May 2006

Mind Text

Editor - Thasneem A.

Centre for Public Policy Research

Vaikom Road, Cochin, Kerala - India - 682 301
www .cpprindia.org
www.cpprindia.org
E-mail : program@cpprindia.org

My dream Children
LAKSHMI . R. NAIR
Waiting is boring . It’s always
so.They should have come by now.
It’s four O’ clock. Sometimes it is so.
In the busy hours of the day, the
driver takes more than thirty
minutes. It doesn’t give me any
concern. I am like that . Concern
doesn’t affect me. I don’t care for
them in turn. I am tired. Yes it’s our
“ Belina”. She creeps into the porch,
like a cat, the black cat.
I set the plates ready. I removed
the lids of the hotcases. All the three
like hamburger. Ammu doesn’t like
it much. She likes meat roll better.
Chinnu’s face will bloom before
sandwiches. Janu needs a little egg
embedded in it . I didn’t have the
afternoon nap after the heavy work
in the forenoon. All in a flash
wriggled in through the narrow
entrance of our dining room. They
may have washed their hands.
They were at the basin for a
second, the trinity together. A pull
and push to grab the seats on my
left and right. I served on to the
plates. They all beamed a smile.
It was a pleasure to cook for my
kids and my hus.
The session till noon was a
burden. The odour of the labour
room, the tension in the theatre the
smell of the new–borns. It has all
been wiped off.
My h u s h a s n ’ t c o m e . H e
doesn’t have any preference for
food. He like all kinds of food. But
I should cook them.
He’s like that, very slow in
disposing of his patients. He loves
to be with them, talking and talking.
A psychiatrist, to him, shall be so.
He loses himself while counselling
his patients.
Before I wished to say “start”,
they started attacking hamburger,
sandwich and meatroll. In my days
as school girl, our kitchen assistant,
Letha brought food on to the table.
My mother would start feeding me
food with love only after five thirty
in the evening. Food then also was
different, “dosa,” idli, or “ banana
roast.” Now the time has changed.
Twenty years have elapsed.
I forgot. They must have
received their answer books. I
should have asked them for their
score. I am always curious to know
their score in mathematics, “ Tell
me, your marks.”
While quaffing the mutton burger,
they muttered. I couldn’t make out.
They repeated the sounds finishing
the left over on their lips. I wanted to
get the reply. It was “full” for all. I
:2:
verified “hundred for hundred !” Yes
mamma” three shouts heard
together.
I was happy. There was a tear
each in my eyes. The youngest,
Janu, came close to me, clambered
on to my lap and said, “Mamma, why
are you crying?” “I will tell you why.”
“Ammu, run to your computer and
send a voice mail to your grandpa.
You know how pleased he will be?”
All left the dining table, rushed to the
computer. “Please stop,” I said.
“Don’t say this all in a hurry. Your
grandpa and grandma will be terribly
excited. Don’t you know my dad is a
chronic asthma patient.” “No
mamma, they will be happy only to
hear this information. “No, I said, he
will struggle for breath hearing the
surprisingly pleasant news. My
mother has heart- ailment. She has
to stand it.”
I thought of my parents. They
are away in the family quarter in
Kothamangalam. They love to live
there only. We are thousands of
miles away in this part of the world.
My mind spread its wings and
flew to the past when my parents
suffered a lot due to me. When I
failed in mathematics, my teachers
would whisper to one another in the
Department : “She is the daughter
of a Professor. Isn’t she ashamed
of getting poor marks? Her mother
is a bank officer. But she doesn’t
know to solve problems in maths.
See, other children get better
marks.” These comments would
reach other parents. They used to
tell my parents about this. I had
developed in me an allergy towards
mathematics. The more I came
close, the more I would sneeze out
of allergic dislike. I was a butt of
ridicule before all. Only my Principal,
the reverent sister caressed me,
fondled me and consoled me. I
could remember, my old days two
decades ago with a pinch of salt
only. As I was weak in mathematics,

my teachers didn’t care for the fact
that I was good in dance and music.
Sometimes I cursed my self.
With the loving advice of my
teachers and the Principal, I made
amends for what was not there in
me. I did well in my plus two. I joined
medicine to become an M D in
Gynaecology. I did research in
biotechnology too and the working
of human brain. Last year only I
developed a computer chip to be
implanted in the brain to make one
mathematically strong. See the
marks. All get “full” in maths. I am
happy. This is the time for
enjoyment. I should invite children
from neighbouring houses and I
should give them a treat. I waited for
my hus to come. It’s eight O’ clock.
I should give him a voicemail to
come back quickly. Thinking about
the achievement of my children I
looked at the mirror and laughed
aloud with great pride and
satisfaction – Ha, Ha, Ha
“Lachu wake up,” a loud shout
and water from a bucket falling on
my face awakened me from sound
slumber. My dad looked like a
Virabhadra, God of Destruction, his
eyes wide, rolling and sprouting fire.
My mother behind him like a
Bhadrakali encouraged him in his
reproach. I heard Something like “
You didn’t do well in the tenth. Will
you ever change ? You dream and
dream and laugh in dreams in the
eleventh also.” Alas adieu my dream
children !!!!

