Time is an illusion
When the day and night play hide and seek.
Neither the sun,nor the moon;
stars hiding in the depth of the sky;
Blue sky in the twlight
Drizzles define the day;
Night flows in to the forenoon.
And days embrace the night.
Trees shed the leaves.
No more Children in the Garden.
Snow on its way
Oslo is dressed up for the winter
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Power to the People: Local Self Governance and Democratization
John Samuel
The three-tier Panchyat Raj system of India is the largest experiment in grassroots democratisation in the history of humanity. There are around three million elected representatives at all levels of Panchyats and now fifty percentage of them would be women. They would represent more than 240,000(two hundred and forty thousand Gram Panchayat), 6500 intermediate tiers (block Panchyats) and more than 500 district Panchyats. The fact that the Indians system of local governance- the Panchayath system- has its roots within the cultural and historical legacy of India makes it different from many other initiatives of decentralisation of governance. The idea of Panchyaths and sabhas travelled a long way from Institutions of traditional local governance structures within the culture to become an important corner stone in the constitution of India. The 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, arguably the most substantive amendments since the adoption of the constitution, envisage Panchayats as institutions of Local self-governance. The three-tier system of local governance is also means to build synergies between representative and direct democracy and participatory governance, resulting in deepening of democracy at the grassroots level. Though there is a huge gap between the promises of the substantive local self governance and the realization of true political devolution of power, the three tier Panchayat Raj system of local Governance still offers the great possibility of transferring the power to the people.
Substantive democratization works when all people are empowered to participate in governance, ask questions, take decisions, raise resources, prioritise the social and economic agenda for local development and ensure social and political accountability. Such a vision of democracy requires democratization from below and true devolution of power to the people. The nurturing of local democratic culture and local self government would be the most important means to realise the promise of the Indian democracy: the need for an inclusive, capable, participatory, accountable and effective direct democracy at the grassroots level. And the three tier system of Local governments, envisaged by the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, seeks to establish democracy at the grassroots level as it is at the state level or national level.
Though the idea of local government was discussed and debated in the wake of the movement for freedom struggle in India, it took forty five years after the independence to make it a constitutional guarantee. While Gandhi argued for Gram Swaraj (village republic) and strengthening village panchayaths to the greatest extent, Dr.BR Ambedkar warned that such Local Governments would be captured by local cast and feudal elites, perpetuating the marginalisation and exclusion of dalits and other excluded sections of the society. The present three tiers Panchayath Raj system, with 50% women representation and provision of representation of dalit and tribal communities, provide a much needed space for inclusive democracy.
In spite of the promises of grass-roots democratisation, there are structural and political impediments to realise the Gandhian proposal for the real Gram Swaraj. The idea of Panchayat Raj emerged through a serious of policy proposals and process since independence. The Balwantrai Mheta Committee (1957) came out with the first comprehensive policy proposals in the context of Community Development. Though the committee recommended early establishment of elected local bodies and devolution to them of necessary resources, power and authority, the primary thrust was on implementation of community development projects rather than true devolution of political power. Following the Balwantarai Mheta committee, four other committees in the next thirty years ( K Santhanam Committee-1963,Ashok Mehta Committee 1978, GK Rao Committee-1985 and LM Singvi Committee 1986) proposed a serious of proposals to revitalize Panchayat Raj institutions – as per the Directive Principles of the State Policy, mentioned in Article 40 : “ the state shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as unit of self-governments”. It took forty-five years of political and policy process to move this from an aspiration of the directive policy to a justiciable guarantee of the constitution. Apart from the 73rd and 74th amendments, the most important step towards grassroots democratisation is the Panchyat Extension to the Scheduled areas Act 1996, by making Gram sabhas (people’s committee/meetings at the grassroots level) as viable means towards direct participatory democracy.
One of the major hurdles in realising the true democratic and political potential of the Local-self Governance is the structural and systemic resistance by the bureaucracy and the political elites in control of the important state apparatus. There is a tension between the instrumental value of Panchyat Raj Institutions (PRIs) in community development and project implementation and the intrinsic value of PRI as strong political institutions with regulatory and administrative power- with adequate united funds and fiscal capacity. Following the Blawantrari Mheta committee recommendations, PRIs were expected to be the main vehicle for the community development projects. However, the funding for community development projects stagnated by the mid 1960s and Panchyats got stagnated without adequate funds and authorities.
Even after the constitutional amendments, one of the major hurdles is that in spite of various measures to devolve administrative and implementing mechanisms of the state, there has not been adequate measure of the devolution of finance, functions and functionaries to the PRIs. There are indeed few states, like Kerala, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, made important step towards this, though true devolution of political and financial power still remain far from being realized. In a dissenting note to the Ashok Mehta Committee report (1978), one of the members of the Committee EMS Namboodiripad made a very pertinent remark: “Democracy at the Central and State levels, but bureaucracy at all lower levels- this is the essence of the Indian Polity as spelt out in the Constitution. I cannot think of anything other than the integral parts of countries administration with any difference of what are called ‘development’ and ‘regulatory’ functions. I am afraid that the ghost of the earlier idea that Panchayat Raj institutions should be completely divorced from all regulatory functions is haunting my colleagues. What is required is that , while certain definite fields of administration like defence, foreign affairs, currency, communication etc should rest with the centre and all the rest should be transferred to the States and from the there to the district and lower level of local administrative bodies”. Even now one of the key challenges is the transition of the role of PRIs from mere local level implementing agencies to that of real local-self government institutions with political, financial, administrative and regulatory power in setting the agenda for local social and economic development.
There have been some very bold initiatives like the People’s Planning Process in Kerala that point towards the potential of peoples participation in Local Self Governance and the possibilities of Panchayats. In spite of few such innovative initiatives to strengthen PRIs and people’s participation, there are still major structural challenges to make them the vehicles for substantive democratisation at the grass-roots level. Some of them are to do with the very architecture of the governance process in India and some of them are to do with the character and nature of political power in India.
