Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Living where inspiration happens!

The blog below discusses a range of research findings on inspiration, and comes up, ultimately, with the best kind of finding. One that is just simple, and makes sense. Simplicity on the far side of complexity! 

In short, inspiration cannot be forced. It happens to you. So relax. 

You can however increase your likelihood of being inspired, by living at the intersection of a few things. They are Work Mastery, Effort (yes work), Optimism, Making Progress, Openness to New Things, and Exposure to Inspirational People. 

Image

The blog also has a neat summary of leadership attributes in the 21st century, right at the end. 

-----

Why Inspiration Matters - Scott Barry Kaufman - Harvard Business Review
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/11/why_inspiration_matters.html


When your Daemon is in charge, do not try to think consciously. Drift, wait, and obey.” — Rudyard Kipling

In a culture obsessed with measuring talent and ability, we often overlook the important role of inspiration. Inspiration awakens us to new possibilities by allowing us to transcend our ordinary experiences and limitations. Inspiration propels a person from apathy to possibility, and transforms the way we perceive our own capabilities. Inspiration may sometimes be overlooked because of its elusive nature. Its history of being treated as supernatural or divine hasn’t helped the situation. But as recent research shows, inspiration can be activated, captured, and manipulated, and it has a major effect on important life outcomes.

Inspiration has three main qualities. Pyschologists Todd M. Thrash and Andrew J. Elliot have noted these core aspects of inspiration: evocation, transcendence, and approach motivation. First, inspiration is evoked spontaneously without intention. Inspiration is also transcendent of our more animalistic and self-serving concerns and limitations. Such transcendence often involves a moment of clarity and awareness of new possibilities. As Thrash and Elliot note, “The heights of human motivation spring from the beauty and goodness that precede us and awaken us to better possibilities.” This moment of clarity is often vivid, and can take the form of a grand vision, or a “seeing” of something one has not seen before (but that was probably always there). Finally, inspiration involves approach motivation, in which the individual strives to transmit, express, or actualize a new idea or vision. According to Thrash and Elliot, inspiration involves both being inspired by something and acting on that inspiration.

Inspired people share certain characteristics. Thrash and Elliot developed the “Inspiration Scale,” which measures the frequency with which a person experiences inspiration in their daily lives. They found that inspired people were more open to new experiences, and reported more absorption in their tasks. “Openness to Experience” often came before inspiration, suggesting that those who are more open to inspiration are more likely to experience it. Additionally, inspired individuals weren’t more conscientious, supporting the view that inspiration is something that happens to you and is not willed. Inspired individuals also reported having a stronger drive to master their work, but were less competitive, which makes sense if you think of competition as a non-transcendent desire to outperform competitors. Inspired people were more intrinsically motivated and less extrinsically motivated, variables that also strongly impact work performance. Inspiration was least related to variables that involve agency or the enhancement of resources, again demonstrating the transcendent nature of inspiration. Therefore, what makes an object inspiring is its perceived subjective intrinsic value, and not how much it’s objectively worth or how attainable it is. Inspired people also reported higher levels of important psychological resources, including belief in their own abilities, self-esteem, and optimism. Mastery of work, absorption, creativity, perceived competence, self-esteem, and optimism were all consequences of inspiration, suggesting that inspiration facilitates these important psychological resources. Interestingly, work mastery also came before inspiration, suggesting that inspiration is not purely passive, but does favor the prepared mind.

Inspiration is not the same as positive affect. Compared to the normal experiences of everyday life, inspiration involves elevated levels of positive affect and task involvement, and lower levels of negative affect. Inspiration is not the same state as positive affect, however. Compared to being in an enthusiastic and excited state, people who enter an inspired state (by thinking of a prior moment they were inspired) reported greater levels of spirituality and meaning, and lower levels of volitional control, controllability, and self-responsibility for their inspiration. Whereas positive affect is activated when someone is making progress toward their immediate, conscious goals, inspiration is more related to an awakening to something new, better, or more important: transcendence of one’s previous concerns.

Inspiration is the springboard for creativity. Inspired people view themselves as more creative and show actual increases in self-ratings of creativity over time. Patent-holding inventors report being inspired more frequently and intensely than non-patent holders, and the higher the frequency of inspiration, the higher the number of patents held. Being in a state of inspiration also predicts the creativity of writing samples across scientific writing, poetry, and fiction (as judged by a panel of fellow students) independent of SAT verbal scores, Openness to Experience, positive affect, specific behaviors (e.g., deleting prior sentences), and aspects of the product quality (e.g., technical merit). Inspired writers are more efficient and productive, and spend less time pausing and more time writing. The link between inspiration and creativity is consistent with the transcendent aspect of inspiration, since creativity involves seeing possibility beyond existing constraints. Importantly, inspiration and effort predict different aspects of an activity. Individuals who exerted more effort writing spent more of their time pausing, deleted more words, wrote more sentences per paragraph, and had better technical merit and use of rhyming in poems, but their work was not considered more creative.

Inspiration facilitates progress toward goals. In a recent study conducted by Marina Milyavskaya and her colleagues, college students were asked to report three goals they intended to accomplish throughout the course of the semester. They then reported on their progress three times a month. Those who scored higher on the Inspiration Scale displayed increased goal progress, and their progress was a result of setting more inspired goals. Therefore, people who were generally more inspired in their daily lives also tended to set inspired goals, which were then more likely to be successfully attained. Importantly, the relationship between inspiration and goal progress was reciprocal: goal progress also predicted future goal inspiration. As the researchers note, “this suggests that goal progress and goal inspiration build on each other to form a cycle of greater goal inspiration and greater goal pursuit.” Finally, inspired individuals reported experiencing more purpose in life and more gratitude.

Inspiration increases well-being. In another study, those who were exposed to Michael Jordan’s greatness experienced higher levels of positive affect, and this increase in positive affect was completely explained by their score on the Inspiration Scale. This inspiration was not transitory though, predicting positive well-being (e.g., positive affect, life satisfaction) three months later! Inspiration was more strongly related to future than to present satisfaction. The extent to which inspiration lasted was explained by self-reported levels of purpose and gratitude in life.

These findings show that inspiration matters a lot, which may cause someone to feel pressure to become inspired and helpless to do so considering the evocative and spontaneous nature of inspiration. The writer Elizabeth Gilbert rightly expresses this concern in her inspiring TED talk. I agree with Gilbert that one should not put pressure on oneself to become inspired. These key scientific findings suggest that inspiration is not willed—it happens. Knowing this should free you from the pressure to make inspiration happen.

This does not mean that inspiration is completely outside your control. Contrary to the view of inspiration as purely mythical or divine, I think inspiration is best thought of as a surprising interaction between your current knowledge and the information you receive from the world. There are things you can do to increase the likelihood of inspiration occurring. Research shows quite clearly that preparation (“work mastery”) is a key ingredient. While inspiration is not the same as effort, effort is an essential condition for inspiration, preparing the mind for an inspirational experience. Openness to Experience and positive affect are also important, as having an open mind and approach-oriented attitude will make it more likely that you will be aware of the inspiration once it arrives. Small accomplishments are also important, as they can boost inspiration, setting off a productive and creative cycle.

Another incredibly important, and often overlooked trigger of inspiration is exposure to inspiring managers, role models, and heroes. As Gregory Dess and Joseph Picken note in “Changing Roles: Leadership In The 21st Century,” our competitive global economy requires leaders to shift their focus from efficient management to effective utilization of a company’s diversity of resources. They argue for five key roles of leadership:

  1. Using strategic vision to motivate and inspire
  2. Empowering employees at all levels
  3. Accumulating and sharing internal knowledge
  4. Gathering and integrating external information
  5. Challenging the status quo and enabling creativity

Steve Jobs is the quintessential example of an inspiring manager, and he undoubtedly checked each of these boxes in spades.

To become personally inspired, the best you can do is set up the optimal circumstances for inspiration. As a society, the best we can do is assist in setting up these important circumstances for everyone. An easy first step is simply recognizing the sheer potency of inspiration, and its potential impact on everything we do.

Posted via email from Roger Grobler's posterous

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Oh the Places You’ll go!

I love this poem by Dr Seuss:

-----
Oh the Places You’ll go!
By Dr. Seuss

“You’ll be on your way up! You’ll be seeing great sights!
You’ll join the high fliers who soar to high heights.
You won’t lag behind, because you’ll have the speed.
You’ll pass the whole gang and you’ll soon take the lead.
Wherever you fly, you’ll be the best of the best.
Wherever you go, you will top all the rest.

Except when you don’t. Because sometimes you won’t.
I’m sorry to say but, sadly, it’s true
That bang-ups and hang-ups can happen to you.”
-----

How good is that! 

What comes out of that? A great number of things. But two in particular - one about others and one about yourself:

You can easily determine the caliber of people by the amount of opposition it takes to discourage them.

And

Every problem introduces a person to himself. I get introduced to myself very often. It is not always a pleasant encounter!

