[sacw] SACW #2 | 30 Jan. 03

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire #2 | 30 January 2003

#1. World Social Forum
- India to host 2004 World Social Forum
- The long march to another world - I, II ( Jai Sen)
#2. 'Soft saffron' and electioneering (Sudha Ramachandran)
#3. India needs another Gandhi (Siraj Wahab)
#4. Industry 'leaders' or toadies? (Praful Bidwai)

__________________________

#1.

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=3Dnews&cat=3D7&id=3D247502
January 30, 2003
Japan Today

India to host 2004 World Social Forum

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 at 09:30 JST
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil - The World Social Forum, a parallel movement to=20
the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort Davos, ended its third=20
annual session in Porto Alegre, southern Brazil on Tuesday with a=20
decision to hold the 2004 forum in India as part of a strategy to=20
globalize its message.
[...] (Kyodo News)

o o o

The Hindu
January 29, 2003
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2003/01/29/stories/2003012900221000.htm

The long march to another world - I

By Jai Sen

The World Social Forum has reasonantly made clear that there are=20
alternatives to economic, capitalist globalisation.

THE FORMATION of the World Social Forum (WSF), globally and then in=20
India, has been an extremely significant social and political=20
intervention in world affairs. There have also been some very=20
important developments during the last one year that have a direct=20
relevance to the Forum's future. Internationally, even as the Forum=20
has grown and global civil action has continued to mature, the U.S. -=20
after devastating Afghanistan in its so-called `war against=20
terrorism' - is now relentlessly building up plans to devastate and=20
thereby `liberate' Iraq.

Across the globe, capitalist globalisation is still riding triumphant=20
even as the economy unravels within the U.S., and `security' and=20
surveillance measures are equally being relentlessly tightened by=20
nation-states, supposedly in defence against those labelled=20
terrorists, but also against protestors. The self-styled leaders of=20
the so-called `free world' are increasingly meeting in increasingly=20
remote parts of the world, walling themselves off from ordinary=20
people, and defending themselves with their militia. Accompanying=20
this, Europe seems to be moving steadily to the Right, and Hindu,=20
Islamic, Christian, and Jewish fundamentalisms are rampant in=20
different parts of the world. The shadows of imperialism and=20
authoritarianism are very evident.

Against this, the news from Brazil has been encouraging. The=20
presidential elections have finally brought Lula (Luis In=E1cio Lula da=20
Silva), the leader of the Workers' Party to the Presidency after a=20
long campaign and several attempts. This development would seem to=20
potentially change the political landscape in significant ways in=20
this major country, and therefore in the western hemisphere and in=20
the world.

The news from India, however, has been less encouraging. Earlier this=20
year, we experienced a brutal and chilling anti-Muslim pogrom in=20
Gujarat. More recently, while the elections in Kashmir yielded a=20
fresh Government, those in Gujarat have returned to power with a=20
landslide the BJP. With the party and its allied organisations saying=20
that Gujarat is a model for what should happen in the rest of the=20
country, the shadows of fascism seem to threaten India.

It is crucially important for all of us involved with or=20
participating in the Forum to take stock of the WSF process within=20
particular countries and to the extent we can, also globally, to see=20
how - if at all - we are relating to these larger events, and how we=20
could and should strategically relate to them.

Perhaps the most important characteristic and contribution of the=20
Forum is the `open space' it offers for free exchange - an undirected=20
space where a wide range of streams of thought and action can=20
intermingle without feeling that any of them has to follow another.=20
But this is a complex and new idea in politics, as is the idea that=20
it is not merely an annual event, but is - or needs to be - more a=20
process. In something as complex and important as the WSF, it is=20
extremely important to constantly critically reflect on it as we go=20
along, and that reflection can only strengthen the organising work=20
that is the real work.

Since 2001, the WSF has moved from being a major annual event each=20
January in Porto Alegre (the third meet has just ended), timed to=20
polemically challenge the annual World Economic Forum held at Davos,=20
Switzerland, to being an efflorescence and celebration across the=20
world.

Perhaps most importantly, the WSF has struck at the level of meaning.=20
It has resonantly made clear that there are alternatives to economic,=20
capitalist globalisation. And that people all over the world are now=20
mobilising to live those alternatives. In this way, the WSF - along=20
with all the other forms of global civil action that are also taking=20
place - is playing a profound role in freeing peoples all over the=20
world of the shackles of the colonisation of the mind by the idea=20
that there is no alternative to neo-liberal globalisation, and by=20
replacing this with the idea there are indeed alternatives - and=20
importantly, that this is as global a project as neo-liberalism. The=20
implicit sense of not being alone is very important at this juncture.=20
The question for the WSF now is how to translate this into real=20
social and political alternatives.