Some of the key challenges and issues are the following:
1) The challenge of transforming PRIs as the location of countervailing power of people to claim their rights and demand direct social accountability
2) The potential for PRIs to become the key vehicles for social transformation by ensuring the active agency and participation of women and marginalised section of the society. Such a role of PRIs would help women and marginalised sections of the society to assert the political space and demand to an inclusive social and economic agenda.
3) There seems to be a strong link between a vibrant local democracy and human development- as there would be more strategic allocation and effective expenditure of resources to promote on primary health care, education and sustainable environment. However, there is less role of PRIs in ensuring quality primary health care and education at the grassroots level
4) The success of PRIs is also influenced by the effective delivery of basic services to the poor and marginalised sections. Hence, macro-policy framework that ensures the right to livelihood is critical to success of PRIs as an important vehicle for poverty eradication.
5) Devolution of finance, particularly untied funds, is crucial to the success of PRIs as the means for Local Governance.
6) Deliberate efforts to remove the administrative, legal and procedural anomalies would be important to make the PRIs effective.
7) PRIs offer the most effective means for social accountability and transparency. Hence, devolving finance would help to reduce the instances of large-scale and entrenched corruption. The Eleventh Finance Commission, analysing the issue of Centre-state financial relations, highlighted the need to strengthen the finance of local bodies. Hence, there is a need to have broader finance reform to ensure fiscal devolution through the national and state finance commission.
The experience of Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh demonstrated that the transfer of funds, functions and functionaries would be critical to effective decentralisation. An effective policy framework for decentralisation from above need to be complemented with social mobilization and democratisation from below. In Kerala, social mobilisation through neighbourhood groups and women’s groups such as Kudumbasree proved to be an effective means to strengthen the demand at the grassroots level and facilitate the participation of women and marginalised groups in Governance. Democratisation at the grassroots level requires space for voices of the poor and marginalised through networks of social mobilisation. Such a space for participation, demand for effective delivery of services and demand for accountability can strengthen process of socio-political empowerment and capabilities of the poor. A human rights based approach to governance is crucial for the grass-roots democratisation. Hence, empowerment of Gram sabhas is critical to the claiming of rights and asserting voices of the marginalised and poor. Unless the legal and administrative hurdles that often constrain the effective role of Gramsabha are removed, the potential of the PRIs would not be realised. It is important to recognise that there are entrenched pathologies of cast discrimination, patriarchy and identity based political dynamics at the grassroots level. Hence it is very important to have safeguard mechanism to ensure transparency and accountability. There can be systematic efforts for participatory governance assessments- such as social audit and people’s report card to make sure that PRIs are not subjected to elite capture or capture by one political party or group.
While PRIs are still a work in progress, there are many initiatives that undermine the role of PRIs. For example, more than Rs 2000 core is spent annually through the Local area Development Funds of MPs and MLAs. Most of such funds are often spent independently of the social and economic priorities of the PRIs. Such parallel systems of financing often can undermine the real governance role of PRIs with more powers to the political elites of a particular political party and the bureaucratic elites at the district level. There is also more potential for PRIs to become the primary institutions for disaster mitigation, sustainable development, and water conservation, facilitation of local economies and creation of employment opportunity at the grassroots level, through small and medium enterprises that make use of the local natural and agricultural resources.
The 73rd and 74th amendments provide us a unique opportunity for democratisation, social accountability, effective service delivery, poverty eradication and reduction of corruption and a more participatory democracy. In spite of all economic growth, there is still entrenched poverty, social and economic inequality in India. When there are islands of prosperity, surrounded by sea of poverty and inequality, the real participation of everyone as equal citizens would be more challenging than it is assumed. We may have to go miles before realizing the dream of Gram Swaraj of Gandhi: “Every village has to become a self-sufficient republic. This require brave, corporate and intelligent work.....I have not pictured a poverty stricken India containing ignorant millions. I have pictured an India continually progressing along the lines best suited to her genius. I do not, however, picture it as a third class or even first class copy of the dying civilization of the west. If my dream is fulfilled everyone of the seven lakhs villages becomes a well-living republic in which there are no illiteracy, in which no one is idle for want of work, in which everyone is usefully occupied and has nourishing food and well-ventilated dwellings, and sufficient Khadi for covering the body and in which all villagers observe the laws of hygiene and sanitation”
The three-tier Panchyat Raj system of India is the largest experiment in grassroots democratisation in the history of humanity. There are around three million elected representatives at all levels of Panchyats and now fifty percentage of them would be women. They would represent more than 240,000(two hundred and forty thousand Gram Panchayat), 6500 intermediate tiers (block Panchyats) and more than 500 district Panchyats. The fact that the Indians system of local governance- the Panchayath system- has its roots within the cultural and historical legacy of India makes it different from many other initiatives of decentralisation of governance. The idea of Panchyaths and sabhas travelled a long way from Institutions of traditional local governance structures within the culture to become an important corner stone in the constitution of India. The 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, arguably the most substantive amendments since the adoption of the constitution, envisage Panchayats as institutions of Local self-governance. The three-tier system of local governance is also means to build synergies between representative and direct democracy and participatory governance, resulting in deepening of democracy at the grassroots level. Though there is a huge gap between the promises of the substantive local self governance and the realization of true political devolution of power, the three tier Panchayat Raj system of local Governance still offers the great possibility of transferring the power to the people.
Substantive democratization works when all people are empowered to participate in governance, ask questions, take decisions, raise resources, prioritise the social and economic agenda for local development and ensure social and political accountability. Such a vision of democracy requires democratization from below and true devolution of power to the people. The nurturing of local democratic culture and local self government would be the most important means to realise the promise of the Indian democracy: the need for an inclusive, capable, participatory, accountable and effective direct democracy at the grassroots level. And the three tier system of Local governments, envisaged by the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, seeks to establish democracy at the grassroots level as it is at the state level or national level.