Bin or Bush Rubbish

Is it for Bush you shed your blood ? LAKSHMI . R. NAIR
Is it for Bin you want our head?
Is it for Cresc’nt you love to kill
Is it for Cross you coffins fill.
My Lord, for whom do they bleed ?
Not for us, sons of Lord, indeed.
My lord, for whom they shed their blood ?
Not for us, Sons of Lord, truly blest
Bush lies :” I am the lord of the world.”
Bin Laden lies “ who else is it more than what I am” ?
What I, the humble child of the Lord in this world,
Say: “who else can say that, but our Lord”?
My Allah love us, in war not to miss,
Jehovah loves to offer us, affectionate loving kiss.
Never a “ crusade “ to kill those whom we dislike
No, never a “jihwad”, to use the fatal as we like.
Gather all those rubbish things,
Foolish notions, trivial threats,
Pick all those lethal arms, put them
In to the mouth of bin, wide dust bin and close.
Cast these frightening words, veils of glory
Fond, vain pomp of this world’s mammon
Bombs used to mar fertile Nagasaki,
In to the wide broad breast of bush to fill it over.

:3:

Corruption “A Death –Knell”
Democracy has been adored
throughout the world as the most ideal
form of government. In almost all the
countries of Europe and United States
it has been functioning successfully in
one form or the other.
India is one of the largest
democratic countries in the world. Our
system of administration is ideal as it
is based on peoples will. But gone are
the days when we used to worship our
cultural value, which are very distinct
and unique. In fact our society and its
system are now in the grips of
negativeness. Ideal situations are rare
and ideologies are unidentified in our
modern society. Corruption have rather
become “shame proof”. Our leaders
and powerful bureaucrat have become
the agents of corruption. The wide
network of corruption is the result of
the lack of integrity and morality of our
social beings. Now a days humanism
is very weak and worthless. Power and
money oriented politics is so polluted
that the new generation has lost faith
DEVISHA SASIDEVAN
in it. Many of us are no longer proud to be called an Indian. The days of glory, of
sacrifice and naturalism are fading.
The cult has a very wide range in the national life of our country. From the
grass root level to the top, corruption is prevalent. The ignorance of the people
lead to their exploitation. Malpractices and delay in judiciary oblige people to pay
huge amounts to the lawyers and advocates. Law and medicine can no longer
be called noble professions. They have stooped down to the state of unfair
trade business.
Corruption has become so rampant that due to falling of buildings and
bridges, non realisation of taxes billions and trillions of rupees go on unchecked.
There have been scandals in the eighties and nineties involving chief ministere,