From Hyderabad, where, even in winter, it is still summer. 

Posted via email from Roger Grobler's posterous

Friday, November 4, 2011

My favourite Steve Jobs write-up

It has been great reading all the write-ups on Steve Jobs. Most of them glowing and fantastic, some of them more pragmatic and real, and a small number derogatory and negative (and not entirely unjustified either). 

In this plethora, the article below was the one that left me with the strongest image. The image of lightness and freedom. Worth reading:


Memories Of Steve Jobs: Interviews & Inspiration


Here’s how a typical press interview with Steve Jobs used to go in the early 2000s. You wouldn’t be immediately ushered into his presence; you would be passed from PR person to PR person, corridor to corridor, waiting at each step, until you reached the inner sanctum.

You would often pass a fellow journalist on his way out, looking white as a sheet and shaking his head like he’d gone ten rounds with Mike Tyson. You would mentally prepare your questions about the latest Apple product, knowing that Steve would bat them away like flies and say what he wanted to say.

And then there you were, with the man himself: black turtleneck, jeans, white trainers, spiky salt-and-pepper stubble, and those no-nonsense eyes that could look straight into your soul. You’d sputter out a question while he sipped from a bottle of Odwalla. Perhaps he would deign to answer politely, or perhaps he would interrupt: “that’s a stupid question. That’s not what we should be talking about.”

If you could survive twenty minutes of this without cracking, his demeanor would soften. If you were lucky, then just for a moment the mask would slip, and Steve would break into a broad smile. It was a grin that acknowledged the silliness of this interview game — and that you both loved playing your roles in it.

Always Passionate

As a technology writer for Time magazine in the 1990s and 2000s, I went through this routine a dozen times. It’s easy to forget, but back then an Apple product launch was not a huge deal. The company was seen as struggling, a distant second to Microsoft, even years after Jobs had retaken the helm. I had to fight for a single page on the launch of the iPod in 2001, for instance, at a time when the headlines were all about war and terror.

But Jobs was always compelling. He was the news. His enormous passion for a product was unrivaled in any industry, before or since. As long as I could convey him on the page, Steve as he really was, Apple stories were an easy sell for my editors.

The Urgency of the Future

The more stories I did, the friendlier Steve got. He started calling me at home with story ideas and off-the-record information. He asked me to interview him on a video that would be broadcast at a Warner Music conference; this was when he was still trying to persuade the record labels to let him sell songs within iTunes.

I figured this meant we should start with a few softball questions about music in general, but Steve interrupted and got straight to the pitch: 99-cent MP3s would save the music industry. Of course, he was absolutely right, and of course, he got his way.

Here was a man who knew precisely what the future looked like, and had no patience for anyone or anything who got in the way. Not a second was to be wasted. The vision was too important. This is what he meant in that famous Stanford commencement speech: “your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life.”

Making Airplanes In the Sun

But there was a whimsical side to him, too. Once Steve tried to pitch me a story on the architecture of Pixar’s headquarters. It wasn’t new; he was just eager to show it off, and hounded me until I agreed to take a tour with him. We must have sat down in every room in the building, Steve grinning like a proud parent the whole time. I patiently explained why it probably wasn’t going to be in the magazine (this was before modern Web journalism and its infinite capacity for stories).

It didn’t faze him one bit. In his mind, it was a worthy story, and that was all that mattered. For Steve Jobs, every day was like Christmas morning, and nothing could shake that feeling.

My most enduring memory of him speaks to that fact too. It was a Saturday afternoon in Palo Alto, and I was having lunch with a friend in an Italian restaurant. Suddenly, Steve came in and ordered takeout. He was wearing a T-shirt and cut-off jeans, just another happy suburban dad.

He took his food and left, and as he walked down that beautiful leafy street, he stretched out his arms like an airplane — like he was flying into the sunshine.

For all the times I’ve seen him at the height of his powers on stage, and for all the sweat-inducing interviews, that is how I will remember Steve Jobs — completely confident and carefree, being just who he wanted to be, flying straight into the future.

Image credit: Jonathan Mak

More Coverage of Steve Jobs’s Death

Posted via email from Roger Grobler's posterous

Monday, September 12, 2011

9/11 : There is always more than one side to a story

Arundhati Roy
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~peer/arundhatiRoy.html


HomeThe article below was written by Arundhati Roy on the one year anniversary of 9/11. Today, on the 10 year anniversary, it is still a powerful representation of the other side of the story. It is never healthy nor advisable to only have one side of the story. It is worth the read, whether you agree with it or not. 


Writers imagine that they cull stories from the world.  I’m beginning to believe that vanity makes them think so.  That it’s actually the other way around.  Stories cull writers from the world.  Stories reveal themselves to us.  The public narrative, the private narrative — they colonize us.  They commission us.  They insist on being told.  Fiction and non-fiction are only different techniques of story telling.  For reasons I do not fully understand, fiction dances out of me.  Non-fiction is wrenched out by the aching, broken world I wake up to every morning.

The theme of much of what I write, fiction as well as non-fiction, is the relationship between power and powerlessness and the endless, circular conflict they’re engaged in.  John Berger, that most wonderful writer, once wrote: ‘Never again will a single story be told as though it’s the only one’.  There can never be a single story.  There are only ways of seeing.  So when I tell a story, I tell it not as an ideologue who wants to pit one absolutist ideology against another, but as a story-teller who wants to share her way of seeing.  Though it might appear otherwise, my writing is not really about nations and histories, it’s about power.  About the paranoia and ruthlessness of power.  About the physics of power.  I believe that the accumulation of vast unfettered power by a State or a country, a corporation or an institution — or even an individual, a spouse, friend or sibling — regardless of ideology, results in excesses such as the ones I will recount here.

Living as I do, as millions of us do, in the shadow of the nuclear holocaust that the governments of India and Pakistan keep promising their brain-washed citizenry, and in the global neighbourhood of the War against Terror (what President Bush rather biblically calls ‘The Task That Never Ends’), I find myself thinking a great deal about the relationship between citizens and the state.

In India, those of us who have expressed views on nuclear bombs, big dams, corporate globalization and the rising threat of communal Hindu fascism — views that are at variance with the Indian government’s — are branded ‘anti-national’.  While this accusation does not fill me with indignation, it’s not an accurate description of what I do or how I think.  An ‘anti-national’ is a person is who is against his/her own nation and, by inference, is pro some other one.  But it isn’t necessary to be ‘anti-national’ to be deeply suspicious of all nationalism, to be anti-nationalism.  Nationalism of one kind or another was the cause of most of the genocide of the 20th century.  Flags are bits of coloured cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people’s minds and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead.  When independent, thinking people (and here I do not include the corporate media) begin to rally under flags, when writers, painters, musicians, film makers suspend their judgment and blindly yoke their art to the service of the ‘nation’, it’s time for all of us to sit up and worry.  In India we saw it happen soon after the nuclear tests in 1998 and during the Kargil war against Pakistan in 1999.  In the US we saw it during the Gulf war and we see it now, during the ‘War against Terror’.  That blizzard of made-in-China American flags.

Recently, those who have criticized the actions of the US government (myself included) have been called ‘anti-American’.  Anti-Americanism is in the process of being consecrated into an ideology.

The term ‘anti-American’ is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely — but shall we say inaccurately — define its critics.  Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they’re heard and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.

What does the term ‘anti-American’ mean?  Does it mean you’re anti-jazz?  Or that you’re opposed to free speech?  That you don’t delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike?  That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias?  Does it mean you don’t admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam?  Does it mean that you hate all Americans? 

This sly conflation of America’s culture, music, literature, the breathtaking physical beauty of the land, the ordinary pleasures of ordinary people with criticism of the US government’s foreign policy (about which, thanks to America’s ‘free press’, sadly most Americans know very little) is a deliberate and extremely effective strategy.  It’s like a retreating army taking cover in a heavily populated city, hoping that the prospect of hitting civilian targets will deter enemy fire.

There are many Americans who would be mortified to be associated with their government’s policies.  The most scholarly, scathing, incisive, hilarious critiques of the hypocrisy and the contradictions in US government policy come from American citizens.  When the rest of the world wants to know what the US government is up to, we turn to Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Howard Zinn, Ed Herman, Amy Goodman, Michael Albert, Chalmers Johnson, William Blum and Anthony Arnove to tell us what’s really going on.

Similarly, in India, not hundreds, but millions of us would be ashamed and offended if we were in any way implicated with the present Indian government’s fascist policies which, apart from the perpetration of state terrorism in the valley of Kashmir (in the name of fighting terrorism), have also turned a blind eye to the recent state-supervised pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat.  It would be absurd to think that those who criticise the Indian government are ‘anti-Indian’ — although the government itself never hesitates to take that line.  It is dangerous to cede to the Indian government or the American government or anyone for that matter, the right to define what ‘India’ or ‘America’ are, or ought to be.