Though the idea of local government was discussed and debated in the wake of the movement for freedom struggle in India, it took forty five years after the independence to make it a constitutional guarantee. While Gandhi argued for Gram Swaraj (village republic) and strengthening village panchayaths to the greatest extent, Dr.BR Ambedkar warned that such Local Governments would be captured by local cast and feudal elites, perpetuating the marginalisation and exclusion of dalits and other excluded sections of the society. The present three tiers Panchayath Raj system, with 50% women representation and provision of representation of dalit and tribal communities, provide a much needed space for inclusive democracy.
In spite of the promises of grass-roots democratisation, there are structural and political impediments to realise the Gandhian proposal for the real Gram Swaraj. The idea of Panchayat Raj emerged through a serious of policy proposals and process since independence. The Balwantrai Mheta Committee (1957) came out with the first comprehensive policy proposals in the context of Community Development. Though the committee recommended early establishment of elected local bodies and devolution to them of necessary resources, power and authority, the primary thrust was on implementation of community development projects rather than true devolution of political power. Following the Balwantarai Mheta committee, four other committees in the next thirty years ( K Santhanam Committee-1963,Ashok Mehta Committee 1978, GK Rao Committee-1985 and LM Singvi Committee 1986) proposed a serious of proposals to revitalize Panchayat Raj institutions – as per the Directive Principles of the State Policy, mentioned in Article 40 : “ the state shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as unit of self-governments”. It took forty-five years of political and policy process to move this from an aspiration of the directive policy to a justiciable guarantee of the constitution. Apart from the 73rd and 74th amendments, the most important step towards grassroots democratisation is the Panchyat Extension to the Scheduled areas Act 1996, by making Gram sabhas (people’s committee/meetings at the grassroots level) as viable means towards direct participatory democracy.
One of the major hurdles in realising the true democratic and political potential of the Local-self Governance is the structural and systemic resistance by the bureaucracy and the political elites in control of the important state apparatus. There is a tension between the instrumental value of Panchyat Raj Institutions (PRIs) in community development and project implementation and the intrinsic value of PRI as strong political institutions with regulatory and administrative power- with adequate united funds and fiscal capacity. Following the Blawantrari Mheta committee recommendations, PRIs were expected to be the main vehicle for the community development projects. However, the funding for community development projects stagnated by the mid 1960s and Panchyats got stagnated without adequate funds and authorities.
Even after the constitutional amendments, one of the major hurdles is that in spite of various measures to devolve administrative and implementing mechanisms of the state, there has not been adequate measure of the devolution of finance, functions and functionaries to the PRIs. There are indeed few states, like Kerala, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, made important step towards this, though true devolution of political and financial power still remain far from being realized. In a dissenting note to the Ashok Mehta Committee report (1978), one of the members of the Committee EMS Namboodiripad made a very pertinent remark: “Democracy at the Central and State levels, but bureaucracy at all lower levels- this is the essence of the Indian Polity as spelt out in the Constitution. I cannot think of anything other than the integral parts of countries administration with any difference of what are called ‘development’ and ‘regulatory’ functions. I am afraid that the ghost of the earlier idea that Panchayat Raj institutions should be completely divorced from all regulatory functions is haunting my colleagues. What is required is that , while certain definite fields of administration like defence, foreign affairs, currency, communication etc should rest with the centre and all the rest should be transferred to the States and from the there to the district and lower level of local administrative bodies”. Even now one of the key challenges is the transition of the role of PRIs from mere local level implementing agencies to that of real local-self government institutions with political, financial, administrative and regulatory power in setting the agenda for local social and economic development.
There have been some very bold initiatives like the People’s Planning Process in Kerala that point towards the potential of peoples participation in Local Self Governance and the possibilities of Panchayats. In spite of few such innovative initiatives to strengthen PRIs and people’s participation, there are still major structural challenges to make them the vehicles for substantive democratisation at the grass-roots level. Some of them are to do with the very architecture of the governance process in India and some of them are to do with the character and nature of political power in India.
Some of the key challenges and issues are the following:
1) The challenge of transforming PRIs as the location of countervailing power of people to claim their rights and demand direct social accountability
2) The potential for PRIs to become the key vehicles for social transformation by ensuring the active agency and participation of women and marginalised section of the society. Such a role of PRIs would help women and marginalised sections of the society to assert the political space and demand to an inclusive social and economic agenda.
3) There seems to be a strong link between a vibrant local democracy and human development- as there would be more strategic allocation and effective expenditure of resources to promote on primary health care, education and sustainable environment. However, there is less role of PRIs in ensuring quality primary health care and education at the grassroots level
4) The success of PRIs is also influenced by the effective delivery of basic services to the poor and marginalised sections. Hence, macro-policy framework that ensures the right to livelihood is critical to success of PRIs as an important vehicle for poverty eradication.
5) Devolution of finance, particularly untied funds, is crucial to the success of PRIs as the means for Local Governance.
6) Deliberate efforts to remove the administrative, legal and procedural anomalies would be important to make the PRIs effective.
7) PRIs offer the most effective means for social accountability and transparency. Hence, devolving finance would help to reduce the instances of large-scale and entrenched corruption. The Eleventh Finance Commission, analysing the issue of Centre-state financial relations, highlighted the need to strengthen the finance of local bodies. Hence, there is a need to have broader finance reform to ensure fiscal devolution through the national and state finance commission.
The experience of Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh demonstrated that the transfer of funds, functions and functionaries would be critical to effective decentralisation. An effective policy framework for decentralisation from above need to be complemented with social mobilization and democratisation from below. In Kerala, social mobilisation through neighbourhood groups and women’s groups such as Kudumbasree proved to be an effective means to strengthen the demand at the grassroots level and facilitate the participation of women and marginalised groups in Governance. Democratisation at the grassroots level requires space for voices of the poor and marginalised through networks of social mobilisation. Such a space for participation, demand for effective delivery of services and demand for accountability can strengthen process of socio-political empowerment and capabilities of the poor. A human rights based approach to governance is crucial for the grass-roots democratisation. Hence, empowerment of Gram sabhas is critical to the claiming of rights and asserting voices of the marginalised and poor. Unless the legal and administrative hurdles that often constrain the effective role of Gramsabha are removed, the potential of the PRIs would not be realised. It is important to recognise that there are entrenched pathologies of cast discrimination, patriarchy and identity based political dynamics at the grassroots level. Hence it is very important to have safeguard mechanism to ensure transparency and accountability. There can be systematic efforts for participatory governance assessments- such as social audit and people’s report card to make sure that PRIs are not subjected to elite capture or capture by one political party or group.