Union Ministers and even Prime Minister. The difficulties faced by the people in
their dealings with the government apparatus has strengthened the belief that
all politicians and public servants are dishonest and corrupt 3.5 crore was
recovered from the premises of an ex-union minister in 1997 for which he could
not give any explanation. Even in late 1999 she was free.
Entry in to legislature is considered certified and justifiable ticket to quick
money. Bofors and German submarine Pay offs and Bank seam of 1992-93
may be just a tip of the iceberg. Even the recent hidden camera issue involving
and exposing many MP’s will soon be forgotten only for in to reclect them in the
future elections. For a particular posting a Delhi police constable is ready to pay
Rs one lakh a year. From whom does he get such huge fractions and to whom
does he pay this amount. Delhi just reflects the rest of the nation. Shame or
sense of guilt has totally disappeared. Corruption is like a “DEATH – KNELL” for
a country like us.
:4:
 Nn¥m-i-I-e-߃
tIcfw ho≠p- s amcp sXc-
s™- S p- ∏ ns\ A`n- a p- J o- I - c n- ° p-
hm≥ t]mhp- I - b m- W v . F∂m¬
CØ- h - W sØ amdnb cmjv { Sob
kml-N-cy-ß-fnepw ap≥s]-∂-tØ-
°mfpw tIc- f - Ø ns‚ hnI- k \
km≤y- X - I sf A[n- I - c n- ® p- s Im-
≠p≈ ]T-\-ßfpw N¿®-Ifpw \S-
°p- ∂ p- s h- ∂ p- ≈ - X p- X s∂ tIc- f
Ce-£≥ 2006
P\X B{K-ln-°p-∂-sX-¥m-
sW∂v hni-Z-am-°p-∂p-≠v. I£n-
cm-jv{Sob t`Z-at\y CØcw
kwhm-Z-߃ \S-°p-tºmgpw
]ecpw ad- ∂ p- t ]m- I p∂ AYhm
Xnc- k v ° - c n- ° - s ∏- S p∂ Nne- b n\w
hnj- b - ß ƒ \Ωƒ°n- S - b n- e p- ≠ v .
Ahsb ASn-ÿm-\-am°n Fgp-X-
s∏-´n-´p-≈-XmWv Cu teJ\w.
hyXykvX cmjv{Sob kml-
N- c y- ß fpw kmaq- l nI Imem- h -
ÿbpw \ne- \ n- ∂ n- c p∂ ka- b -
ØmWv tIc-f-kw-ÿm\w cq]o-Ir-
X-am-Ip-∂-Xv. hf-sc-°mew ap≥]p-
Xs∂ ae- b m- f - \ m- S n- s ‚ {]mXn-
\n[yw ]pdw-cm-Py-߃ Adn-™n-cp-
∂p. Imem- I m- e - ß - f m- b n, ChnsS
h∂p-t]m-bn-´p≈ hntZ-io-b¿ tIc-
f- Ø ns‚ khn- t i- j - k m- l - N - c y-
߃ apX-se-Sp-Øp-sIm≠v A\p-
Zn\w a‰p {]tZ-i-ß-fn-te°pw Xß-
fpsS ta¬t°mbva Du´n-bp-d-∏n-°p-
I- b m- b n- c p- ∂ p. F∂n- c p- ∂ mepw
hntZ-i-\mWyw
hym]mc _‘-ß-tf-°mƒ, anj-\-
dn-am-cp-w hy‡n-K-X-amb kmwkvIm-
t\Sn-Ø∂
cn- I - s \- S p- \ m- b - I - X z- h p- a mWv tIc-
fsØ Hcp-]-s£, Ipd™ Ime-
b-f-hp-sIm-≠p≈ Hcp \thm-∞m-
\-Øn\v hgn-Øm-c-bm-b-Xv.
kmwkvIm-cn-I, kmaq-lnI aWvU-
e- ß - f n¬ {]Xn- ^ - e n® Cu am‰w
cmjv { Sob apt∂- ‰ - Ø n\pw hgn-
:5:
Un. [\p-cmPv!
sbm-cp-°n. kwL-S\m ]mS-hhpw
AwK- _ - e hpw ]e kmaq- l nI
apt∂- ‰ - ß ƒ°pw Imc- W - a m- b n.
`qanimkv { X- ] - c - a mb {]tXy- I - X -
Iƒ CXn\pw B°w Iq´n-sb-t∂-
bp-≈q.
XpS¿®-bmbn h∂pw
t]mbpw sIm≠n-cn-°p∂ a{¥n-k-
`- I - f psS CS- b n- t e- ° mWv (DZm:
sIm®n, Xncp- ˛ - s Im®n \m´p- c m- P y-
߃) tIc- f - k w- ÿ m- \ - Ø ns‚
BZysØ a{¥n-k` IS-∂p-h-cp-∂-
Xv. hnZym-`ymk cwKØpw Im¿jn-