One of the many reasons that the consultation in Delhi in January=20
2002 decided to take up the task of building a WSF process in India=20
was that the Forum could potentially provide a context where a broad=20
secular, democratic, anti-fundamentalist, and internationalist=20
platform could take shape where, most significantly, civil and=20
political streams could come together. Crucially, it was seen to be a=20
space where old movements and politics could meet and talk with new=20
movements and politics. The last year has seen a fairly active and=20
broad-based WSF process under way in the country. Following the two=20
national consultations (in January and in April, 2000) that involved=20
a fairly wide range of organisations and groups, a broad programme of=20
action was agreed upon.

In January 2002, WSF India had offered to organise a regional (South=20
Asian) Social Forum. But conscious of the limitations that single big=20
meetings have in terms of `reaching out' and being accessible to the=20
huge numbers of people, in its early meetings WSF India placed great=20
stress on seeing the World Social Forum not only as a major event but=20
also as a mass process of open exchange of information and=20
experience. And thereby as a political culture of openness which=20
millions of people can gain access to and take part in.

In this context, the most visible - and in many ways most significant=20
- development has been the successful organisation of the Asian=20
Social Forum in early January 2003, in Hyderabad in central India. In=20
format similar to the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, some=20
14-15,000 people attended and took part in six major conferences,=20
dozens of seminars, and hundreds of workshops on a wide range of=20
social, economic, and political themes.

The Forum was however also criticised and even opposed and boycotted=20
by some movements, for diverting attention from the real tasks of=20
opposing capitalist globalisation - by being something of a=20
self-indulgent carnival - and also for being organised in such a way=20
that it has tended to exclude some popular grassroots movements.

In reality, the WSF India process during this past year was also much=20
less extensive than planned. While several State meetings were held,=20
to present and discuss the idea of the World Social Forum; to=20
exchange experiences, and to develop a general plan of action for=20
activities at more local/State levels and how participants from the=20
States would take part in the Asian Social Forum in January 2003, the=20
broader mass process that was aimed for is still to develop. Some=20
State meetings were also more successful than others; perhaps the=20
most successful was the Kerala Forum, held during December 26-29,=20
2002.

(This article is based on the summary of a paper of this title=20
published as a booklet for the World Social Forum held in Brazil.)
o o o

The Hindu
January 30, 2003
http://www.thehindu.com/2003/01/30/stories/2003013000331000.htm

The long march to another world - II

By Jai Sen

There has to be a constant struggle to remain tolerant and pluralist=20
and to guard against becoming fundamentalist in our own views.

INDIVIDUALS AND organisations participating in the World Social Forum=20
at all levels need to understand it as an extraordinary initiative in=20
history and not just as another series of meetings. It can=20
potentially mark nothing less than a major new intervention in world=20
affairs. But it can only become this if we are willing to become=20
aware of the responsibilities.

At the present juncture in history, the WSF needs to make it its task=20
to promote the idea of open space as a general political culture.=20
Building an open political culture, and defending open space, needs=20
to be seen as a project in itself, and those who believe in this idea=20
need to work together. And, are they willing to accept the challenge=20
of open space and to bring this culture into their own organisations?

Individuals and organisations participating in the WSF need to=20
recognise and celebrate diversity and plurality, not just in name and=20
slogans but also in day-to-day practice. Recognising, respecting and=20
even seeking opinions different from our own, and trying to=20
understand and engage with them. We need to get over tendencies of=20
sectarian, doctrinaire, hierarchical, and closed practice - seen, for=20
instance, in WSF India over this past year - which are keeping large=20
sections away from the WSF as a process and experience.

At this dangerous juncture in history, there has to be a constant=20
struggle to remain tolerant and pluralist and to guard against=20
becoming fundamentalist in our own views about the issues we are so=20
concerned about - such as capitalist globalisation, and religion and=20
religious fundamentalism. And to at all times listen to others who=20
are less sure of their positions or who hold other opinions and be=20
willing to dialogue and to debate issues, both as organisations and=20
as individuals.