While PRIs are still a work in progress, there are many initiatives that undermine the role of PRIs. For example, more than Rs 2000 core is spent annually through the Local area Development Funds of MPs and MLAs. Most of such funds are often spent independently of the social and economic priorities of the PRIs. Such parallel systems of financing often can undermine the real governance role of PRIs with more powers to the political elites of a particular political party and the bureaucratic elites at the district level. There is also more potential for PRIs to become the primary institutions for disaster mitigation, sustainable development, and water conservation, facilitation of local economies and creation of employment opportunity at the grassroots level, through small and medium enterprises that make use of the local natural and agricultural resources.
The 73rd and 74th amendments provide us a unique opportunity for democratisation, social accountability, effective service delivery, poverty eradication and reduction of corruption and a more participatory democracy. In spite of all economic growth, there is still entrenched poverty, social and economic inequality in India. When there are islands of prosperity, surrounded by sea of poverty and inequality, the real participation of everyone as equal citizens would be more challenging than it is assumed. We may have to go miles before realizing the dream of Gram Swaraj of Gandhi: “Every village has to become a self-sufficient republic. This require brave, corporate and intelligent work.....I have not pictured a poverty stricken India containing ignorant millions. I have pictured an India continually progressing along the lines best suited to her genius. I do not, however, picture it as a third class or even first class copy of the dying civilization of the west. If my dream is fulfilled everyone of the seven lakhs villages becomes a well-living republic in which there are no illiteracy, in which no one is idle for want of work, in which everyone is usefully occupied and has nourishing food and well-ventilated dwellings, and sufficient Khadi for covering the body and in which all villagers observe the laws of hygiene and sanitation”
Monday, August 16, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Freedom
Freedom...at last!
Promised,pledged ,
And postponed...
Freedom - at least.
Waiting to be redeemed
Freedom
From Fear
From Hunger
For dignity
Freedom to be free.
India- an imagination
A billion dreams.
waiting to bloom
For a new tryst with destiny!!
Promised,pledged ,
And postponed...
Freedom - at least.
Waiting to be redeemed
Freedom
From Fear
From Hunger
For dignity
Freedom to be free.
India- an imagination
A billion dreams.
waiting to bloom
For a new tryst with destiny!!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Whose Language? What English?
(Notes on Language and Communications)
John Samuel
There are different notions about the effective use of a particular language. While many of the puritans would insist on ‘prescriptive’ use of a particular accent, pronunciation and grammar, many of the linguists would say the use of language needs to be seen in terms of ‘descriptive’ validity. The standardisation of language and ordering of ‘appropriate’ grammar is an exercise of power. There is a grammar of power in all communications. The power of communication also depends on the power of the communicator- in terms of ‘power-status’, knowledge and communicative skills.
Though English was introduced as a colonial language, now there are more people speaking in English outside the United Kingdom. So there is no more only ONE English language; there are many types of English- with variations in the accent, pronunciations, spellings and even grammatical preferences. The prevalence of a particular use of language has a lot to do with the power connotations of that language in a particular context of time and space. So today American accent or spellings and grammar may be more accepted than it was a hundred year ago. The power of Hollywood films and Internet provided relatively more acceptance to the American English which was considered as a ‘corrupt’ English by many. There are better known writers in English in India or former colonies than in the Anglo-Saxon world. Though there may be still few who are preoccupied with the RP (Received Pronunciation) accent, effective communicators are often less concerned about the ‘the RP accent’ and more focused on the communicative competence to convey an idea or connect with the audience. Communication is both about the competence and performance of language and message. It also means a sense of clarity about the message, audience and the purpose of communication.
Osho might be one of the most well known Indian communicators in the world. His books, audio and video presentations are sold across the world. His English had a very clear and evident Marwari accent. I had a chance to listen to his discourse. He was indeed a master of the art of communication. There was pindrop silence when he commenced his discourse. Every single word, interspersed with silence, straight went in like a ripple with a rare vibrance. The way he delivered his discourse- slowly and steadily- like a soothing wind, earned him millions of audience across the world. Often it is not the accent, it is the substance and the manner of delivery that make communication effective. Nelson Mandela- another inspiring communicator – too spoke in his own accent. Gandhi did have his Gujarati accent. Quite often the accent and pronunciation of English would be influenced by the mother-tounge of the a person. And for large number of people in the erstwhile colonies, English is only a second language. However, English is also the most effective lingua-franca in many countries and the world. The proficiency in English language gives a distinctive comparative advantage to effectively communicate to a world-wide audience.
It is one thing to have proficiency in a language and it is a different thing to have the ability to communicate effectively. Many people who may have excellent proficiency in a particular language may not be effective communicators. And when it comes to new modes of communications and broad casting, it is important to have special skills to communicate, using a particular medium- whether it is radio, TV, new media or social networks.
The issue of language and communication became crucial after the advent of TV. The name of the game changed after the TV became the direct medium of instant delivery. Here language and body language -looks, movement of eyes, posture – play a crucial role. It is a 'performance'- with an element of 'theatre'. In many parts of the world, people are 'trained' for days to 'perform' an interview. When I was the spoke person of an international organisation, and then global campaigns, I always had trouble with my communication staff. They would insist that I do a 'rehearsal' before I went to BBC, CNN or some other international channel for an interview or to deliver a specific message. They wanted to do trail run- with script. And they insisted on sticking to the 'script'- and I never stuck to the 'script': I did most of them on the 'instinct' of the moment, with one or two lines. And the feedback proved that the communication was effective. There is a difference between the communicative strategies in a long TV interview and short and crisp point on an issue or event. If one is a spoke person, one needs to choose few sentence carefully - and deliver it very clearly; all within a minute or two. It is a bit like visual twitter. The message has to be ABC- Accurate, Brief and Clear- and of course 'sexy'!