I- c w- K Øpw sIm≠p- h - c m≥ Dt±-
in® ]cn-jv°mc \S-]-Sn-Iƒ ]e-
hpcp am‰- ß ƒ°pw \mµn- b m- b n.
I£n- c m- j v{Sob _‘- ß - f psS
Aÿn-cX ]n∂o-Sn-tßmfw tIcf
cmjv{So-b-Øns‚ hyXy-kvX-X-bm-
Wv. ap∂-Wn-Iƒ amdn amdn `cn-°p-
tºmgpw ap∂Wn _‘-߃ inYn-
e-am-°-s∏-Sp-Itbm A\yw \n∂p
t]mhp- I tbm sNbv X n- ´ p≠v . ]e-
t∏mgpw `c- W - Ø n¬ ]¶m- f n- b m-
hpI F∂-Xn¬ Ihn™v bmsXmcp
Xc-Øn-ep≈ hnI-k\ k¶-ev]hpw
]e cmjv{Sob I£n-Iƒ°pap≠m-
bn-cp-∂n-√. {Ita-W, tIc-f-Øns‚
hnI- k \ k¶ev]w amdn amdn
hcp∂ cmjv { Sob i‡n- I - f psS
k¶p-NnX at\m-`m-h-Øn¬ \n∂pw
Dƒs°m-≠-Xm-Wv.
hntam- N \ kacw t]mse,
kmaq-ln-I, cmjv{Sob kmwkvIm-
cnI cwK-ß-fn¬ sh√p-hnfn
Db¿Ønb Hcp kmaq-lnI
cmjv{Sob ka-chpw tIc-f-Øn¬
]n∂oSv D≠m- b n- ´ n- √ . hntam- N \
ka- c - t Øm- S p- I qSn Xs∂, tIc- f -
Ønse kmaqly aWv U - e - Ø n¬
kmaq-Zm-bnI cmjv{Sob i‡n-Iƒ
`c- W - Ø n- \ p- t h≠n AUvP- Ã p-
sa‚p- I ƒ°pw tImw{]- s sa-   p-
Iƒ°pw Xøm-sd-SpØp Ign-™n-
cp-∂p. hnZym-`ym-k-_n-√ns‚ 11-˛mw
A\p-tOZw* CXp-hsc ]m m-°m-
\m-hm-Ø-Xp-Xs∂ {]Xy£ DZm-l-
c- W w. sshcp- ≤ y- ß ƒ \nd- ™ p-
\n∂ ka- c - ] - c n- ] m- S n- I ƒ F°m-
eØpw tIc-f-Ønse `c-W-ap-∂-Wn-
Iƒ kzoI- c n®p t]m∂n- ´ p- ≠ v.
kzImcy hnZym- ` ymk cwKsØ,
\mw F∂pw kwc- £ n- ® - n ´p- ≠ v .
tIcf kwÿm\w cq]o- I r- X - a m-
bXp apX¬ C∂p-hsc Fgp-]Xp
iX-am-\-tØmfw hnZym-`ymk
ÿm]-\-߃ kzImcy amt\-
Pv s a‚ns‚ ssIh- i - a m- W p- ≈ - X v .
tIc- f - Ø n¬ Db¿∂p- \ n- e v ° p∂
Db¿∂ km£- c Xm \nc- ° ns‚
apJy-Im-c-Whpw as‰m-∂-√. hnNn-
{X-sa∂p ]d-b-s´, a‰p kwÿm-\-
ß- f n¬ \n∂pw hyXy- k v X - a m- b n,
e£-߃ hmßn \nb-a-\-߃ \S-
Øp-hm≥ amt\-Pvsa‚p-Isf A\p-
h-Zn-°p-tºmƒØs∂ A≤ym-]-I-
cpsS iºfw Kh- s ◊‚ v \ev I n-
t∏m-cp∂p. a‰p tPmen km≤y-X-Iƒ
Ce-£≥ 2006
hfsc Ipd- ® p- a m- { X- a p≈ tIc- f -
Øn¬ `qcn- ] - £ - I p- S pw- _ - ß fpw
A≤ym-]-I-hr-Ønsb Ffp∏Øn¬
t\Sn-sb-Sp-°m-hp∂ Hcp PohnXam¿§-
ambn Xnc-s™-Sp-°p- I bpw {]Xy-
£-Øn¬ Itºm-f-Øn¬ ISpØ
a’- c - a p- ≠ m- I p- t ºmƒ kw`- h n-
t°≠ KpW- \ n- e - h mc h¿≤- \ hv
\S- ° msX t]mhpIbpw amt\-
Pvsa‚p-Iƒ IpØ-I-I-fmbn amdp-
I- b p- a mWv sNbvX- X v. ChnsS,
tPmen km≤y-X-Iƒ hfsc Ipd-
bp-tºmƒ \mw sImSp-t°-≠n-h-∂n-
cn-°p∂ hne-sb-bmWv kqNn-∏n-®-
Xv .
ta¬∏- d ™ hnZym- ` ym- k -
cwKw Hcp DZm- l - c Ww am{Xw.
Im¿jn- I - c w- K Øpw hyh- k mb
cwKØpw D≠mb Xf¿®- t bbpw
hni-I-e-\-am-t°-≠-Xm-Wv. tIc-fw-
t]m-se-bp≈ hfsc Ipd™ `qhn-
kvXr- X n- b p≈ Hcp {]tZ- i Øv
Im¿jnI ]cn-jv°-c-W-߃ \S-∏n-
em-°n-b-t∏mƒ Nn¥n-°msX t]mb-
Xn- e p≈ sshI- e y- ß ƒ {]I- S - a m-
bXv Irjn `qan, Irjn- ° m- c n¬
*11˛mw A\p-tOZw amt\-Pvsa‚ v kv°qfp-I-fnse A≤ym-]I \nb-a\w ]n.-F-kv.-kn.°p hnS-W-sa∂p \njv°¿jn-°p-∂p.
!
sNb¿am≥, sk‚¿ t^m¿ ]ªnIv t]mfnkn dnk¿®v, sIm®n
\n∂pw AI-∂p-t]m-b-Xm-Wv.
Irjn `qan In´n-b-h-cm-h-s´, Bip-
]- { Xn- I fpw hnZym- ` ymk ÿm]- \ -
ßfpw I®- h S ÿm]- \ - ß fpw
XpS-ßp-∂-Xn-\mWv hy{KX ImWn-
®-Xv. C{]-Imcw Db¿∂p-h∂ CS-
Øcw kº-∂-h¿§-°m¿
cmjv{Sob I£n-I-fpsS {]tXyI
