक संबंध है या संस्था ?

हरयाणा विज्ञानं मंच --एक परिचय--पहले से आगे


हरयाणा विज्ञानं मंच --एक परिचय


Sunday, October 3, 2010

भूमंडलीकरण और महिलाएं

पूँजी के भूमंडलीकरण के चलते आज की दुनिया में असमानता तेजी से बढ़ रही है और राज्य की कल्याणकारी भूमिका बहुत काम हो गयी है इसके कारण गरीबी, बेरोजगारी, शोषण , उत्पीडन और हिंसा की समस्याएं बेहद बढ़ गयी हैं इनकी सबसे जयादा मार औरतों पर पड़ रही है लेकिन क्या आज का इस्त्री आन्दोलन इसका कोई प्रतिकार कर पा रहा है या नहीं ? इस तरह के सवालों से रूबरू होने की जरूरत है

वैज्ञानिकता और विज्ञानं

आज के तकनिकी विकास के युग में शिक्षित लोगों के बीच भी क्यों वैज्ञानिक चेतना का हवास हो रहा है ?आज के समय में विज्ञानं और वैज्ञानिकता को कैसे समझा जा सकता है ?वैज्ञानिक चेतना के विकास के लिए आज क्या किया जा सकता है ? एक रोचक ,विचारोतेजक और अहम् काम है आईये सब मिलकर सपने को साकार करेँ

सामाजिक न्याय

सामाजिक न्याय का सवाल
मनुष्य होने के नाते समस्त मनुष्यों का मान और मूल्य समान है ,चाहे वे किसी भी वर्ग ,वर्ण ,लिंग ,जाति ,धर्म, रंग या नस्ल के हों इसलिए इन भेदों के आधार पर मनुष्य का अपमान करना अनुचित, अनैतिक तथा अन्यायपूर्ण है