Even when we speak one language, there are different variations of the same language for different audiences. And the communicative strategies and the manner of delivery would differ based on the context, audience and the purpose of such communication. Some of us speak four or five kinds of English, depending on the audience, context and medium. The accent, choice of words, the speed too may change! For a successful politician who would like to be a statesman/woman, the skills to speak in different 'registers' of the same language and the proficiency in different languages do matter.
The communicative strategy of a politician to his/her constituency would depend not only on the use of language. It will depend on the use of body language, the attitude of communication, and 'speech-act'. It is a cumulative link between the person, promises, language and delivery. So in spite of his 'stammering' , EMS emerged as a good communicator - due to this cumulative effect of a communication strategy- and in his case that included writing as well. Pranab Mukarjee speaks English like a Bengali! In all such cases (including AK Antony) it is the cumulative communicative competence - not a particular- delivery that matters.
In the age of TV, expectations have changed. The mike used by the TV crew is called 'the gun-mike'- where a politician is the 'target'- he/she has to choose every word; and timing and manner of delivery is very important. One blunder can cost him/her the job!
So in the age of telegenic communications, the 'communicative' expectations changed dramatically. That is why the telegenic politicians also began to get prominence in the media discourse: Pramod Mahajan, Arun Jaitly. Kapil Sibal, Chidambaram, Jayaram. Murasoli maran, etc. None of them have the mass base of Shard Pawar or AK Antony. In fact, anyone of the got hardly any mass-base, and to a large extent their telegenic performance played role in giving them a space in the power-network. Sashi Tharoor too belongs to this 'telegenic' category- and he has the advantage of the ability to speak in four or five languages. However, telegenic performance- and networking capability alone are not good enough to make one's political sustainability.
Many well known leaders would insist speaking in his/her language in the international stage. Most of the leaders from Europe, China, Russia or Japan would prefer to speak in their mother-tounge, in spite of their proficiency in English, in the international stage. President Lula of Brazil hardly speaks in English- though he can understand few sentences. But Lula is one of the most effective communicators that I have come across. The man is amazing, and his communication (language and body language) is charismatic with a magnetic effect to attract the attention of the audience. In spite of not speaking English, he proved to a leader with a range of communicative strategies and skills.
John Samuel
There are different notions about the effective use of a particular language. While many of the puritans would insist on ‘prescriptive’ use of a particular accent, pronunciation and grammar, many of the linguists would say the use of language needs to be seen in terms of ‘descriptive’ validity. The standardisation of language and ordering of ‘appropriate’ grammar is an exercise of power. There is a grammar of power in all communications. The power of communication also depends on the power of the communicator- in terms of ‘power-status’, knowledge and communicative skills.
Though English was introduced as a colonial language, now there are more people speaking in English outside the United Kingdom. So there is no more only ONE English language; there are many types of English- with variations in the accent, pronunciations, spellings and even grammatical preferences. The prevalence of a particular use of language has a lot to do with the power connotations of that language in a particular context of time and space. So today American accent or spellings and grammar may be more accepted than it was a hundred year ago. The power of Hollywood films and Internet provided relatively more acceptance to the American English which was considered as a ‘corrupt’ English by many. There are better known writers in English in India or former colonies than in the Anglo-Saxon world. Though there may be still few who are preoccupied with the RP (Received Pronunciation) accent, effective communicators are often less concerned about the ‘the RP accent’ and more focused on the communicative competence to convey an idea or connect with the audience. Communication is both about the competence and performance of language and message. It also means a sense of clarity about the message, audience and the purpose of communication.
Osho might be one of the most well known Indian communicators in the world. His books, audio and video presentations are sold across the world. His English had a very clear and evident Marwari accent. I had a chance to listen to his discourse. He was indeed a master of the art of communication. There was pindrop silence when he commenced his discourse. Every single word, interspersed with silence, straight went in like a ripple with a rare vibrance. The way he delivered his discourse- slowly and steadily- like a soothing wind, earned him millions of audience across the world. Often it is not the accent, it is the substance and the manner of delivery that make communication effective. Nelson Mandela- another inspiring communicator – too spoke in his own accent. Gandhi did have his Gujarati accent. Quite often the accent and pronunciation of English would be influenced by the mother-tounge of the a person. And for large number of people in the erstwhile colonies, English is only a second language. However, English is also the most effective lingua-franca in many countries and the world. The proficiency in English language gives a distinctive comparative advantage to effectively communicate to a world-wide audience.
It is one thing to have proficiency in a language and it is a different thing to have the ability to communicate effectively. Many people who may have excellent proficiency in a particular language may not be effective communicators. And when it comes to new modes of communications and broad casting, it is important to have special skills to communicate, using a particular medium- whether it is radio, TV, new media or social networks.
The issue of language and communication became crucial after the advent of TV. The name of the game changed after the TV became the direct medium of instant delivery. Here language and body language -looks, movement of eyes, posture – play a crucial role. It is a 'performance'- with an element of 'theatre'. In many parts of the world, people are 'trained' for days to 'perform' an interview. When I was the spoke person of an international organisation, and then global campaigns, I always had trouble with my communication staff. They would insist that I do a 'rehearsal' before I went to BBC, CNN or some other international channel for an interview or to deliver a specific message. They wanted to do trail run- with script. And they insisted on sticking to the 'script'- and I never stuck to the 'script': I did most of them on the 'instinct' of the moment, with one or two lines. And the feedback proved that the communication was effective. There is a difference between the communicative strategies in a long TV interview and short and crisp point on an issue or event. If one is a spoke person, one needs to choose few sentence carefully - and deliver it very clearly; all within a minute or two. It is a bit like visual twitter. The message has to be ABC- Accurate, Brief and Clear- and of course 'sexy'!