Xmev]cy kwc-£-I-cmbnØo¿∂-
XmWv cmjv { So- b - c w- K Øv tIcfw
t\cn´ G‰hpw henb Zpc-¥w.
ASpØIme-Ømbn
Db¿∂p-tI´ ]cn-ÿnXn hmZhpw
\yq\-]£ {]oW-\-hp-sa√mw
^yqU¬ hyhÿnXn h®p
]pe¿Øp-∂ ta¬∏-d™ CS-Øcw
kº- ∂ - h ¿§- ° m- c psS krjvSn-
bmbn A[x-]-Xn-®n-cn-°p-∂p,
AYhm Ah-cpsS Xmev]-cy-Øn\v
A\p-kr-X-ambn hf-s®m-Sn-°-s∏-´n-
cn- ° p- ∂ p. At∏mgpw ad- ∂ p- t ]m-
Ip∂ Hcp hkvXp, t•m_-sse-tk-
j≥ tIc-f-Øn¬ Bcw-`n-®Xv 1991-
˛\p tij-a√ F∂-XmWv. {]tXy-
In- ® pw, Fgp- ] - X p- I - f psS a≤y-
tØmsS tIc-f-Øn\p kΩm-\n-®Xv
A_- ≤ - P - S n- e - a mb Hcp hnI- k \
kwkv-°m-c-Øns‚ ]pIadbmWv.
XßfpsS A[nImci‡n, GXm\pw
Nne¿°p-am{Xw kzm[o\w sNep-Øm-
hp∂ coXn-bn-ep≈ Hcp cmjv{So-
b, kwkv°m-c-Øn\v B°w Iq´p-
I- b m- b ncp∂p. hntZ- i - a - e - b m- f n- I -
fpsS \nt£-]-߃t]mepw
bYm¿∞-Øn¬ kwi-b-Øn-
s‚bpw Adn- h n- √ m- b v a - b p- t Sbpw
BsI-Øp-I-bmbn \jvS-s∏-´p-t]m-
hp- I - b m- W p- ≠ m- b Xv .
P\- I o- b - m kq{XWw, hntI-
{µo- I - c - W - Ø ns‚ ^e- { ]- Z - a mb
Bi-b-amWv apt∂m´ph®-Xv.
F∂m¬ h¿K-k-a-c-Øns‚ shfn-
®-Øn¬ Bibw hnI-e-am-Ip-I-bm-
Wp-≠m-b-Xv. AtX ka-bw, P\-]-
¶m-fnØw hnI-k-\-Øns‚ Imcy-
Øn¬ F{X- t Øm- f - a mhmw F∂-
Xn\v Hcp Xpd∂ N¿®bv°v CXp
hgn-sbm-cp-°n. C∂v, \mw πm®n-a-S-
bn¬ kacw \S-°p-tºmƒ tNmZn-
°p- h m≥ ad- ∂ p- t ]m- I p∂ Hcp
Imcyw Ahn-SpsØ sh≈w
:6:
hn¬°p- ∂ - X n\v Kh¨sa‚ n\v
Bcv A[n-Imcw sImSpØp
F∂XmWv. tIc-f-Ønse {][m\
`uXn-Ihpw `uan-I-hp-amb t{kmX-
 p-I-fmb h\w, a’yw, \mWy-hn-
f- I ƒ, IpSn- s h- ≈ w XpS- ß n- b h-
bnse√mw Ah-bn¬ G¿s∏-Sp-∂-
h¿°v F{X- t Ømfw DS- a - ÿ m- h -
Imiw ssIap-Xe - m-bn-´p≠v F∂p-≈-
XmWv ImX-emb {]iv\w. shdpw
{]Xy-£-k-a-c-߃°p D]-cn-bmbn
ssIh- i m- h - I miw AXmXv {]tZ-
i- ß - f nse P\- ß ƒ°v Xncn- ® p-
sIm- S p- Ø p- s Im- ≠ p- a m{Xta hnI-
k\ k¶-ev]Ø - n¬ Xncn-®d- n-tb≠
aqeyh¿≤\hns\∏‰n t_m[hXv°-
cWw \S-°p-I-bp-≈q. k_vkn-Un-
Ifpw B\p- I q- e y- ß - f pw, ^e- { ]-
Z-ambn GXp-hn-[-Øn¬ A¿l-cm-
b-h¿°v FØn-®p-sIm-Sp-t°-≠-Xm-
sW∂p ]p\¿hn- N - n ¥\w sNtø-
Ww.
BZy-Imew apX¬°p-Xs∂
k¿∆okv skIv S - d n- e mWv tIc- f -
Øns‚ hf¿® IqSp-X-embn tcJ-
s∏- S pØn t]m∂n- ´ p- ≈ - X v . \ap-
°p≈ {]Xy£ ta∑ hn\n-tbm-Kn-
°p-hm\pw D]-tbm-K-s∏-Sp-Øm\pw
\mw Imem-Im-e-ß-fnembn ]cm-P-
b-s∏-´p. ae-bm-fn-Iƒ a‰p {]tZ-i-
ß-fn¬ Ah-cpsS ipjvIm-¥n°pw
I¿Ω-k-∂≤-Xbv°pw ]pIƒs]-‰-
h-cm-Wv. F∂m¬ Xß-fpsS P∑-\m-
´n¬ Ah¿ Ae-k-cmbn hne-bn-cp-
Ø-s∏-Sp-∂p. AXp-t]mse Xs∂,
]pdw-\m-Sp-I-fn-tebv°v hnhn-[-ß-
fmb Imc-W-ß-fmepw Bh-iy-ß-
fmepw Ah¿°v IpSn- t b- d p- h m≥
{]bm-k-hp-an-√. Cßs\ ]pd-tØ-
s°m- g p- I p∂ ]WsØ ]nSn- ® p-
\n¿Øm≥ Chn- s S- X s∂ kwcw- ` -
߃ Bcw-`n-°p-tºmƒ, A√m-Ø-
]£w ]cmXnIsfm- ∂ p- a n- √ mØ
Hcp icm-icn ae-bmfn kwi-b-Zr-
jvSn-tbm-sS, Ahsb t\m°n-°m-
Wp- ∂ - s X- ¥ p- s Im- ≠ m- W v ? "Cµp-
teJ'bnse am[- h ≥ ae- b m- f n-
bpsS kzmX-{¥ym-`n-hm-Rv—-bpsS
{]Xo- I - a m- W v . F∂m¬, AXns\
Dƒs°m- ≈ p- h m≥ ad- ∂ p- t ]m- b -
XmWv ae- b m- f n- ° p- ] - ‰ nb henb
sX‰v.
 Xr]vXn