We need to get over our complacence urgently. The Right and the=20
fundamentalists are presently far more strategic and far more=20
successful than we are, and that we are not going to keep them out=20
and away - including from the WSF - simply by declaring this or by=20
not inviting them. All the more so because the Forum is an open space=20
- and we must defend this, otherwise we have nothing different to=20
offer - they are sure to `infiltrate'; and if the Forum continues to=20
grow in influence, they will attack or try and take over.

The WSF needs to urgently recognise the reality of 9/11 and its=20
aftermath. It also needs to recognise the growing assault on=20
democratic space across the world, whether through war or=20
fundamentalism, along with the introduction of ever-greater=20
`security' measures, as a central feature of world politics at the=20
present stage in history. Accordingly, it needs to make the=20
assertion, defence, and expansion of democratic space a central=20
feature of its activities.

There has to be a radical rethink on the question of `globalisation'.=20
We need first to move from our singular obsession with economic or=20
capitalist globalisation to looking at and relating to the host of=20
other everyday globalisations that are taking place through the=20
actions of peoples all over the world - and that are equally changing=20
the world. These myriad globalisations have been taking place for the=20
past many centuries, through the migration of workers, refugees,=20
monks, and traders, and through the spread of religions and=20
ideologies - and now also through global civil action. We need to=20
accept that the Forum itself is globalisation made manifest - but=20
that it is offering another globalisation.

We need, therefore, to move from being mere spectators of economic=20
and other globalisations to realising that we are actors not=20
spectators, and that globalisations - and especially other=20
globalisations - take place through us. In many ways, since economic=20
globalisation was what the Forum started about, this also suggests=20
some rethinking of the Forum itself.

In general, the WSF needs to think more strategically. In the same=20
way that it chose to challenge the World Economic Forum, what it does=20
has to be related to the larger developments in the world. It has to=20
think of encouraging strategic relations between particular parts of=20
the world; and of building bridges between different streams of civil=20
and political actors. The WSF also needs to specially open itself to=20
building bridges with the world of faith. This is so both at this=20
particular juncture in world history, with the relentless rise in=20
religious fundamentalism that we are seeing, and in general as a=20
permanent programme.

We need to move towards far greater mass and public awareness=20
building in between the big meetings; move towards more intensive=20
exchange in between the big meetings, for all members of WSF=20
committees, at national, regional, and global levels. A process of=20
critical reflection should become a key part of the WSF's=20
organisational work, both to review steps being taken and to develop=20
a shared and strategic understanding of world events at national,=20
regional, and global levels. The WSF needs to make space for this.

There has to be a struggle for defining comprehensive alternatives,=20
and then to practice them. Simply opposing capitalist globalisation,=20
when we use entirely conventional organisational structures and=20
mobilising processes, does not make us `alternative', and can never=20
do so.

Given that the WSF is meant to be an open plural process, embracing=20
people of many different persuasions, we need to work to build an=20
organisational process that is based on norms and principles that are=20
openly and commonly defined, and not on gentlemanly or comradely=20
behaviour between a few and that cannot be questioned by others.

Within India, we need to address certain questions in addition to the=20
above: comprehensively re-thinking and revising the structure we have=20
created for the WSF in the country. This structure is widely seen as=20
having been captured by the Left - the formal Left. And the=20
secretariat has moved from being an executive arm of the Working=20
Committee to being a power unto itself by virtue of having too many=20
members of the Coordination Team on it and therefore with no one to=20
guide it.

We need to move towards working for a culture of accountability. The=20
present policy in WSF India of simply declaring meetings open does=20
not necessarily make the process open or the participants=20
accountable. And, articulate policies and programmes that can help us=20
to think and act both locally and globally and to `talk' across=20
streams of civil and political action.

The 2004 WSF global meeting is to be held in India. Are we in a=20
position to host it (in terms of organisational abilities and=20
experience, and in terms of how far it has got in terms of building=20
the culture of the WSF in India)? More crucially, is this what all=20
the organisations and individuals involved in WSF India should be=20
focussing their attentions on over the coming year, at a time of=20
rising fundamentalism and fascism in the country and region? The=20
International Council needs to specifically consider how the WSF can=20
stand by the people and progressive organisations of India at this=20
juncture; what its role should be.