Even when we speak one language, there are different variations of the same language for different audiences. And the communicative strategies and the manner of delivery would differ based on the context, audience and the purpose of such communication. Some of us speak four or five kinds of English, depending on the audience, context and medium. The accent, choice of words, the speed too may change! For a successful politician who would like to be a statesman/woman, the skills to speak in different 'registers' of the same language and the proficiency in different languages do matter.
The communicative strategy of a politician to his/her constituency would depend not only on the use of language. It will depend on the use of body language, the attitude of communication, and 'speech-act'. It is a cumulative link between the person, promises, language and delivery. So in spite of his 'stammering' , EMS emerged as a good communicator - due to this cumulative effect of a communication strategy- and in his case that included writing as well. Pranab Mukarjee speaks English like a Bengali! In all such cases (including AK Antony) it is the cumulative communicative competence - not a particular- delivery that matters.
In the age of TV, expectations have changed. The mike used by the TV crew is called 'the gun-mike'- where a politician is the 'target'- he/she has to choose every word; and timing and manner of delivery is very important. One blunder can cost him/her the job!
So in the age of telegenic communications, the 'communicative' expectations changed dramatically. That is why the telegenic politicians also began to get prominence in the media discourse: Pramod Mahajan, Arun Jaitly. Kapil Sibal, Chidambaram, Jayaram. Murasoli maran, etc. None of them have the mass base of Shard Pawar or AK Antony. In fact, anyone of the got hardly any mass-base, and to a large extent their telegenic performance played role in giving them a space in the power-network. Sashi Tharoor too belongs to this 'telegenic' category- and he has the advantage of the ability to speak in four or five languages. However, telegenic performance- and networking capability alone are not good enough to make one's political sustainability.
Many well known leaders would insist speaking in his/her language in the international stage. Most of the leaders from Europe, China, Russia or Japan would prefer to speak in their mother-tounge, in spite of their proficiency in English, in the international stage. President Lula of Brazil hardly speaks in English- though he can understand few sentences. But Lula is one of the most effective communicators that I have come across. The man is amazing, and his communication (language and body language) is charismatic with a magnetic effect to attract the attention of the audience. In spite of not speaking English, he proved to a leader with a range of communicative strategies and skills.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Growing Intolerance and Neo-conservativism in Kerala
John Samuel
Kerala has been well known for its legacy of peaceful co-existence and cosmopolitan social ethos shared by various religious communities. The two major religions, Islam and Christianity, took root in the society of Kerala from the very early years of both religions- and both were introduced more through the trade and words, rather than the sword or war. More than 25% of the population are Muslims and more than 20% are Christians. People, belonging to Hindu, Islam and Christian communities, lived together peacefully for centuries and nurtured their Malayalai identity and played a key role in enriching the culture, society, economy and political process of the state. In spite of the multiple religious or cast identities, it is the cosmopolitan social ethos that made Kerala a very dinstinct society known for its communal harmony, peace and social development. The people from various religious or cast groups nurtured and shared the same cultural, social, economic and political space. However, there are alarming signs of a growing intolerance and neo-conservative trends in Kerala. The growing religious and cast sectarianism, neo-conservatism and the new divisive political trends need to be challenged and changed.
There have been new tendencies of asserting various shades of identity politics – based on a politics of exclusion and also new pressure politics, based purely on a religious, denominational or cast identity. There is a growing sense of soft and hard sectarianism of various shades. And above all there is also trend to do ‘moral policing’ even by those parties who are expected to uphold ‘progressive’ values and gender justice. The entrenched patriarchal attitude and the new tendency of even questioning any man and woman travelling together tend to give an impression of very regressive neo-conservative trends in the society. Instead of challenging these trends, political parties seem to be more interested in fishing in the muddled water. Hence, we need to identify some of the disturbing trends within the society.
1) One does not need any micro-scope to find how various competing strands of 'communalism' (of the majoritarian and minoritarian types) feed in to each other in the forms of soft and hard sectarianism happening in the society and politics of Kerala today. There are many actors- including those from the 'minority' community- responsible for nurturing new kind of sectarianism, intolerance and consequent reactionary violence in Kerala society. The statements of less enlightened and more sectarian Bishops- and the 'pressure politics' played by many in the name of 'institutional interests' of few vested interests operating in the name of Christian and Muslim communities too contributed to the new conservatism and sectarianism within Kerala society. And then there is soft -hindutva getting more 'reactionary' acceptance within a very significant number of middle class of Kerala. And political parties seem to be more interested in the 'vote' outputs that emerge out of such new sectarian communalism of the soft- and hard varieties, rather than playing a role to address the causes and consequence of it.
2) This new kind of sectarian new- conservatism is also nurtured by new sectarian pressure politics practiced by the leaders of some community - 'representing' organizations. One could very much identify such sectarian and neo-conservative tones in the statements of some of the new leaders of cast-based community organizations such SNDP and NSS. So we reach this sad and shocking predicament as a society due to cumulative impact of sectarian indoctrination of various kinds among Christians, Muslims and Hindus of Kerala. This gets fueled by a new kind of identity politics of exclusion( in the last fifteen years) - with a mock liberal rhetoric- with a seemingly 'subaltern' content - and deeply sectarian and conservative social agenda propagated by few groups in Kerala. Any sectarian divisive politics in the name of religion- or promoted primarily by an exclusive religious identity can be dangerous in the context of Kerala- where each of the community are big enough to create social disintegration, political decadence and eventually multiple forms of violence and criminalization within Kerala and elsewhere. As of now it gets manifested in such incidents now and then - and due to the 'middle- class' character of all communities, there is less scope for massive violence in Kerala- as of now
3) The recent criminal and violent attack on the Professor (who framed a question paper with sectarian undertones), chopping off his hand, by fanatic people is also an outcome of the kind of such cumulative indoctrination of intolerance.
Now it is alleged that those who are arrested are affiliated to a particular group - which has a 'secular' sounding name - and supposed to be involved in 'subaltern' politics. Such formations are accused for their mock-liberal veneer and neo-conservative Islamic core and divisive political and social agenda. It is up to these formations to come clear on the increasing perceptions about the integrity of their politics.