kPn ]utemkv
DS-ense Xobpw Xobnse
Ipfncpw A\p-`-hn-®n√
]pXnb Xpf-f¬ ]m´p-Ifpw
]gb K epw Fs∂ ckn-∏n-®n√
\nd-ap-ff aZyhpw \mS≥ Nmcm-bhpw
Fs∂- a-Ø-\m-°p-∂n√
tlm´-ense B¿`m-U-Xbpw
]pXnb hnZy-Ifpw Fs∂ D’m-ln-bm-°p-∂n√
ASpØ an{Xtam ISpØ i{Xpthm F\n-°n√
Fs‚ Hcp kplrØv
A`n-{]m-bs∏´Xn-ßs\
Db¿∂ Nn¥bpw DW-ßnb Pohn-Xhpw
F∂n´pw hnc-k-ambv XpS-cp-∂Xv
D≈p ad-bv°m-\mtWm?
CsXm∂pw Fs∂ Xr]vXn-s∏-Sp-Øp-∂n√
F∂-XmWv kXyw!!!

:7:
 PohnXw
kPn ]utemkv

ImeØp Xebv°pap-I-fnse
Dcp≠p IqSp∂ Im¿ta-L-߃
D®bv°v s]bvXn-d-ßp∂ Xo \mf-߃
A¥n°v hni-∏-I-‰m≥
shffn°nÆ-Ønse Xo I\-ep-Iƒ
Bi-b‰ Idp-º≥ IcSn
Ime-samcp ImgvN-Iƒ A¿∏n-°p-∂p.
{]Xo-£-bpsS Imf-Iq-‰≥
\mf-bpsS Icp-Ømb a{¥w P]n-°p∂p
\o Xs∂ \ns‚ hgnbpw
Poh\pw kXyhpw
\o Xs∂ \ns‚ ic-Whpw.........!!!

IpØn-hc
F_n≥ tXmakv

Fd-Wm-Ip-f-Øns‚ sNdnb Ne-\-߃

H∂mb-dn-bp∂ t\cØp s]mßn∏-d-°p∂
Ipcp-hn-°-dn-bn√
Xs‚ hmk-tK-l-ta-sX∂v
H∂p Xncn™p t\m°p-tºmƒ, C∂o
t\cØv A∏p-d-Øp-d-ßp-sa≥ kJmsh DW-cpI
F∂psS IpSpw-_-sas‚ kz¿Ksa∂p-ff
Nn¥m-k-c-Wn-X≥ ImeØp s]m≥ap´-bn-s´mcp
Xmdm-hn-s\-t∏mse
Ic-bm-\-dn-bmsX Nncn-°m-\-dn-bmsX
\n¬°p-∂p-sb-∂psS {]nb-sIm®n !
]pcm-W-ß-tf-sd-°-Xn™p \¬Inb
]g-a-X≥ amdm-∏p-am-bn, G¥n hen™p
\S-°p∂, InX-bv°p∂ I∏-ep-I-fmtWm
s]m´nØ-I¿∂-b-Xn≥ tdmUp-I-fmtWm
No™, Zp¿K‘w han-∏n-°p-tam-S-I-fmtWm ImcWw
hnI-k-\-sa-∂p-ff a{¥-ta-sd-t°ƒ°p-∂p,
bnhn-sSmcp hnI-k-\-]{Xw thWtam?
F∂p-ff i¶-bp-S-se-Sp-°p-tºmƒ,
hmSnb ]qsam´pt]mse hnS-cp∂p!
Iqºp∂p hnI-k\Øn\v \dp kq\߃
hnh-c-Øn¬ hnZy-Xs‚ Iøn¬
sNdn-sbmcp s]´n-t]m-se.""Zcn-{Zs‚
s\©nse ]c-am¿∞-a-dn-bm-sX-sb¥p
hnπ-h-an∂o `qan-bn¬ '' ?
F∂p tNmZn-°p∂p IptN-e-hrµw

:8:
 REVIEW ESSAY
NILA MOHAN

Jagdish Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization, Oxford University Press: New York, 2004, 303 pp.
John Rapley, Globalization and Inequality: Neoliberalism’s Downward Spiral, Lynne Rienner: London,
2004, 192 pp.
Sheila L.Croucher, Globalization and Belonging : The Politics of Identity in a Changing World,
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: New York, 2004, 228 pp.

A picture of young Muslim women While Sheila Croucher and John

wearing the headscarf even while
holding burning candles and the
American flag, at a memorial
meeting held post-9/11, is printed
on the front cover of Sheila
L.Croucher’s book. This could well
be seen as a leitmotif of today’s
globalized world, revealing the
complex and seemingly paradoxical
dynamics of what Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak refers to as
‘ruptured globalization’ (Spivak,
2004:77). It has come to be
accepted in academic discourses
today that ‘globalization’ is a
contested term. There is also an
increasing awareness of the
multidimensionality of the
processes of globalization as well
as their consequences. All this
makes the task of analyzing
contemporary globalization more
challenging, yet more intellectually
stimulating.
Rapley try to grapple with a number
of such challenges, by exploring the
relationship between the cultural,
the political and the economic
domains of social life in the context
of globalization, Jagdish Bhagwati
focuses solely on the economic
dimension to launch his defence of
globalization. The differences
between these three books in terms
of the main areas of focus and the
central categories of analysis stem
from the divergent theoretical
vantage points of the authors. To
use Anthony McGrew’s typology of
the different positions on
globalization, Bhagwati’s orientation
as a neoliberal economist is towards
the globalist end of the spectrum
(McGrew,2003). While Rapley and
Croucher share the
transformationalist faith in the
multicausality and open-ended
nature of processes of globalization,
their approaches are divergent.
Rapley takes up a global political
economy perspective on
globalization and adapts the regimes
theory from International Relations
to demonstrate how the patterns of
material inequality and political
instability resulting from neoliberal
globalization create tensions
between homogenization and
differentiation and between the
global and the local. Croucher
analyses globalization from a
constructivist theoretical rooting and
therefore, her main concern is to
explore the dialectics between
globalization and the politics of
belonging as it works out in the
different realms of identity like
citizenship, nationalism, ethnicity
and gender. Having laid out the
theoretical points of departure of
each of the three authors, I will now
move on to a critical analysis of their
central arguments, while also trying
to envisage how they would respond
to each other.