To call someone ‘anti-American’, indeed, to be anti-American, (or for that matter anti-Indian, or anti- Timbuktuan) is not just racist, it’s a failure of the imagination.  An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you’re not a Bushie you’re a Taliban.  If you don’t love us, you hate us.  If you’re not good you’re evil.  If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.

Last year, like many others, I too made the mistake of scoffing at this post- September 11 rhetoric, dismissing it as foolish and arrogant.  I’ve realized that it’s not foolish at all.  It’s actually a canny recruitment drive for a misconceived, dangerous war.  Every day I’m taken aback at how many people believe that opposing the war in Afghanistan amounts to supporting terrorism, or voting for the Taliban.  Now that the initial aim of the war — capturing Osama bin Laden (dead or alive) — seems to have run into bad weather, the goalposts have been moved.  It’s being made out that the whole point of the war was to topple the Taliban regime and liberate Afghan women from their burqas.  We’re being asked to believe that the US marines are actually on a feminist mission. (If so, will their next stop be America’s military ally Saudi Arabia?)  Think of it this way: In India there are some pretty reprehensible social practices, against ‘untouchables’, against Christians and Muslims, against women.  Pakistan and Bangladesh have even worse ways of dealing with minority communities and women.  Should they be bombed?  Should Delhi, Islamabad, and Dhaka be destroyed?  Is it possible to bomb bigotry out of India?  Can we bomb our way to a feminist paradise?  Is that how women won the vote in the US?  Or how slavery was abolished?  Can we win redress for the genocide of the millions of native Americans upon whose corpses the US was founded by bombing Santa Fe? 

None of us need anniversaries to remind us of what we cannot forget.  So it is no more than coincidence that I happen to be here, on American soil, in September — this month of dreadful anniversaries.  Uppermost on everybody’s mind of course, particularly here in America, is the horror of what has come to be known as 9/11.  Nearly three thousand civilians lost their lives in that lethal terrorist strike.  The grief is still deep.  The rage still sharp.  The tears have not dried.  And a strange, deadly war is raging around the world.  Yet, each person who has lost a loved one surely knows secretly, deeply, that no war, no act of revenge, no daisy-cutters dropped on someone else’s loved ones or someone else’s children will blunt the edges of their pain or bring their own loved ones back.  War cannot avenge those who have died.  War is only a brutal desecration of their memory.

To fuel yet another war — this time against Iraq — by cynically manipulating people’s grief, by packaging it for TV specials sponsored by corporations selling detergent or running shoes, is to cheapen and devalue grief, to drain it of meaning.  What we are seeing now is a vulgar display of the business of grief, the commerce of grief, the pillaging of even the most private human feelings for political purpose.  It is a terrible, violent thing for a state to do to its people.

It’s not a clever-enough subject to speak of from a public platform, but what I would really love to talk to you about is loss.  Loss and losing.  Grief, failure, brokenness, numbness, uncertainty, fear, the death of feeling, the death of dreaming.  The absolute, relentless, endless, habitual unfairness of the world.  What does loss means to individuals?  What does it means to whole cultures, whole peoples who have learned to live with it as a constant companion? 

Since it is September 11 that we’re talking about, perhaps it’s in the fitness of things that we remember what that date means, not only to those who lost their loved ones in America last year, but to those in other parts of the world to whom that date has long held significance.  This historical dredging is not offered as an accusation or a provocation.  But just to share the grief of history.  To thin the mist a little.  To say to the citizens of America, in the gentlest, most human way: welcome to the world.

Twenty-nine years ago, in Chile, on the September 11, 1973, General Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in a CIA-backed coup.  ‘Chile shouldn’t be allowed to go Marxist just because its people are irresponsible’, said Henry Kissinger, then President Nixon’s national security adviser.

After the coup President Allende was found dead inside the presidential palace.  Whether he was killed or whether he killed himself, we’ll never know.  In the regime of terror that ensued, thousands of people were killed.  Many more simply ‘disappeared’.  Firing squads conducted public executions.  Concentration camps and torture chambers were opened across the country.  The dead were buried in mine shafts and unmarked graves.  For 17 years the people of Chile lived in dread of the midnight knock, of routine ‘disappearances’, of sudden arrest and torture.  Chileans tell the story of how the musician Victor Jara had his hands cut off in front of a crowd in the Santiago stadium.  Before they shot him, Pinochet’s soldiers threw his guitar at him and mockingly ordered him to play.

In 1999, following the arrest of General Pinochet in Britain, thousands of secret documents were declassified by the US government.  They contain unequivocal evidence of the CIA’s involvement in the coup as well as the fact that the US government had detailed information about the situation in Chile during General Pinochet’s reign.  Yet Kissinger assured the general of his support: ‘In the United States as you know, we are sympathetic to what you are trying to do’, he said, ‘We wish your government well’.

Those of us who have only ever known life in a democracy, however flawed, would find it hard to imagine what living in a dictatorship and enduring the absolute loss of freedom really means.  It isn’t just those who Pinochet murdered, but the lives he stole from the living that must be accounted for, too.

Sadly, Chile was not the only country in South America to be singled out for the US government’s attentions.  Guatemala, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, Peru, Mexico and Colombia; they’ve all been the playground for covert — and overt — operations by the CIA.  Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been killed, tortured or have simply disappeared under the despotic regimes and tin-pot dictators, drug runners and arms dealers that were propped up in their countries.  (Many of them learned their craft in the infamous US government-funded School of Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia, which has produced 60,000 graduates.)  If this were not humiliation enough, the people of South America have had to bear the cross of being branded as a people who are incapable of democracy — as if coups and massacres are somehow encrypted in their genes.

This list does not of course include countries in Africa or Asia that suffered US military interventions — Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Laos, and Cambodia.  For how many Septembers for decades together have millions of Asian people been bombed, burned, and slaughtered?  How many Septembers have gone by since August 1945, when hundreds of thousands of ordinary Japanese people were obliterated by the nuclear strikes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?  For how many Septembers have the thousands who had the misfortune of surviving those strikes endured the living hell that was visited on them, their unborn children, their children’s children, on the earth, the sky, the wind, the water, and all the creatures that swim and walk and crawl and fly? 

September 11 has a tragic resonance in the Middle East, too.  On September 11, 1922, ignoring Arab outrage, the British government proclaimed a mandate in Palestine, a follow-up to the 1917 Balfour declaration, which imperial Britain issued, with its army massed outside the gates of the city of Gaza.  The Balfour declaration promised European zionists a national home for Jewish people.  Two years after the declaration, Lord Balfour, the British foreign secretary said: ‘In Palestine we do not propose to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.  Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires or prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit this ancient land’.

How carelessly imperial power decreed whose needs were profound and whose were not.  How carelessly it vivisected ancient civilizations.  Palestine and Kashmir are imperial Britain’s festering, blood-drenched gifts to the modern world.  Both are fault-lines in the raging international conflicts of today.

In 1937 Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians: ‘I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time.  I do not admit that right.  I do not admit for instance that a great wrong has been done to the red Indians of America or the black people of Australia.  I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place’.  That set the trend for the Israeli state’s attitude towards Palestinians.  In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said: ‘Palestinians do not exist’.  Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, said: ‘What are Palestinians?  When I came here [to Palestine] there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins.  It was desert, more than underdeveloped.  Nothing’.  Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians ‘two-legged beasts’.  Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them ‘grasshoppers’ who could be crushed.  This is the language of heads of state, not the words of ordinary people.

In 1947 the UN formally partitioned Palestine and allotted 55% of Palestine’s land to the zionists.  Within a year they had captured 78%.  On May 14, 1948, the state of Israel was declared.  Minutes after the declaration, the US recognized Israel.  The West Bank was annexed by Jordan.  The Gaza strip came under Egyptian military control.  Formally, Palestine ceased to exist except in the minds and hearts of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people who became refugees.

In the summer of 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Settlers were offered state subsidies and development aid to move into the occupied territories.  Almost every day more Palestinian families are forced off their lands and driven into refugee camps.  Palestinians who continue to live in Israel do not have the same rights as Israelis and live as second-class citizens in their former homeland.

Over the decades there have been uprisings, wars, intifadas.  Tens of thousands have lost their lives.  Accords and treaties have been signed, ceasefires declared and violated.  But the bloodshed doesn’t end.  Palestine still remains illegally occupied.  Its people live in inhuman conditions, in virtual Bantustans, where they are subjected to collective punishments, 24-hour curfews, where they are humiliated and brutalised on a daily basis.  They never know when their homes will be demolished, when their children will be shot, when their precious trees will be cut, when their roads will be closed, when they will be allowed to walk down to the market to buy food and medicine.  And when they will not.  They live with no semblance of dignity.  With not much hope in sight.  They have no control over their lands, their security, their movement, their communication, their water supply.  So when accords are signed and words like ‘autonomy’ and even ‘statehood’ are bandied about, it’s always worth asking: What sort of autonomy?  What sort of state?  What sort of rights will its citizens have?  Young Palestinians who cannot contain their anger turn themselves into human bombs and haunt Israel’s streets and public places, blowing themselves up, killing ordinary people, injecting terror into daily life, and eventually hardening both societies’ suspicion and mutual hatred of each other.  Each bombing invites merciless reprisals and even more hardship on Palestinian people.  But then suicide bombing is an act of individual despair, not a revolutionary tactic.  Although Palestinian attacks strike terror into Israeli civilians, they provide the perfect cover for the Israeli government’s daily incursions into Palestinian territory, the perfect excuse for old-fashioned, 19th century colonialism, dressed up as a new-fashioned, 21st century ‘war’.