Use the WSF not only to discuss individual issues and to expose=20
ourselves individually and organisationally to other ways of=20
thinking, but also to find ways of building bridges: between old=20
movements and new, between old politics and new, between different=20
streams of civil and political movement; and between movements and=20
other streams of civil action and concern, including business, the=20
creative world including the media, and the world of faith. The=20
experience of this past year has made clear that, at the minimum, it=20
is going to a long hard march to another world.

(Concluded)

_____

#2.

Asia Times
January 30, 2003

'Soft saffron' and electioneering
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - In a bid to garner support for its Hindutva (Hindu=20
supremacist ideology) cause and to make electoral inroads into=20
southern India, members of the Sangh Parivar (a fraternity of Hindu=20
right-wing organizations) are stoking communal passions over the Baba=20
Budan Giri/Dattatreya shrine.
Nestling in the Baba Budan hills in the southern Indian state of=20
Karnataka, the Baba Budan Giri Dargah/Dattatreya Peeta is venerated=20
by Hindus and Muslims alike. Hindus revere it as Dattatreya Peeta -=20
the abode of Dattatreya, believed to be an incarnation of the Hindu=20
god Vishnu. Muslims believe that the Sufi saint Dada Hayat Mir=20
Qalandhar, who migrated from Arabia to South India some 13 centuries=20
ago, lived there. Baba Budan, after whom the hill range is named, was=20
one of the disciples of Dada Qalandhar.
The Sufic and Hindu traditions of the shrine peacefully coexisted for=20
centuries until a legal dispute over control of the shrine arose in=20
the 1960s. And over the past decade, the Parivar has sought to=20
convert this legal dispute into a communal one.
Last month, at a public meeting during the Datta Jayanti, an annual=20
Hindu festival at this shrine, Pravin Togadia, general secretary of=20
the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP - World Hindu Forum) declared that the=20
shrine is the "Ayodhya of Karnataka".
Secular sections in India are concerned that the Parivar will=20
replicate the strategy it has adopted with regard to the disputed=20
Ramjanmabhoomi/Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. On December 6, 1992, Sangh=20
Parivar activists destroyed a 16th century mosque, the Babri Masjid.=20
Many Hindus believe that this site is the birthplace of the Hindu=20
deity Ram, and that a temple existed there before Muslim invaders=20
destroyed it to build a mosque.
Since 1992, the Parivar has worked steadily on "Hinduizing" the Baba=20
Budan Giri/Dattatreya shrine. Despite a court order that traditional=20
rituals should not be tampered with, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal have=20
done so.
While Hindus have worshipped at the shrine for centuries, it was only=20
a decade ago that the celebration of Datta Jayanti - when Brahmin=20
priests conduct a puja (a worship ritual) in the shrine - began. This=20
one-day festival was extended to three days in 1998 and is now=20
preceded by two weeks of ritual observances and meetings. Parivar=20
activists are also said to have made and enforced new rules: The=20
dargah's flag is allowed only on three days in March when the annual=20
urs (a pilgrimage for Muslims) is celebrated. During the Datta=20
Jayanti, only saffron flags can be hoisted around the shrine, and for=20
the rest of the year no flags are allowed in the area.
The speech Togadia made on December 19 at Baba Budan Giri was=20
inflammatory and aimed at inciting communal passions. Speeches by VHP=20
and Bajrang Dal leaders and slogans raised by the assembled activists=20
at the public meeting were abusive of Muslims.
The Parivar's belligerence on the issue has mounted dramatically over=20
the years. It is believed that this aggressiveness is driven by its=20
determination to get the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) - one of the=20
Parivar constituents - to make electoral inroads in Karnataka. It=20
appears to be (as in the state of Gujarat) choosing the strategy of=20
communal polarization to achieve this goal. Elections to the state=20
assembly are two years away. It has started its election campaign=20
already.
Secular activists point out that the BJP sees the possibility of=20
electoral gain through communal polarization along Hindu-Muslim lines=20
on the Baba Budan Giri/Dattatreya shrine issue. According to informed=20
opinion, with Ayodhya becoming "a dead issue" with regard to=20
garnering support, the Parivar is creating a controversy over the=20
shrine at Baba Budan Giri to keep the communal cauldron bubbling in=20
southern India. The Parivar has identified 30 other shrines in=20
Karnataka for "liberation" after the Baba Budan Giri shrine is=20
"freed" from the Sufi Muslims.
But if the BJP/Parivar is charting out its strategy on the Baba Budan=20
Giri/Dattatreya shrine with an eye on elections, so is the Congress=20
Party. Secular activists who were present at the Datta Jayanti last=20
month have drawn attention to the Congress-led state government's=20
"appeasement of the Hindu communal forces".
Secular sections point out that the district administration, with=20
sanction from the state government, had made elaborate arrangements=20
for transport, food and accommodation for the thousands who converged=20
at the shrine for the Datta Jayanti. They insist that nothing was=20
done to stop the Parivar activists from making incendiary speeches.
While the district administration cannot be faulted for making travel=20
and other arrangements for those who arrived at the site - it can be=20
argued that they were pilgrims and similar arrangements are made for=20
the Muslims during the annual urs - it is a fact that the=20
administration cracked down more firmly on secular activists who met=20
in the town 10 days after the Datta Jayanti to protest the Parivar's=20
communal campaign. The activists were denied permission to stage a=20
procession on the specious ground that they posed a threat to peace=20
in the area.
A few Congress leaders did come out in sharp criticism of the=20
Parivar's provocation of Muslims. However, it is significant that=20
some of the Congress Party's elected representatives from the area=20
remained silent.
It is not just the present Congress government in the state that is=20
guilty of not confronting the Parivar's communal strategy. Over the=20
past decade, successive governments have refrained from cracking down=20
on Parivar activists guilty of violating court orders relating to the=20
shrine. In 1998, for instance, although the Janata Dal government did=20
stop the VHP-Bajrang Dal from "liberating the shrine from the Sufi=20
saints", it, nevertheless, allowed them to conduct a puja in the=20
shrine.
The government no longer questions the violation of the court order=20
through the performance of a puja at the shrine, but seems bothered=20
only about maintaining law and order in the area during the festival.=20
This means keeping Muslims away from the shrine during the Datta=20
Jayanti - which they do voluntarily anyway - and beefing up the=20
police presence there.
While the Congress attacks the BJP for its anti-Muslim positions, it=20
is itself reluctant to take a genuinely secular position for fear of=20
losing out on the Hindu vote. Consequently, it is adopting a "soft=20
saffron" strategy.