4) Irrespective of the 'truth' of the matter, such kinds of planned attack cannot be executed by a local group simply for the sake of it. Such kind of attack can be a much planned strategy by some vested interested and fanatic groups to polarize the various religious communities in Kerala. There is a very sinister and dangerous political planning behind such 'symbolic' disposal of 'justice' against someone who might have made framed a very questionable question in a question paper, in a society that is being increasingly intolerant to each other.
5) It is important for all saner and sensible people across all religions and cast react against not just the disturbing incident of the attack against a Professor, but against all sectarian and neo-conservative trends- promoted by all vested interest groups in all formations based on respective religious or cast identity. It is important to challenge and change the causes as well as consequence of the sectarian and neo-conservatism.
Of course, during such highly volatile moments, it is important for all major media and political parties to deal such situation with a sense of sensitivity and responsibility to the larger society and politics.
It is time for a social reform movement by civil society actors across religious, community and cast spectrum to challenge the disturbing social and political trends and to ensure that the defining cosmopolitan ethos of Kerala is maintained, nurtured and strengthened. Each of us have to take social, political and moral responsibility to promote peace and harmony in Kerala- by avoiding stereotypes, religious/communal prejudices and encouraging values of freedom, human rights, justice and peace within the family, society and politics.
Kerala has been well known for its legacy of peaceful co-existence and cosmopolitan social ethos shared by various religious communities. The two major religions, Islam and Christianity, took root in the society of Kerala from the very early years of both religions- and both were introduced more through the trade and words, rather than the sword or war. More than 25% of the population are Muslims and more than 20% are Christians. People, belonging to Hindu, Islam and Christian communities, lived together peacefully for centuries and nurtured their Malayalai identity and played a key role in enriching the culture, society, economy and political process of the state. In spite of the multiple religious or cast identities, it is the cosmopolitan social ethos that made Kerala a very dinstinct society known for its communal harmony, peace and social development. The people from various religious or cast groups nurtured and shared the same cultural, social, economic and political space. However, there are alarming signs of a growing intolerance and neo-conservative trends in Kerala. The growing religious and cast sectarianism, neo-conservatism and the new divisive political trends need to be challenged and changed.
There have been new tendencies of asserting various shades of identity politics – based on a politics of exclusion and also new pressure politics, based purely on a religious, denominational or cast identity. There is a growing sense of soft and hard sectarianism of various shades. And above all there is also trend to do ‘moral policing’ even by those parties who are expected to uphold ‘progressive’ values and gender justice. The entrenched patriarchal attitude and the new tendency of even questioning any man and woman travelling together tend to give an impression of very regressive neo-conservative trends in the society. Instead of challenging these trends, political parties seem to be more interested in fishing in the muddled water. Hence, we need to identify some of the disturbing trends within the society.
1) One does not need any micro-scope to find how various competing strands of 'communalism' (of the majoritarian and minoritarian types) feed in to each other in the forms of soft and hard sectarianism happening in the society and politics of Kerala today. There are many actors- including those from the 'minority' community- responsible for nurturing new kind of sectarianism, intolerance and consequent reactionary violence in Kerala society. The statements of less enlightened and more sectarian Bishops- and the 'pressure politics' played by many in the name of 'institutional interests' of few vested interests operating in the name of Christian and Muslim communities too contributed to the new conservatism and sectarianism within Kerala society. And then there is soft -hindutva getting more 'reactionary' acceptance within a very significant number of middle class of Kerala. And political parties seem to be more interested in the 'vote' outputs that emerge out of such new sectarian communalism of the soft- and hard varieties, rather than playing a role to address the causes and consequence of it.
2) This new kind of sectarian new- conservatism is also nurtured by new sectarian pressure politics practiced by the leaders of some community - 'representing' organizations. One could very much identify such sectarian and neo-conservative tones in the statements of some of the new leaders of cast-based community organizations such SNDP and NSS. So we reach this sad and shocking predicament as a society due to cumulative impact of sectarian indoctrination of various kinds among Christians, Muslims and Hindus of Kerala. This gets fueled by a new kind of identity politics of exclusion( in the last fifteen years) - with a mock liberal rhetoric- with a seemingly 'subaltern' content - and deeply sectarian and conservative social agenda propagated by few groups in Kerala. Any sectarian divisive politics in the name of religion- or promoted primarily by an exclusive religious identity can be dangerous in the context of Kerala- where each of the community are big enough to create social disintegration, political decadence and eventually multiple forms of violence and criminalization within Kerala and elsewhere. As of now it gets manifested in such incidents now and then - and due to the 'middle- class' character of all communities, there is less scope for massive violence in Kerala- as of now
3) The recent criminal and violent attack on the Professor (who framed a question paper with sectarian undertones), chopping off his hand, by fanatic people is also an outcome of the kind of such cumulative indoctrination of intolerance.
Now it is alleged that those who are arrested are affiliated to a particular group - which has a 'secular' sounding name - and supposed to be involved in 'subaltern' politics. Such formations are accused for their mock-liberal veneer and neo-conservative Islamic core and divisive political and social agenda. It is up to these formations to come clear on the increasing perceptions about the integrity of their politics.
4) Irrespective of the 'truth' of the matter, such kinds of planned attack cannot be executed by a local group simply for the sake of it. Such kind of attack can be a much planned strategy by some vested interested and fanatic groups to polarize the various religious communities in Kerala. There is a very sinister and dangerous political planning behind such 'symbolic' disposal of 'justice' against someone who might have made framed a very questionable question in a question paper, in a society that is being increasingly intolerant to each other.
5) It is important for all saner and sensible people across all religions and cast react against not just the disturbing incident of the attack against a Professor, but against all sectarian and neo-conservative trends- promoted by all vested interest groups in all formations based on respective religious or cast identity. It is important to challenge and change the causes as well as consequence of the sectarian and neo-conservatism.
Of course, during such highly volatile moments, it is important for all major media and political parties to deal such situation with a sense of sensitivity and responsibility to the larger society and politics.