Israel’s staunchest political and military ally is and always has been the US government.  The US government has blocked, along with Israel, almost every UN resolution that sought a peaceful, equitable solution to the conflict.  It has supported almost every war that Israel has fought.  When Israel attacks Palestine, it is American missiles that smash through Palestinian homes.  And every year Israel receives several billion dollars from the US.

What lessons should we draw from this tragic conflict?  Is it really impossible for Jewish people who suffered so cruelly themselves — more cruelly perhaps than any other people in history — to understand the vulnerability and the yearning of those whom they have displaced?  Does extreme suffering always kindle cruelty?  What hope does this leave the human race with?  What will happen to the Palestinian people in the event of a victory?  When a nation without a state eventually proclaims a state, what kind of state will it be?  What horrors will be perpetrated under its flag?  Is it a separate state that we should be fighting for, or the rights to a life of liberty and dignity for everyone regardless of their ethnicity or religion? 

Palestine was once a secular bulwark in the Middle East.  But now the weak, undemocratic, by all accounts corrupt but avowedly non-sectarian PLO, is losing ground to Hamas, which espouses an overtly sectarian ideology and fights in the name of Islam.  To quote from their manifesto: ‘We will be its soldiers, and the firewood of its fire, which will burn the enemies’.

The world is called upon to condemn suicide bombers.  But can we ignore the long road they have journeyed on before they arrived at this destination?  September 11, 1922 to September 11, 2002 — 80 years is a long long time to have been waging war.  Is there some advice the world can give the people of Palestine?  Some scrap of hope we can hold out?  Should they just settle for the crumbs that are thrown their way and behave like the grasshoppers or two-legged beasts they’ve been described as?  Should they just take Golda Meir’s suggestion and make a real effort to not exist? 

In another part of the Middle East, September 11 strikes a more recent chord.  It was on September 11, 1990 that George W Bush Sr, then president of the US, made a speech to a joint session of Congress announcing his government’s decision to go to war against Iraq.

The US government says that Saddam Hussein is a war criminal, a cruel military despot who has committed genocide against his own people.  That’s a fairly accurate description of the man.  In 1988 he razed hundreds of villages in northern Iraq and used chemical weapons and machine-guns to kill thousands of Kurdish people.  Today we know that that same year the US government provided him with $500m in subsidies to buy American farm products.  The next year, after he had successfully completed his genocidal campaign, the US government doubled its subsidy to $1bn.  It also provided him with high quality germ seed for anthrax, as well as helicopters and dual-use material that could be used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.

So it turns out that while Saddam Hussein was carrying out his worst atrocities, the US and the UK governments were his close allies.  Even today, the government of Turkey which has one of the most appalling human rights records in the world is one of the US government’s closest allies.  The fact that the Turkish government has oppressed and murdered Kurdish people for years has not prevented the US government from plying Turkey with weapons and development aid.  Clearly it was not concern for the Kurdish people that provoked President Bush’s speech to Congress.

What changed?  In August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  His sin was not so much that he had committed an act of war, but that he acted independently, without orders from his masters.  This display of independence was enough to upset the power equation in the Gulf.  So it was decided that Saddam Hussein be exterminated, like a pet that has outlived its owner’s affection.

The first Allied attack on Iraq took place in January 1991.  The world watched the prime-time war as it was played out on TV. (In India those days, you had to go to a five- star hotel lobby to watch CNN.)  Tens of thousands of people were killed in a month of devastating bombing.  What many do not know is that the war did not end then.  The initial fury simmered down into the longest sustained air attack on a country since the Vietnam war.  Over the last decade American and British forces have fired thousands of missiles and bombs on Iraq.  Iraq’s fields and farmlands have been shelled with 300 tons of depleted uranium.  In countries like Britain and America depleted uranium shells are test-fired into specially constructed concrete tunnels.  The radioactive residue is washed off, sealed in cement and disposed off in the ocean (which is bad enough).  In Iraq it’s aimed — deliberately, with malicious intent — at people’s food and water supply.  In their bombing sorties, the Allies specifically targeted and destroyed water treatment plants, fully aware of the fact that they could not be repaired without foreign assistance.  In southern Iraq there has been a four-fold increase in cancer among children.  In the decade of economic sanctions that followed the war, Iraqi civilians have been denied food, medicine, hospital equipment, ambulances, clean water — the basic essentials.

About half a million Iraqi children have died as a result of the sanctions.  Of them, Madeleine Albright, then US Ambassador to the United Nations, famously said: ‘It’s a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.’ ‘Moral equivalence’ was the term that was used to denounce those who criticised the war on Afghanistan.  Madeleine Albright cannot be accused of moral equivalence.  What she said was just straightforward algebra.

A decade of bombing has not managed to dislodge Saddam Hussein, the ‘Beast of Baghdad’.  Now, almost 12 years on, President George Bush Jr has ratcheted up the rhetoric once again.  He’s proposing an all-out war whose goal is nothing short of a regime change.  The New York Times says that the Bush administration is ‘following a meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress and the allies of the need to confront the threat of Saddam Hussein’.

Weapons inspectors have conflicting reports about the status of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and many have said clearly that its arsenal has been dismantled and that it does not have the capacity to build one.  However, there is no confusion over the extent and range of America’s arsenal of nuclear and chemical weapons.  Would the US government welcome weapons inspectors?  Would the UK?  Or Israel? 

What if Iraq does have a nuclear weapon, does that justify a pre-emptive US strike?  The US has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world.  It’s the only country in the world to have actually used them on civilian populations.  If the US is justified in launching a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, why, then any nuclear power is justified in carrying out a pre-emptive attack on any other.  India could attack Pakistan, or the other way around.  If the US government develops a distaste for the Indian Prime Minister, can it just ‘take him out’ with a pre-emptive strike? 

Recently the US played an important part in forcing India and Pakistan back from the brink of war.  Is it so hard for it to take its own advice?  Who is guilty of feckless moralizing?  Of preaching peace while it wages war?  The US, which George Bush has called ‘the most peaceful nation on earth’, has been at war with one country or another every year for the last 50 years.

Wars are never fought for altruistic reasons.  They’re usually fought for hegemony, for business.  And then of course there’s the business of war.  Protecting its control of the world’s oil is fundamental to US foreign policy.  The US government’s recent military interventions in the Balkans and Central Asia have to do with oil.  Hamid Karzai, the puppet president of Afghanistan installed by the US, is said to be a former employee of Unocal, the American-based oil company.  The US government’s paranoid patrolling of the Middle East is because it has two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves.  Oil keeps America’s engines purring sweetly.  Oil keeps the free market rolling.  Whoever controls the world’s oil controls the world’s market.  And how do you control the oil? 

Nobody puts it more elegantly than the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.  In an article called ‘Craziness Pays’ he says ‘the US has to make it clear to Iraq and US allies that…America will use force without negotiation, hesitation or UN approval’.  His advice was well taken.  In the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in the almost daily humiliation the US government heaps on the UN.  In his book on globalisation, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Friedman says: ‘The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist.  McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas….  And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps’.  Perhaps this was written in a moment of vulnerability, but it’s certainly the most succinct, accurate description of the project of corporate globalisation that I have read.

After September 11, 2001 and the War Against Terror, the hidden hand and fist have had their cover blown, and we have a clear view now of America’s other weapon — the free market — bearing down on the developing world, with a clenched unsmiling smile.  The task that never ends is America’s perfect war, the perfect vehicle for the endless expansion of American imperialism.  In Urdu, the word for profit is fayda.  Al-qaida means the word, the word of God, the law.  So, in India some of us call the War Against Terror, Al-qaida vs Al-fayda — the word vs the profit (no pun intended).

For the moment it looks as though Al-fayda will carry the day.  But then you never know…

In the last 10 years of unbridled corporate globalisation, the world’s total income has increased by an average of 2.5% a year.  And yet the numbers of the poor in the world has increased by 100 million.  Of the top hundred biggest economies, 51 are corporations, not countries.  The top 1% of the world has the same combined income as the bottom 57% and the disparity is growing.  Now, under the spreading canopy of the War Against Terror, this process is being hustled along.  The men in suits are in an unseemly hurry.  While bombs rain down on us, and cruise missiles skid across the skies, while nuclear weapons are stockpiled to make the world a safer place, contracts are being signed, patents are being registered, oil pipelines are being laid, natural resources are being plundered, water is being privatised and democracies are being undermined.