_____

#3.

Arab News
30 January 2003
Opinion
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=3D22362

India needs another Gandhi
By Siraj Wahab, Arab News Staff

JEDDAH - India is said to be the world's largest democracy. I thought=20
I knew what democracy meant but when I look at the political scene in=20
India these days, it doesn't quite come up to the definition of=20
democracy that I learned in school. Has the idea or concept of=20
democracy changed? In search of answers, I leafed through some=20
thoughts attributed to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, our beloved father=20
of the nation. As we recall his most unfortunate murder by a fanatic=20
Hindu on this day - Jan. 30 - 55 years ago, we can do Gandhi no=20
greater honor than remembering some of his ideas and comments on=20
secular democracy.

"My notion of democracy is that under it, the weakest should have the=20
same opportunity as the strongest."

"Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep."

"Democracy is a great institution and, therefore, it is liable to be=20
greatly abused."

Globally, India is hailed for the sheer size of its democracy, but=20
these days few laud our democracy for its moral greatness. Guidebooks=20
to India frequently discuss and applaud the nation as a "celebration=20
of diversity." Lately that diversity has been expressed by the=20
political scene's splintering into groups which focus on sectarian=20
interests and thus abandon the integrity both of Indian society and=20
the nation at large. The concept of inclusiveness which was sincerely=20
embraced by India's founders seems no longer to play a part. Gaining=20
advantage at whatever cost has become all important. The politics of=20
hatred has been nourished on the blood of Indians themselves.

In the aftermath of the Babri Mosque demolition, popular Hindi=20
journalist Udayan Sharma wrote an interesting piece. According to=20
him, the easiest way for an Indian Muslim to demonstrate his loyalty=20
to the country was to declare his/her allegiance to the=20
fundamentalist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh or its political arm, the=20
Bharatiya Janata Party. Supporting the RSS or BJP was in essence a=20
way of showing fidelity to the nation. The reasoning was simple: Any=20
Muslim who owed allegiance to the RSS and BJP, despite their being=20
viciously communal, had proved that he was a staunch Indian. What=20
Udayan Sharma wrote tongue-in-cheek in 1993 has now become the order=20
of the day.