It is time for a social reform movement by civil society actors across religious, community and cast spectrum to challenge the disturbing social and political trends and to ensure that the defining cosmopolitan ethos of Kerala is maintained, nurtured and strengthened. Each of us have to take social, political and moral responsibility to promote peace and harmony in Kerala- by avoiding stereotypes, religious/communal prejudices and encouraging values of freedom, human rights, justice and peace within the family, society and politics.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Kerala in Transit
John Samuel
There are many symptoms of a larger issue of social, cultural and political transition of Kerala in the context of new consumer materialism- that came to define our society, culture and politics in multiple ways.
Kerala society jumped from Feudalism to Consumerism via Communism - all within a span of sixty years. Hence, our own social and political culture became a strange and confusing mix of feudal- left- and consumerist- all in one! Hence we come across 'secular-communalists’, ‘patriarchal-feminists, ‘communal communists’, ‘middle-aged social views and post-modern political views’, spiritual entrepreneurs and those who preach communism and practice capitalism; where every hartal is a celebration. And most consumed item is alcohol and most of the money is spent on constructing huge homes- where no one lives!
We in Kerala talk endlessly on 'resisting' imperialism and 'globalisation' and also flaunt our son and daughters working in MNCs or soft-ware giants. We hate Bill Gates and love Microsoft! We have a cultivated sense of anti-Americanism and our leaders jump at any invitation by any dick and harry to make a visit to 'study' or to 'collaborate'.
We also jumped from a predominantly agriculture - (primary sector economy) - to service sector (Tertiary sector) economy within a span of 40 years. We have moved rather fast from a rural based joint-family or networked-family social settings to nuclear and post-nuclear settings. Majority of our people moved from lower-middle class subsistence economy culture to a surplus bank balance - fuelled by expatriated income.
The migration culture of Malayalies in the last seventy years and the money and ideas they brought back to Kerala played a very key role in influencing the society and politics more than what is being generally being acknowledged. From the nineties onwards, Kerala society is more in a post-nuclear family mode- where the members of a family are dispersed far and wide- and often virtually connected- or networked: rather than sharing a life or space. This also means a society of lots of elderly people and young people and nothing in between.
In a consumerist culture, self-worth is often derived and determined by modes and brands of 'acquisitions' and consumptions. So 'brand-value' often becomes an indicator of 'self-worth'. When people consume-or acquire anything more to 'show off' their 'status' they cease to live for themselves and begin to live in their consumption. So in Kerala, people construct houses, buy cars, get the latest mobile phone- etc often for something else (as status consumptions) than the real use.
This new consumer materialism- partly fuelled by expatriated income- and related social and political churning created a shift in our literary, social and political culture. Hence, Kerala is going through a social and cultural transition with political ramification. There is a new social and political churning among many of communities in Kerala, particularly among the Muslim Communities in the last ten years. Hence, we see multiple response and shifts - and ambivalence. This new churning among Muslim community has created a new sense of confidence, and assertion to negotiate with the mainstream political, social and cultural process in Kerala- as well as a reactionary politics -fuelled by the neo-Conservative and well funded fundamentalist- religious networks of all sorts.
One thing is clear: Kerala is in the midst of a deeper social and political transition. Many of the prominent political actors in the stage would fade away faster than many of us may think
There are many symptoms of a larger issue of social, cultural and political transition of Kerala in the context of new consumer materialism- that came to define our society, culture and politics in multiple ways.
Kerala society jumped from Feudalism to Consumerism via Communism - all within a span of sixty years. Hence, our own social and political culture became a strange and confusing mix of feudal- left- and consumerist- all in one! Hence we come across 'secular-communalists’, ‘patriarchal-feminists, ‘communal communists’, ‘middle-aged social views and post-modern political views’, spiritual entrepreneurs and those who preach communism and practice capitalism; where every hartal is a celebration. And most consumed item is alcohol and most of the money is spent on constructing huge homes- where no one lives!
We in Kerala talk endlessly on 'resisting' imperialism and 'globalisation' and also flaunt our son and daughters working in MNCs or soft-ware giants. We hate Bill Gates and love Microsoft! We have a cultivated sense of anti-Americanism and our leaders jump at any invitation by any dick and harry to make a visit to 'study' or to 'collaborate'.
We also jumped from a predominantly agriculture - (primary sector economy) - to service sector (Tertiary sector) economy within a span of 40 years. We have moved rather fast from a rural based joint-family or networked-family social settings to nuclear and post-nuclear settings. Majority of our people moved from lower-middle class subsistence economy culture to a surplus bank balance - fuelled by expatriated income.
The migration culture of Malayalies in the last seventy years and the money and ideas they brought back to Kerala played a very key role in influencing the society and politics more than what is being generally being acknowledged. From the nineties onwards, Kerala society is more in a post-nuclear family mode- where the members of a family are dispersed far and wide- and often virtually connected- or networked: rather than sharing a life or space. This also means a society of lots of elderly people and young people and nothing in between.
In a consumerist culture, self-worth is often derived and determined by modes and brands of 'acquisitions' and consumptions. So 'brand-value' often becomes an indicator of 'self-worth'. When people consume-or acquire anything more to 'show off' their 'status' they cease to live for themselves and begin to live in their consumption. So in Kerala, people construct houses, buy cars, get the latest mobile phone- etc often for something else (as status consumptions) than the real use.
This new consumer materialism- partly fuelled by expatriated income- and related social and political churning created a shift in our literary, social and political culture. Hence, Kerala is going through a social and cultural transition with political ramification. There is a new social and political churning among many of communities in Kerala, particularly among the Muslim Communities in the last ten years. Hence, we see multiple response and shifts - and ambivalence. This new churning among Muslim community has created a new sense of confidence, and assertion to negotiate with the mainstream political, social and cultural process in Kerala- as well as a reactionary politics -fuelled by the neo-Conservative and well funded fundamentalist- religious networks of all sorts.
One thing is clear: Kerala is in the midst of a deeper social and political transition. Many of the prominent political actors in the stage would fade away faster than many of us may think
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)