In a country like India, the ‘structural adjustment’ end of the corporate globalisation project is ripping through people’s lives.  ‘Development’ projects, massive privatisation, and labour ‘reforms’ are pushing people off their lands and out of their jobs, resulting in a kind of barbaric dispossession that has few parallels in history.  Across the world as the ‘free market’ brazenly protects Western markets and forces developing countries to lift their trade barriers, the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer.  Civil unrest has begun to erupt in the global village.  In countries like Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia, India the resistance movements against corporate globalisation are growing.

To contain them, governments are tightening their control.  Protestors are being labelled ‘terrorists’ and then dealt with as such.  But civil unrest does not only mean marches and demonstrations and protests against globalisation.  Unfortunately, it also means a desperate downward spiral into crime and chaos and all kinds of despair and disillusionment which, as we know from history (and from what we see unspooling before our eyes), gradually becomes a fertile breeding ground for terrible things — cultural nationalism, religious bigotry, fascism and of course, terrorism.

All these march arm-in-arm with corporate globalisation.

There is a notion gaining credence that the free market breaks down national barriers, and that corporate globalisation’s ultimate destination is a hippie paradise where the heart is the only passport and we all live together happily inside a John Lennon song (Imagine there’s no country…)  This is a canard.

What the free market undermines is not national sovereignty, but democracy.  As the disparity between the rich and poor grows, the hidden fist has its work cut out for it.  Multinational corporations on the prowl for ‘sweetheart deals’ that yield enormous profits cannot push through those deals and administer those projects in developing countries without the active connivance of state machinery — the police, the courts, sometimes even the army.  Today corporate globalisation needs an international confederation of loyal, corrupt, preferably authoritarian governments in poorer countries, to push through unpopular reforms and quell the mutinies.  It needs a press that pretends to be free.  It needs courts that pretend to dispense justice.  It needs nuclear bombs, standing armies, sterner immigration laws, and watchful coastal patrols to make sure that it’s only money, goods, patents and services that are globalised — not the free movement of people, not a respect for human rights, not international treaties on racial discrimination or chemical and nuclear weapons, or greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, or God forbid, justice.  It’s as though even a gesture towards international accountability would wreck the whole enterprise.

Close to one year after the War Against Terror was officially flagged off in the ruins of Afghanistan, in country after country freedoms are being curtailed in the name of protecting freedom, civil liberties are being suspended in the name of protecting democracy.  All kinds of dissent is being defined as ‘terrorism’.  All kinds of laws are being passed to deal with it.  Osama Bin Laden seems to have vanished into thin air.  Mullah Omar is said to have made his escape on a motor-bike.  The Taliban may have disappeared but their spirit, and their system of summary justice is surfacing in the unlikeliest of places.  In India, in Pakistan, in Nigeria, in America, in all the Central Asian republics run by all manner of despots, and of course in Afghanistan under the US-backed Northern Alliance.

Meanwhile, down at the mall there’s a mid-season sale.  Everything’s discounted — oceans, rivers, oil, gene pools, fig wasps, flowers, childhoods, aluminum factories, phone companies, wisdom, wilderness, civil rights, ecosystems, air — all 4,600 million years of evolution.  It’s packed, sealed, tagged, valued and available off the rack.  (No returns).  As for justice — I’m told it’s on offer too.  You can get the best that money can buy.

Donald Rumsfeld said that his mission in the War against Terror was to persuade the world that Americans must be allowed to continue their way of life.  When the maddened king stamps his foot, slaves tremble in their quarters.  So, standing here today, it’s hard for me to say this, but the American way of life is simply not sustainable.  Because it doesn’t acknowledge that there is a world beyond America.

Fortunately power has a shelf life.  When the time comes, maybe this mighty empire will, like others before it, overreach itself and implode from within.  It looks as though structural cracks have already appeared.  As the War Against Terror casts its net wider and wider, America’s corporate heart is hemorrhaging.  For all the endless empty chatter about democracy, today the world is run by three of the most secretive institutions in the world: The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation, all three of which, in turn, are dominated by the US.  Their decisions are made in secret.  The people who head them are appointed behind closed doors.  Nobody really knows anything about them, their politics, their beliefs, their intentions.  Nobody elected them.  Nobody said they could make decisions on our behalf.  A world run by a handful of greedy bankers and CEOs who nobody elected can’t possibly last.

Soviet-style communism failed, not because it was intrinsically evil but because it was flawed.  It allowed too few people to usurp too much power.  Twenty-first century market-capitalism, American-style, will fail for the same reasons.  Both are edifices constructed by human intelligence, undone by human nature.

The time has come, the walrus said.  Perhaps things will get worse and then better.  Perhaps there’s a small God up in heaven readying herself for us.  Another world is not only possible, she’s on her way.  Maybe many of us won’t be here to greet her, but on a quiet day, if I listen very carefully, I can hear her breathing.


Posted via email from Roger Grobler's posterous

Friday, September 9, 2011

Article: Guernica / On Change in India

A haunting article. I cycle a few times a week on the new highways he talks about. I see the people working in the fields. I have not been stopped by a man with a gun. 

Guernica / On Change in India
http://www.guernicamag.com/features/3027/on_change_in_india_siddhartha_deb_9_1_11/


On Change in India

by Siddhartha Deb September 2011

India is indeed rising. So why are more than three-quarters of the country living on less than fifty cents a day? A snapshot of inequity, in four scenes.

india575.jpg Photograph via Flickr by Tobias Leeger

1. Our author witnesses a roadside “encounter”

The highway out of Hyderabad towards Kothur village was still being worked on, with new overpasses and exits being constructed next to the lanes that were open to traffic. Vijay and I were halfway to our destination when we saw the man appear, standing in the middle of the road and waving us down. We were traveling fast, moving much too quickly to understand immediately what the man’s appearance meant. A few days earlier, on this same road, we had been stopped by two police constables. Assigned to guard duty at another point on the highway and left to fend for their own transportation, all the men had wanted was a lift. But the figure in front of us now was not in uniform, and his objective was far less clear, although I had the impression that he was part of the knotted confusion of people and cars that had sprung up suddenly on the smooth thread of the highway.

Vijay brought his tiny car to a halt, and the man loomed up in front of the windscreen, a dark, stocky figure dressed in a T-shirt and jeans. He put his right hand down on the bonnet of our car. In his left hand, he held an automatic pistol, its barrel pointing up at an acute angle. His gaze, as it swept over our faces, was intense, scrutinizing us carefully, meeting our eyes for a few seconds. Then he abruptly lost interest in us and switched his attention to a motorcycle coming up from behind, on our right. He advanced swiftly towards the bike, pointing his pistol at the riders. A policeman in uniform appeared on our left, tapped on our window, and asked us to move on.

Vijay drove away slowly, his eyes and mine fixed on the rearview mirror to get a better sense of the composition of the scene. There was the gunman in front of the motorcycle. Off to the side, next to the uniformed policeman, was a red Maruti car, a modest, everyday model of the kind that might belong to a minor civil servant or a doctor. There was a policeman sitting at the wheel, an officer in a peaked cap, his window rolled down. There was also a man in the back seat, but he was invisible, just a silhouette behind the tinted black window. The gunman had now moved on from the motorcycle towards an approaching bus, which he flagged down, waiting as the passengers slowly piled out on to the road.

From all this, it was possible to come to the following conclusions: The men were hunting for someone. The gunman did not know what this person looked like; it was the invisible man in the back of the car, an informer, who knew that. They expected their target to be coming this way, but they had no information as to how he or she was traveling, which is why they had stopped a car, a motorcycle, and a bus. The mix of uniformed men and the armed man in plain clothes, the unmarked civilian car being used by the policemen, and the pistol—rather than rifle—in the hand of the gunman meant that this was not a legal operation. We had just run into one of the encounter squads operated by the police, what Devaram had talked about when he pointed his imaginary pistol at me. If the target had the misfortune of running into the encounter squad, he would probably be gunned down in cold blood, with a report released later to the media to say that the person had been killed in an active encounter and that he had shot first at the police.

Later, I would find out from news accounts that the police had indeed been looking for a Maoist who, fortunately, did not show up that day. At the time, though, the scene felt unreal as soon as we had left it behind, taking on the shape of a dream. And in a way, the encounter squad was a dream, surfacing from the deep regions of the national subconscious where farmer suicides, Maoists, and impoverished workers swirled together to form the collateral damage of progress. In a few weeks, the prime minister would announce the dispatching of tens of thousands of paramilitary troops to encircle the Maoists in the “red corridor” they had carved out in the forests of central India, but although this was one more reminder of the ways in which India was at war with its own people, it would elicit little comment from the big cities.

When an attendant showed us around the “Live Like a Pharaoh” suites, they too turned out to be empty.