Even before their sweeping victory in Gujarat, the shrill voice of=20
Hindu fundamentalists could be heard in every village throughout=20
India. The campaign was on to force minorities into accepting that=20
the BJP is India and that India is the BJP. The party's think tanks=20
want Muslims and Christians to believe that to oppose the BJP is in=20
essence to oppose India. This is a dangerous campaign and an even=20
more dangerous stance.

Where will this politics of hatred take India as a nation? The Sangh=20
Parivar is peopled by elements who care nothing for the country but=20
completely for their own pursuit - and achievement - of naked power.

Sadly and unfortunately, the Sangh Parivar has been able to attract a=20
huge majority of Hindus. What has become of the inclusiveness of=20
minorities which is supposed to be the primary feature of Indian=20
democracy?

The likes of Narendra Modi, Praveen Togadia and their ilk who spew=20
sectarian hatred have blackened the image of India abroad. Even Prime=20
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee admitted this during his last visit to=20
the United States. He described Gujarat as a blot on India's image=20
and said that everywhere he went, people were talking about Gujarat=20
and the violence that occurred there.

Currently, there is a serious debate about the lack of leadership=20
among Muslims. We must face the fact that at present Muslims in India=20
are not only insignificant but also irrelevant as a political force.=20
They have been demonized to the extent that it is impossible for them=20
to rise up with any strength. Indian Muslims would do well to use the=20
resources they possess to strengthen the power and influence of=20
liberal Hindus. In spite of Gujarat, Modi and Godse - Mahatma=20
Gandhi's assassin - all is not lost. In the end, India is larger than=20
Hindu fanatics. What the country really needs most is another Gandhi=20
to apply the healing touch to a nation wounded by communal strife.

- sirajwahab@a...

_____

#4.

The News International
January 30, 2003

Industry 'leaders' or toadies?
Praful Bidwai

A major characteristic of the industrialists and traders of South=20
Asia is the cosy, clientelist relationship this class has=20
traditionally maintained with powerful politicians and rulers of the=20
government of the day, a relationship usually lubricated with bribes=20
and the granting of undeserved favours. Kowtowing to the politically=20
powerful comes naturally to our businessmen. As does the fear that=20
falling out of favour with them will invite punishment; so it's best=20
to keep on the right side of government!

In India, thanks to the relatively rapid (if uneven)=20
industrialisation of some regions, and the large size of the market,=20
the business-government relationship changed to some extent between=20
the 1950s and the 1980s as new industry groups emerged and expanded.=20
Industry houses became more influential and assertive. Often,=20
ministers and politicians would genuflect before them--rather that=20
the other way around.

The neoliberal economic policy inaugurated in 1991, it was predicted,=20
would create a healthy distance between business and government, and=20
further strengthen the independence, self-confidence and=20
assertiveness of India's industrial entrepreneurs. The role of=20
government was supposed to shrink as the "free market" increasingly=20
shaped economic processes. Forces and interests linked to new,=20
high-technology and "sunrise" industries and to the globalisation=20
process were supposed to displace and eclipse "protectionist" and=20
patronage-based groups. Modern cosmopolitan and universalist=20
attitudes, supporters of neoliberalism predicted, would score=20
decisive victories over traditionalism and parochialism as=20
"professional" managements would displace family businesses.

This did seem to materialise to a certain extent. New business icons=20
did emerge, like Dhirubhai Ambani, whose Reliance Industries=20
meteorically rose to become India's biggest private corporation. The=20
Confederation of Indian Industry became the modern "globalising"=20
industrial sector's principal forum and spokesperson, displacing the=20
"indigenous" trader-dominated Federation of Indian Chambers of=20
Commerce and Industry, and the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which=20
was once controlled by multinational corporations and companies=20
linked to former British "managing agency" houses. Over the years,=20
the CII has become steadily influential in agenda-setting.

With the advancement of these processes, businessmen, it was=20
expected, would no longer repeat their shamefully pusillanimous and=20
undemocratic record during the Emergency of 1975-1977. When asked to=20
bend, it was famously said then, they crawled before the Indira=20
Gandhi regime. India's now-"enlightened" industrialists might even=20
become an agency of democratic change, hoped the neoliberals.

All such hopes were shattered last fortnight when the CII organised=20
"Gujarat Unlimited", a huge felicitation for Narendra Milosevic Modi,=20
in Mumbai on January 18. This was an occasion to felicitate Modi who=20
was for the second time sworn in as Chief Minister of Gujarat, a=20
state he brutalised for long months by sponsoring and organising=20
Independent India's biggest pogrom of a religious minority.