:9:
Bhagwati takes a reductionist view
of globalization by assuming that he
can defend globalization by
defending economic globalization
alone. Even his understanding of
economic globalization appears to
be quite limited, because his focus
is almost entirely on free trade and
investment, to the exclusion of
production and consumption
patterns that are profoundly affected
by globalization. By
anthropomorphizing globalization
and claiming that it has a ‘human
face’, Bhagwati appears to be
attributing too much agency to
globalization. Throughout the book,
his main argument is that
globalization is a benign force that
promotes the causes of poverty
reduction, gender equality, labour
protection, abolition of child labour
and so on. Croucher and Rapley
caution us against such broad,
sweeping generalizations. Croucher
makes a pertinent point that
“globalization is not a behemoth with
a universal, all-encompassing power
to dictate social realities at
will”(p.147)) and that it is mediated
by the local, national and regional
contexts in which it plays out.
Though Rapley himself focuses on
what he calls the neoliberal chapter
in the long history of globalization,
he criticizes the tendency of
scholars like Bhagwati to conflate
economic globalization with
neoliberalism and remarks that
globalization is only the description
of a condition, not an independent
variable by itself.
Bhagwati also argues that
globalization in the specific form of
free trade reduces poverty rather than
aggravating it, as trade enhances
growth and growth reduces poverty.
He rather grandiosely calls this the
‘Bhagwati hypothesis’ and
prescribes that growth needs to be
the principal strategy for raising the
incomes and consumption and living
standards of the poor. Thus, better
distribution of the economic pie to
the poor can be achieved only by
increasing the size of the pie through
growth. Rapley considers this to be
a typical neoliberal argument that
treats accumulation as primary and
assumes that distribution will take
care of itself in a fully globalized and
liberalized world economy. In fact,
Rapley’s overall argument is that the
neoliberal political regime is
inherently unstable because of the
internal contradiction between a
successful accumulation regime and
a dysfunctional distributive regime.
This gives rise to symptoms of
fragmentation in the social, political
and cultural spheres. He introduces
the concept of relative deprivation to
further substantiate his thesis. The
size of the pie is increasing, but so
is the relative gap between the global
rich and the global poor. Whereas
absolute poverty or immiseration is
on the decline globally, there is a
rise in the subjective element of
marginalization and this has a
destabilizing impact on the political
regimes by paving the way for
fundamentalist and separatist
movements. Rapley argues that
identities are asserted when
challenged or when communities
face rejection and fundamentalist
movements provide a sense of
belonging and a psychological
homeland to sections of people who
feel relatively deprived. Interestingly,
Rapley makes extensive use of two
instances from the Indian context to
illustrate this point, namely, the rise
of the conservative Shiv Sena in the
metropolitan city of Mumbai and the
emergence of Hindutva politics.
Croucher also agrees that economic
globalization creates both winners
and losers, which in turn
exacerbates group conflict.1
Bhagwati’s eagerness to gloss over
the asymmetries of globalization
often robs his work of analytical
depth. For instance, he claims that
the impact of globalization has been
extremely beneficial to women, by
exposing them to the liberating ideas
of the West, by breaking down
gender prejudices and providing
them a more liberal economic and
social environment. In sharp
contrast, Sheila Croucher has a very
insightful section in her book, where
she attempts to bring out the
gendered nature of globalization. She
argues that processes of
globalization are rooted in gender
ideologies and they perpetuate
gender stereotypes, rather than
mitigating them. Even while
accepting that globalization also
: 10 :
creates opportunities for the
transnational political mobilization of
women, she presents evidence to
show that global restructuring has
reinforced existing gender
inequalities. Feminist scholars
make a strong argument that
globalization has led not to the
‘feminization of labour’ i.e. the
increase in the number of women in
the workforce; rather, it has resulted
in the ‘feminization of poverty’.2
Sheila Croucher’s treatment of
identity and belonging in a
globalized world is a refreshingly new
way of theorizing globalization. Her
main attempt is to examine how the
complex process of globalization
affect four dimensions of belonging
-citizenship, nationhood, ethnicity
and gender – and how it in turn gets
affected by these forces. Her
methodological sophistication is
evident from the way she presents
countervailing arguments about the
periodization and normative
dimensions of globalization as well
as the role of the state, and then
proceeds to argue her own point.
She brings out the main contours of
the debate between the primordialist
and constructivist views on identity
and concludes that an approach of
constructed primordiality (the
construction of an identity that
claims primordial roots for itself) that
factors in both the passions as well
as the politics of a continuous
process of identity formation and
reconfiguration, is most conducive
for examining identity in the
contemporary globalized world.
Croucher also responds to scholars
like Benjamin Barber, who have a
rigid conception of hard ethnic and
cultural identity and an apocalyptic
picture of globalization as an
inevitable clash of “Jihad’s centrifugal
whirlwind against McWorld’s
centripetal black hole” (Barber,