The truth was that India was being remade forcefully, and some aspects of that remaking were more visible than others. Once the encounter squad had been left behind, it seemed almost impossible not to give in to the pleasure of the new, smoothly tarred highway with its carefully demarcated lanes. It lifted us off the surrounding landscape like an aircraft, and as I looked down at the uneven patchwork of agricultural fields where people toiled ceaselessly in the summer heat, I could not help but think of them as marooned at a lower plane of existence. The highway was the transcendent future, with its straight shoulders and central reservations cradling flowers and topiary bushes, its green signs and electronic boards copied from advanced civilizations in the West. The signs told us that we were driving southwards, in the direction of Bangalore, and that if we wanted to, we could loop across all of India on this highway. It was part of the Golden Quadrilateral project, a six-lane band of modernity embracing the country, with only the occasional glitch of an encounter squad to remind us of those being left behind.

Vijay was taking me to a village called Kothur in the district of Mahabubnagar. It was close to Hyderabad, about thirty kilometers from the city, and change was visible all the way up to the village. We stopped for lunch just before we got to Kothur, driving past a security guard into a walled complex. The area had once been a vineyard producing table grapes, but the land had since been acquired by a property developer. The vineyards had been destroyed and two pyramids put up in their place. They were part of Papyrus Port, which was, as the brochure put it, “India’s First Egyptian Resort.”

The pyramids were not very large, perhaps thirty feet high, and were made of granite. They had names—Khafres and Khufus [sic]—but like all the other proper nouns echoing through the resort (“Lawn of Isis,” “Lawn of Osiris,” “Prometeus [sic] Unbound Health Club”), the names suggested not Egyptian or Greek but an Indian sort of Disneyland. Yet although money had been spent in putting up the resort and effort expended in creating a clean and comfortable complex, Papyrus Port was still more an idea than a place, with the offerings in the brochure far more generous than what was available in the actual resort.

The pictures showed a large swimming pool, a huge conference hall, a zoo, “multi-cuisine” restaurants and a list of “adventurous sports” running from “Water Zorb”—whatever that might be—to “Commando Net.” In reality, the swimming pool was small, the “Prometeus Unbound Health Club” a tiny room with two lonely treadmills, the zoo a cage with some sick-looking rabbits whose fur was falling off, and the multi-cuisine restaurants of Khafres and Khufus capable at that moment of serving only local food.

But there was something other than the gap between vision and reality that added to the dissonance of Papyrus Port. Apart from a couple in the restaurant and a family enjoying kebabs on the lawn, the place was empty. It had been crowded when Vijay visited it a couple of years earlier, but now, in the summer of 2009, there was suddenly less money in India. The global downturn had come home, and even the middle classes and the elites accustomed to the high-consumption side of globalization were beginning to find things difficult. The campus recruitment conducted by IT companies in engineering colleges was down or, in some cases, had stopped entirely. There were layoffs happening in many organizations. The building boom that had thrown up condos everywhere had slowed down, and the billboards in Hyderabad offered free rent and discounts to entice customers into buying the half-built units. In my mother’s lower-middle-class neighborhood in Calcutta, the posters offering jobs in call centers had been displaced by signs that said: “Sick of credit card debt? Tired of phone calls demanding money? Call this number to find a solution.” The downturn was one reason why Papyrus Port was emptier than it should have been. When an attendant showed us around the “Live Like a Pharaoh” suites, they too turned out to be empty. Vijay had thought that I might want to stay at the resort, but I decided that I would be better off at his house in the village. The resort was comfortable, but it was hard to picture being there in the evening, all by myself apart from the staff, a middle-class pharaoh protected by security guards and an electric fence from the land and its people.

2. The hellish Vinayak steel factory

The land was part of the district of Mahabubnagar, and it was teeming with people. Many of them were outsiders, itinerant figures coming from as far north as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, or from the eastern segment of India that includes West Bengal, Orissa and Assam, traveling on a long chain of trains and buses to find work in the factories of Kothur. Within that seemingly sparse agricultural landscape, so remote from the highway, there were nearly a hundred factories churning out chemicals, pharmaceutical products, steel bars and metal pipes, places that were discernible only when one got off the highway. The factories weren’t clustered together but appeared at random, across a patchwork of fields, near the village market, or next to the old road that had been superseded by the modern highway, and one didn’t see the factories as much as the marks they created on the landscape: smoke being belched out from a distant chimney; black heaps of slag that had been deposited on the fields and were being turned over with infinitesimal patience by women and children for a few scraps of iron; the infernal metallic squeaking of machinery from behind walled complexes; and the sickly sweet smell of chemicals that appeared suddenly on the wings of an occasional breeze.

Even as the number of millionaires and billionaires has increased, followed by the aspirers from the middle classes, the poor have seen either little or no improvement at all.

The area around Kothur had been developed as an industrial zone in the ’80s, and the name Kothur, which means “new village,” reflected that transformation, replacing the earlier name of Patur, or “old village.” The industrialization had been initiated, accompanied by subsidies and tax breaks from the government, because Mahabubnagar was considered to be one of the poor, “backward” districts of the Telangana region. It is home to lower castes trying to eke a living out of agriculture as well as to the Lambada gypsies, a community so impoverished that it often sells its children to shady adoption agencies and sex traffickers.

Two decades after the industrialization of the area, about a million people, or two-thirds of the adult population of Mahabubnagar district, have to travel to distant parts of India to find employment. They end up in Bangalore or as far away as Bombay, often working as construction laborers. In a recent report on migrant labor in India published by the United Nations Development Project, Priya Deshingkar and Shaheen Akhter interviewed Mahabubnagar workers and discovered that even though the middlemen who take them to the construction sites are often paid 4,500 rupees for each worker, the workers themselves get paid as little as 1,200 rupees a month in cash and in food. The workers—most of whom belong to the lower castes—are often trapped in debt because of the advances they take to fund the initial expenses of their migration. Their children are regularly coerced into work, the women are often sexually abused, and all of the workers are prone to injuries since India has the highest accident rate in the world for construction workers, with 165 out of every 1,000 laborers getting injured on the job.

While the local people of Mahabubnagar go elsewhere for work, the factories in the area attract tens of thousands of men from other parts of India. It is an arrangement that suits employers everywhere well, ensuring that the workers will be too insecure and uprooted to ever mount organized protests against their conditions and wages. They are from distant regions, of no interest to local politicians seeking votes, and are alienated from the local people by differences in language and culture.

A few miles from Papyrus Port, diagonally across from it on the other side of the highway, was the Vinayak steel factory. It stood near an intersection, surrounded by high walls and facing a muddy yard where canvas-covered trucks idled through the day. Although unlike Papyrus Port in every other way, the steel factory too had an excellent brochure that I had received when I first went to meet the managing director, Venkatesh Rao. The cover displayed a bouquet of steel rods, and when I rubbed my hand on the rods, I could feel their rough textured surface, contrasting sharply with the smooth paper. A skyscraper of concrete and glass rose towards a cloud-covered sky from the bouquet. It was an advertising agency’s rendition of how the rods built at the factory went into the making of condominiums and office towers. The picture eliminated all signs of the human labor that went into creating the rods, but it was nevertheless a reminder of the connection between this nondescript, almost invisible steel factory and the globalized cities. The steel factory was one of the countless invisible nodes of modernization in India, pulling in workers from distant rural areas to create the material that would be used for construction far away, perhaps by men and women who travelled from Mahabubnagar. It was to get a sense of the labor involved in producing the steel rods that I entered the factory echoing with metallic clangs and screeches, the yards smelling of smoke and grease, the sky above cut into thin quadrants by angled delivery chutes that groaned into life without warning and stopped just as suddenly.

It was when I arrived at the rolling mill, the place where steel ingots were turned into the finished product of TMT bars, that I finally received some sense of what went on in the factory. Here, finally, was the heart of the place, a vast, open-sided shed filled with deafening noise and the blast of heat from furnaces operating at 1,200 degrees Celsius. The men visible through the smoke and noise were infernal creatures, rags wrapped around their faces to protect themselves from the heat, inevitably dwarfed by the extremity of the place, with everything so large, so fast and so hot. It was as if they were being worked by the machines and materials rather than the other way around. There was a man feeding ingots into the furnace at the very beginning of the mill, using long metal tongs. At the other end of the vast shed there were two men who were his doubles, faces similarly wrapped in rags and wielding tongs like his with which they grabbed the rods that shot out at great speed from the belt. The rods blazed red as they came out, and the men moved in unison like drugged dancers, each picking up an end of the rod and then moving it to the side with a concentrated effort that was broken only by the expulsion of their breaths.

They live in slums, work around the clock and are denied access to ration cards that would allow them to buy subsidized food from what remains of the country’s public distribution system.