This turned into an event to glorify and express solidarity with Modi=20
for his "dynamism" and "vision"--without even a remote hint that=20
anything went wrong in Gujarat with the terrible Godhra episode of=20
February 27 last year and its even more horrifying aftermath. The CII=20
gathering did everything conceivable to erase the historic disgrace=20
that the Gujarat carnage was, with its 2,000 dead and its countless=20
victims of rape, arson and plunder. There wasn't a passing mention of=20
unhealed wounds.

The Confederation's director general, considered a "liberal", set the=20
ball rolling by celebrating business's "love affair" with Gujarat.=20
Then, leader after industry leader, extolled Modi's virtues.

Ironically, only last April, the Western India chapter of the same=20
CII had organised a discussion on the Gujarat pogrom and its=20
consequences in Ahmedabad, where some industrialists took a clear,=20
critical stand, led by a highly regarded Pune-based woman=20
entrepreneur. It also organised a national-level event related to=20
Gujarat, to which it invited Sonia Gandhi, much to the Hindutva=20
lobby's annoyance.

The Mumbai meeting didn't go unprotested. Activists of the recently=20
formed anti-communal coalition, "Insaaniyat", and the Forum against=20
the Oppression of Women, picketed the venue. Some activists entered=20
the premises but were expelled. Jairus Banaji, a social scientist and=20
"Insaaniyat" activist, managed to stay on. He confronted Modi: "How=20
can you talk of a better economy when there is no justice for the=20
thousands who were killed? ... You have blood on your hands, Mr Modi".

The organisers' first response was to silence Banaji and expel him.=20
In the hall were heavyweights in industry and banking, including=20
representatives of foreign institutional investors. Not one of them=20
protested, nor even asked Modi a single question about Gujarat's law=20
and order situation or the prosecution of those culpable for the=20
carnage. None wanted an assurance from him that a government, which=20
so flagrantly violated India's Constitution, would respect its=20
industrial, trade, and contract laws. The Mumbai meeting exposed the=20
seamy, sleazy side of Indian business.

The CII's abject genuflection before Modi didn't come from compulsion=20
or pressure. It was wholly gratuitous and unrelated even to any=20
investment intentions. Gujarat's once-booming economy, growing at 10=20
percent-plus in the early 1990s, has flattened, its public debt has=20
soared tenfold, and its public services are in disarray. Gujarat's=20
infrastructure is creaking. This has badly eroded business confidence=20
to the point that no major industry group is likely to invest in a=20
big way in Gujarat.

The real motive behind the CII's kowtowing to Modi is to signal=20
industry's willingness to do business with, and even support, the=20
hardline Hindu-fundamentalist and quasi-fascist orientation=20
crystallising in the Bharatiya Janata Party. Modi and his close=20
associates, such as Arun Jaitly, Rajnath Singh and Praveen Togadia,=20
not to speak of sympathisers in high places like Lal Krishna Advani,=20
have shifted the BJP's centre of gravity significantly to the Right.

Today, even Atal Behari Vajpayee's speaks the classic language of=20
Hindutva intolerance, accusing Indian Muslims of disloyalty to the=20
nation, blaming Pakistan for all of India's troubles, and=20
rationalising the rewriting of textbooks to falsify the past.

This Hard-Right orientation is a recipe for heightened social strife,=20
extreme political polarisation, persecution of the minorities--and=20
more violence and disorder. This will not only undermine and pervert=20
Indian democracy, but paralyse the economy.

Indian businessmen are being suicidally myopic in supporting the=20
BJP's new line--just as the Nazis' business supporters were, from=20
Krupp, Thyssen, and Mercedes-Benz to BMW and Hugo Boss. They first=20
used the Nazis to destroy the Left. But soon, the Nazis turned on=20
them too. Hitler brought on not just the Holocaust, but war, economic=20
collapse and unending misery to the German people. He butchered even=20
the rich Jews who thought they would "buy protection" from him.

There is a real danger that the industry-BJP collusion will grow and=20
further damage the cause of secularism and tolerance. Precisely=20
because many Indian businesses have Western multinational links, they=20
could ally with powerful, affluent but conservative elements in the=20
American non-resident Indian community and play a role in shielding=20
and insulating an ultra-Right government in India from external=20
pressure favouring moderation. That would be doubly tragic.

______

#5.

______

#6.

_____

#7.

_____