1992:54). She holds that the
identities of citizenship, nationality
and ethnicity, though extremely
strong once they take roots, are yet
malleable, fluid and contingent upon
the context.
Croucher is implicitly suggesting that
certain central categories like
citizenship, nationality and ethnicity
have to be reconfigured to grapple
with the multidimensional processes
of globalization. It is as part of this
continuing theoretical enterprise to
renegotiate existing categories that
she introduces the concepts of
belonging, constructed primordiality
and the ‘perpetual imagining’ of
national and citizenship identities
(Croucher, 2003). However, she does
not go much further beyond
suggesting these categories and
fails to apply them rigorously to her
own empirical case studies. The
problem with Croucher’s scheme is
that she packs in too many
dimensions of identity, with the result
that none of them get the detailed
exposition that they deserve.
One recurring theme in all the three
books is that of ‘postmodern politics’.
While Bhagwati, expectedly, is
dismissive of both postmodernism
and postcolonialism and blames
them for creating a sense of nihilism
and hopelessness among anti-
globalization activists, Croucher and
Rapley try to bring out the essence
of the debate on whether politics is
moving towards a postmodern phase
in the context of globalization. As
John G.Ruggie suggests, the notion
of postmodern politics in international relations can be best described as
an “unbundling of territoriality” (Ruggie,1993:171). The terrain in which
rearticulation of international political space is taking place today is not
necessarily a territorially bound nation state. Rapley demonstrates how
new political movements of the Far Right in Western Europe and Islamic
fundamentalism are new political spaces that challenge the authority of
the state. He sees these new forms of postmodern politics as both material
reactions to the failure of the distributive aspect of neoliberal political regimes
and cultural responses to the crisis of identity that marginalized groups
experience. Croucher focuses exclusively on that dimension of postmodern
politics which finds expression in new ways of belonging like dual citizenship,
European Union membership and indigenous movements like that of the
Zapatistas in Mexico. However, neither Rapley nor Croucher sees this as a
serious challenge to the continuity of nation-states or a move towards a
borderless world. On the contrary, Rapley argues that in the long-term,
postmodern political movements can survive only if they can expand their
resource bases, which in turn requires some form of economic integration
and state structure. Croucher makes a similar argument from the cultural
perspective that modern identities like nationality and citizenship have a
powerful hold on people’s imaginations, even while postmodern identities
are emerging. She illustrates this using the examples of the increase in
patriotism and anti-immigration attitudes in the U.S. post-9/11 and the ‘Us
versus Them’ dichotomy working against immigrants in post-Apartheid
South Africa. Rather than challenging the nation-state, globalization provides
it with enhanced capabilities for constructing, imagining and maintaining
nations.
Bhagwati, Rapley and Croucher have in their own ways contributed to the
large and ever-growing corpus of globalization theory.A parallel reading of
these three discussions of globalization has thrown new light on the sheer
scope and range of the contemporary debates on globalization. To use a
slightly modified version of Ulrich Beck’s argument, what the intricacies of
globalization today point toward is the critical need to ‘reinvent the
international’ (Beck,1997).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, Barbara(2002), “The gendered time politics of Globalisation: Of Shadowlands and Elusive justice”, Feminist
Review, No.70, pp.3-29.
Barber, Benjamin(1992), “Jihad vs. McWorld”, Atlantic Monthly, pp.53-65.
Beck, Ulrich(1997), The Reinvention of Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Croucher, Sheila L.(2003), “Perpetual Imagining: Nationhood in a Global Era” International Studies Review, Vol.5, pp. 124.
Ghosh, Jayathi(2002), “Globalization, export-oriented employment for women and social policy : A case study of India”,
Social Scientist, 30(12), pp.17-60.
Higgot, Richard(2000), “Contested globalization: the changing context and normative challenges”, Review of International
Studies, Vol. 26,pp. 131–153
Kapstein, Ethan(2000), “Winners and Losers in the Global Economy”, International Organization, 54(2), pp. 359–84.
McGrew,Anthony G.(2003), “The Globalisation Debate: Putting the advanced capitalist state in its place” in Roland
Robertson and Kathleen White(eds.) Globalization: Critical Concepts in Sociology, Routledge: London.
Ruggie,John Gerard(1993), “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations”, International
Organization, 47(1), pp. 139–74.
Sassen, Saskia(2000), “Women’s Burden : Counter-geographies of Globalisation and Feminisation of Survival”, Journal
of International Affairs,53(2),pp.503-24.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty(2004), “Globalicities : Terror and its Consequences”, CR: The Centennial Review, 4(1),
pp.73-94.
Zalewski, Marysia(1996), “All these theories yet the bodies keep piling up: theory, theorists, theorizing” in Steve Smith, Ken
Booth and Marysia Zalewski(eds.) International theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press.

1
Similar arguments against the neoliberalist perspective on the distributive aspect of globalization have been made by
scholars like Ethan Kapstein (Kapstein, 2000) and Richard Higgott (Higgot, 2000).
2
For a detailed exposition of this theme, see Adam(2002), Ghosh(1994) and Sassen(2000).

: 11 :