3. How police broke a strike, or why migrant workers distrust outsiders

The changes that have been wrought in India in the past two decades have not been kind to the poor. Even as the number of millionaires and billionaires has increased, followed by the aspirers from the middle classes, the poor have seen either little or no improvement at all, depending on which economists and policy makers one chooses to believe. The data collected by the Indian government, which has been subject to some controversy for its tendency to downplay the number of poor people and the extent of their destitution, is nevertheless stark. In 2004-2005, the last year for which data was available, the total number of people in India consuming less than twenty rupees (or fifty cents) a day was 836 million—or 77 percent of the population. The people in this group belong overwhelmingly to what policy makers refer to as the “unorganized” or “informal” sector of the economy, which means that the work they do is irregular, carried out in harsh conditions and offers no security or upward mobility. Many of the people in this category are farmers, but a large number are also migrant workers, people who oscillate between the rural areas where they have grown up and the cities or semi-urban areas like Mahabubnagar where they work. An Indian government report in April 2009 that looked at the “informal” economy characterized migrant workers, along with child laborers and bonded laborers, as being at the very bottom of all those working in the informal economy. Almost all migrant workers, the report noted, face “longer working hours, social isolation, lower wages and inadequate access to basic amenities.” They live in slums, are expected to be available to work around the clock and are denied access to the ration cards that would allow them to buy subsidized food from what remains of the country’s public distribution system. And although they are everywhere—huddled in tents erected on pavements and under flyovers in Delhi; at marketplaces in Calcutta, where they sit with cloth bags of tools ready for a contractor to hire them for the day; gathered around fires made from rags and newspapers in the town of Imphal, near Burma; and at train stations everywhere as they struggle to make their way into the “unreserved” compartments offering human beings as much room as cattle trucks taking their passengers to the slaughterhouse—they are invisible in the sense that they seem to count for nothing at all.

It is difficult even to get an estimate of the number of migrant workers in India. The government census of 2001 considered 307 million people, or 30 per cent of the total population, as migrants. In this assessment, however, the census was merely counting people who had moved away from their places of residence, and not the reasons for their migration. The authors of the UNDP report on migrant workers, in contrast, have figured that there are around 100 million “circular” migrant workers in India. Of these, the report notes, the largest number, some forty million people, is engaged in construction, followed by twenty million workers, mostly women and girls, who are employed as domestic servants. From various case studies around the country, the UNDP researchers found that migrant work was often a way of maintaining the minimal standard of living of rural families rather than improving such standards. They also discovered that middlemen contractors often locked workers into high interest debts, low pay and abysmal working conditions, including the practice of bonded labor for entire families that is especially prevalent among the ten million workers employed by small factories that make mud bricks.

A few years earlier, in Delhi, I met a man who worked for a trade union attempting to organize migrant workers. Among the things he said was that there was an underclass even in relation to the destitute migrant workers, a group so desperate that factory owners often use them as scabs during a strike. These were the people he called “Malda labor” after a town of that name in West Bengal. “If you ask any of these men where they’re from, they all say ‘Malda.’ Is it possible for a small town like Malda to have so many people?” The organizer explained that the men were from Bangladesh, just across the border from Malda. They were Muslims, crossing into India illegally, without any rights at all and often willing to work for a pittance. He told me about an instance when he had visited some Malda laborers in their shanties because he knew that they had been hired to work the next day at a factory where his union had called a strike. “We took some food, some cheap liquor and drank them into the ground so that they wouldn’t be able to get to work the next day. It was more food and drink than they’d seen for a long time,” the organizer said. It wasn’t a terribly ethical thing to do, he admitted, but he didn’t have much of a choice in trying to unionize migrant workers.

Overwhelmingly, it was owners who won in such battles with migrant workers attempting to organize themselves. Vijay had told me about what happened at the steel factory when some workers tried, in the late ’80s, to form a union. This was a time when the factory did not depend entirely on migrant workers, and its workforce was divided evenly between migrants and local workers, many of the local people consisting of men from the Lambada tribe. Two Lambada men had taken the lead in organizing the workers, managing to win the support of both locals and migrants and getting the union registered. The labor commissioner, in accordance with the laws, asked the factory management to recognize the union, which it did. When the union demanded better wages and improved safety measures, the management refused. The workers retaliated by going on strike.

At this point, Vijay said, the owners consulted the police, and an officer said that he would help them find a solution. He visited the Lambada village and talked to some of the men there, possibly threatening them and perhaps also offering them money. Soon after, one of the women from the village accused a worker of attempting to rape her. The policeman immediately lodged cases of sexual assault against all the organizers, and this terrified the migrant workers, who began returning to their posts. The strike was broken, all local workers dismissed, and since then the factory has hired only migrants. If Lambadas are given any work these days, it is only as daily wage laborers.

For those who come to Kothur and find work at Vinayak steel, the factory becomes their entire world, a place where they work twelve-hour shifts, during the day and at night, where they eat and sleep and shit, and when they are not in a workshop or in a loading shed, they are to be found in the barracks that are squeezed in between a coal storage shed and the back wall of the factory complex.

The factory did not charge rent, and its workforce of one thousand people was mostly concentrated into two rows of concrete cubicles that were topped off with an asbestos roof. Because these quarters were sited in the furthest corner of the complex, it was possible to tour the entire factory without going into the workers’ area, and for the most part, no one other than the workers went there. There was good reason for avoiding the barracks. It was the most squalid and miserable place I had ever seen in my life, more so than the worst slum I had visited. The two rows of cubicles were separated from each other by a little strip of concrete with gutters on each side. There was trash everywhere in the narrow corridor between the rows, and even the verandas running in front of the rooms were filled with the carcasses of objects: broken chairs and fans, discarded items of clothing, vegetable peelings, leftover food and empty pint bottles of cheap liquor. There was a constant smell of shit in the air, and the entire place seemed to be cast in shades of gray.

I was so well fed and well rested in contrast to them that I might as well have come from another planet.

The repulsion I felt on my first visit was accentuated by the unwillingness of the workers to talk to me. I had been given complete freedom by Venkatesh Rao, the managing director, to interview the workers. It was an unusual decision on his part, especially given the fierceness with which factory owners prevent any scrutiny of their businesses. But Rao wasn’t an owner. He was an employee, if a very well paid one, and he’d admitted frankly that while he would never be able to improve the conditions of the workers—the owners wouldn’t stand for that, he said—he nevertheless understood how miserable their lives were.

I had appreciated that freedom when it was granted to me. I liked it less the first afternoon I went to the barracks and tried to engage with the workers and found that none of them wanted to talk to me in any detail. I understood why the workers were wary of me. In spite of my telling them that I had the managing director’s permission, they felt uncertain about my presence—afraid that I might be a government labor inspector come to see their living conditions—and were determined, in the way of migrant workers, to avoid any discussions that might imperil their jobs. Some of the workers were teenage boys, in the most obvious violation of laws against hiring children, and they were the ones most anxious to avoid me, replying in monosyllables or smiling and walking away when I asked them questions.

But there was more than just caution involved in their refusal to engage. I was so well fed and well rested in contrast to them that I might as well have come from another planet. They encountered men similar to me every day in the engineers and accountants who also worked at the factory. But the hierarchy and division were clear in those encounters, and men from the managerial class did not cross the border into this living space of theirs. This was their domain, and the only people from outside their class who came here were the labor contractors, the tough middlemen straddling the decent, bourgeois world of management and the rough, desperate realm of the workers.

The workers continued to avoid me as I sat on an unoccupied cot, watching the men as they wandered around in the afternoon heat, bare-chested and clad in faded, checked cotton towels or in grimy underpants. The men appeared shabby and their bodies looked worn out by the work, shorn of flab without being muscular. Some of them carried pots of water to go behind the barracks for a shit. Others pumped small stoves to get the fire going for their evening meal. There was no hint of domesticity about the food being prepared, nor any sign of pleasure. They chopped the vegetables mechanically, smoked a cigarette or a beedi, and urinated into the gutter. In spite of the heat and the absence of fans inside the cubicles, the doors were closed. Some of the rooms had television sets, and there was an occasional flicker of color and noise when a door opened briefly, giving me a glimpse of men huddled around a screen watching a Bollywood film.

But if the place seemed settled in its hard rhythm, around the edges of that was a sense of flux. A group of five workers from Orissa arrived even as I sat there, having got off a train that morning at Hyderabad and then taken a bus to Kothur. They were all boys of thirteen or fourteen, slightly built and holding cheap duffel bags, looking almost like schoolboys playing truant except for their mature, cautious faces. When I approached them, they answered my questions about where they had come from uneasily, refusing to give me their names. They had worked at the factory before, but they did not yet know what work might be available for them this time around. Then they walked away from me, heading for a room that was apparently vacant.

There were no women and no children in this world—only men who were either hard, broken-down, or both, a dystopian realm of worker drones producing objects whose purpose seemed unfathomable to me.

The largest contingent of workers came from the states of Orissa and Bihar, although there were also men from West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Assam. The barracks were divided along ethnic groups, and I was sitting roughly on the dividing line between the Bihari and the Oriya quarters. A man named Rabinder had been getting his dinner ready nearby—the workers cooked early, around four or five, so that those going off to evening shifts could have dinner before starting out—and I tried talking to him. He was from Orissa, a short man with a paunch and a mustache, his gaze shifty as he responded to my questions. He had been a tailor in his village, he said, and he hoped to go back to that when he had saved enough money.

As I was talking to Rabinder, another man came out of a nearby room and stood listening to us. He seemed different from the workers I had come across so far. He looked cleaner, to begin with, less broken down than even the Oriya teenagers who had just arrived. He was wiry in build, dressed in a yellow T-shirt and Bermuda shorts, and his face had prominently Mongoloid features, with wide cheekbones and tapering eyes. I asked him where he was from and he said that he had come from Assam. I have forgotten almost all the Assamese I once knew, but I remembered enough to be able to ask him his name. His face lit up and he replied in a volley of words, sitting down next to me and smiling even as Rabinder curled his lips in a sneer and walked away. The man’s name was Mohanta Mising. He was twenty-one years old, and he hadn’t been at the factory for more than a couple of weeks.

4. Encounter with a stranger

At the turn of the century, Kothur was sliced into two halves by the highway. The marketplace and the steel factory were on one side, most of the houses and fields on the other. Vijay had a small house in the village, a rudimentary concrete building full of cobwebs and beetles that he had built many years ago. He lived in Hyderabad, and I was on my own in the house except for the watchman and his family who lived in a separate hut diagonally across from me. In the morning, it was a pleasant, almost pastoral place, surrounded by agricultural plots and looking out at the settlement of the Lambadas. The women were striking in their independence and manner of dress, always walking in front of their husbands and dressed in bright skirts and a profusion of jewelry.

Yet the rural life was on the retreat. There were factories everywhere, Papyrus Port close by and, a little further away, the new Hyderabad airport. Much of the land between the city and the airport had apparently been bought up by real estate developers anticipating the expansion of the city, and it seemed just a matter of time before the Lambadas were forced off the land entirely. Vijay’s house was separated by the highway from the Kothur market and the steel factory, which meant that I had to cross the highway on foot, like most of the villagers. I did so with some anxiety the first time, walking past paddy fields pockmarked with slag to the ramp leading up to the highway. There I followed the example of two villagers, waiting for a break in the traffic coming from Hyderabad and scampering to the median, then waiting again for a gap in the stream of vehicles from Bangalore before completing my crossing. After that, it was a ten-minute walk to the market arranged along the road that had been the main thoroughfare until it was superseded by the new highway.

The market that was the center of Kothur was a hard, dusty settlement with carts selling vegetables and fruit, pharmacies, liquor stores that traded mainly in pint bottles of cheap whiskey, and a couple of cybercafés where the computers seemed weighed down by all the porn that had been surfed on them. There were concrete houses around the edges of the market, looking as if they had been dropped at random on to the fields, some poultry shacks, a jewelry store that doubled as a money-lending operation, and three restaurants. It was at one of these that I took my breakfast and lunch, a cheap meal consisting largely of potatoes and watery dal. Served by ten-year-old boys, the food was consumed eagerly by the tired-looking workers and farmers who ate at the restaurant.

I went to another place for dinner, a dhaba at the very end of the marketplace. Hidden by a row of parked trucks and sitting next to the squeaking complex of a factory manufacturing metal pipes, the dhaba had different names—“Bhawani Dhaba” or “Vijai Family Dhaba”—depending on which sign one chose to read. There were a series of concrete cubicles to one side of a patch of grass, with curtains drawn across them in a suggestive manner, and a hallway at the back with plastic tables and chairs. There were never too many customers at the dhaba, but when they showed up, they preferred the booths, groups of tough-looking local businessmen clustered around whiskey and tandoori chicken.

I usually sat in the hallway, surrounded by three or four restless-looking teenage waiters, looking out at the rain falling on the new highway. The rain, which came in fits and starts, suggested that the monsoons would be poor that year. It took the edge off the heat, but it also added to the desolate atmosphere of this place that was neither city, nor town, nor village, the marketplace always deserted by nine or ten in the evening except for the occasional drunken man, while above us traffic sped along on the new highway under a bright orange neon sign that said: “Do not use cell phone while driving.” There were no women and no children in this world—only men who were either hard, broken-down, or both, a dystopian realm of worker drones producing objects whose purpose seemed unfathomable to me.

It was depressing, and even a little frightening, to cross the highway on my way back to Vijay’s house. I could have avoided this by staying at Papyrus Port and hiring a car, but I realized how much I would have missed. The act of walking changed the way I experienced everything around Kothur. My uneasiness while crossing the highway and the diminution I felt as I walked for what seemed like hours across that flat landscape brought me a little closer to the experience of the workers. Walking shrunk me down to the level of an insect, for even as I made my way slowly towards the steel factory along the dirt track that ran under the highway, I could see the cars and trucks speeding past. It made me feel lost, unfit somehow for the new world I could see up there.

One afternoon, as I made my way back from the steel factory through a series of puddles, I needed to take a piss. There was only one other person visible, a man walking in my direction but some distance away. I urinated against a brick wall, feeling slightly embarrassed. I heard the man come closer and expected him to walk on—a man pissing in the open is a common sight in India—but I could feel him stop when he reached me. He was standing right behind me and at first I was worried that he was the owner of the brick wall I was soaking. But he stayed silent, and I began to grow puzzled and annoyed. When I finished, I turned around and looked at him aggressively.

Here, then, was the reality of India. In spite of all the talk about technology, the educated, clean-cut Mishra was looking for work the way a man might have fifty years ago.

The stranger was waiting for me with a smile on his face, as unlikely a figure as I could have expected to encounter in that blighted landscape. He was rather handsome, hair cut cleanly and mustache trimmed well, a man in his twenties dressed in a cream-colored polo shirt and trousers, with strapped sandals on his feet. He had a brown office bag on one shoulder.

“Sir,” he said politely, “where are you coming from?”

“The steel factory,” I said irritably. “What about you?”

“I’m looking for work,” he said, gesturing at his bag.

We stood there amid the puddles and the dirt, the man telling me about himself against the sound of cars passing by high up on the highway. His name was Amit Mishra, and he was from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh. He was working as a clerk at a company in Gujarat and had come to Hyderabad to visit a relative. He wasn’t too happy at his job or with living in Gujarat, and when he had heard from his relative that there were many factories in the Kothur area, he had decided to visit them and see if any of them had a position for him.

This sounded quite futile to me, and there were parts of his story that didn’t fit. Gujarat was a long way from Uttar Pradesh, I said, but so was Andhra Pradesh. He smiled and nodded when I said this, not contradicting me, seemingly much more interested in my reasons for being in the middle of nowhere than in his own reasons for being there. When he heard that I lived in New York, he asked, in the reflexive manner of poorer Indians, whether I could help him emigrate to America. I deflected the question and asked him about his plans for the day. He had taken a bus to Kothur in the morning, he said. He would try as many places as he could before returning to Hyderabad in the evening. Here, then, was the reality of India, and middle-class India at that. In spite of all the talk about technology and the Internet, the educated, clean-cut Mishra was looking for work the way a man might have fifty years ago, walking the many miles from one random factory to another, hoping that his civilized demeanor would get him an interview with an official, dropping off a CV but in all likelihood never hearing back from any of these companies.

Mishra was an accountant, but before he had done accountancy, he had been a student of history. His head was still full of the books he had read, and standing in the muck, he wanted to have a discussion with me about what democracy meant.

“Sir, have you read Amartya Sen?” he said, referring to the Harvard economist and Nobel laureate best known for his work on hunger and inequality. “You remember what he said about famine, that it doesn’t necessarily happen because there isn’t enough food but because the powerful take food away from the powerless? It’s still like that in India. Are you going to write that in your book?”

I asked Mishra if he wanted to come to the market and have a cup of tea, but he shook his head. The sun was beginning to drop over the horizon, and he wanted to put in as many job applications as he could before taking the bus back to Hyderabad. He asked me for directions to the steel factory and then left, walking under the highway towards the smokestacks of the factory.

From The Beautiful and the Damned: A Portrait of the New India, published August 30, 2011, by HarperCollins. © 2011 Siddhartha Deb


G

Siddhartha Deb was born in northeastern India in 1970. His first novel, The Point of Return, was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. His reviews and journalism have appeared in the Boston Globe, the Guardian, The Nation, the New Statesman, and the Times Literary Supplement. He came to New York on a literary fellowship in 1998, and now divides his time between India and New York.

You might also like…

  Seeds of Suicide: Before BP destroyed habitats and livelihoods in the Gulf, Monsanto landed in India. More     The Un-Victim: In the wake of sedition threats by the Indian government, Arundhati Roy describes the limits of preaching nonviolence. More         Social Business: Was Muhammad Yunus’s sacking from the microlending bank he created part of a conspiracy to discredit and force him out? More     Arundhati Roy: What Have We Done to Democracy?: Of nearsighted progress, feral howls, consensus, chaos, and a new cold war in Kashmir. More

Readers like you make Guernica possible. Please show your support.

To contact Guernica or Siddhartha Deb, please write here.

Posted via email from Roger Grobler's posterous