“You are the salt of the Earth” : Towards Ecological Justice

John Samuel

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness , it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled up on”
Jesus ( Mathew 5:13)


“Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.
We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family”
Chief Seattle (approx. 1852)
A letter in response to a U.S. Government inquiry about buying tribal lands

We are face to face with an impending ecological crisis. As we finish the first decade of the 21st century , the planet and earth and the forces of nature are staring at us- with a sense of revenge.; revenge against the injustice of exploiting the earth, and all that belonged to the earth- in search of pleasures and profit. The impending ecological crisis raise profound moral questions about the choices and patterns of our life, development paradigm as well as about our universal responsibility to each other, earth and biosphere.

It is time to locate the real crisis of food and economy , within the context of the impending ecological crisis that can harm the very sustenance and future of the earth. The ongoing discussion and debates on global warming and climate change should help us to think beyond the immediate concern about technical negotiation of climate change to the larger ethical crisis that confront the very essence of humanity and human civilization. It is time to develop effective moral and political response based on a shared commitment to Ecological and planetary justice.


The issues related to Global Warming and Climate Change acquired a sense of urgency in the context of the ongoing negotiations in relation to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The ongoing discussions and debate on climate change has multiple subtexts of political economy, international politics and paradigm of development. Climate Change negotiation and discussions clearly brings out the unequal and unjust relationships between the rich countries in the global north and those countries- at the receiving end of the colonialism, extractive economic relationship and poverty. The discourse also signifies the ongoing economic and political tension between the rich countries and the emerging economies such as China and India, though it may not necessary in the interest of the large number of citizens in the respective countries.

Though everyone is concerned about the disastrous effect of the global warming, at the core of the climate change negotiation are the economic interests of the economic and political elites in rich and emerging countries. The sub-texts of climate change negotiations are the politics of technology, market, trade, economic growth and aid architecture. On the one hand rich countries are keen to capture the market for “green-technology” through the old trinity of aid, trade and debt. And on the other hand there is a concern that the emerging economies of China and India would further exasperate the climate vulnerability as well as the market potential of the rich countries.

The technical discussions and priorities on adaptation and mitigation are often a smoke screen for the underlying political economy of climate change. Mitigation in terms of clear commitment to quantifiable reduction of greenhouse gas emission and adaptation to meet the challenges of climate change should form the twin pillars of an effective response strategy. The rich countries and the respective civil society formations and aid agencies often give more stress to adaptation strategies in poor countries. This is important. However, advocacy for adaptation strategies in poor countries, without the necessary political pressure within the respective countries for quantifiable mitigation measures point out to the double speak even among the civil society actors in the global north.

While in the last twenty years new forms of disaster capitalism have emerged, there is indeed a possibility of the emergence of a new wave of Climate Capitalism- driven by new market for green technology, carbon-trading, technology transfers, adaptation funds etc. Multiple actors of the state, market and civil society are beginning to smell new opportunities of the emerging markets of “green technology”, adaptation funds and potential opportunities for economic growth. One the one hand poor communities and countries are at the receiving end of climate injustice, changing weather pattern, natural disasters, decreasing food production and unprecedented scarcity of water. On the other hand there is economic-development and consumption paradigm that undermines the very sustainability and bio-diversity of this planet. On the one hand there is a lot of talk about the disastrous effect of global warming. And on the other hand there is a fierce economic competition and political tussle between the rich and emerging countries to harvest on the anticipated Climate Capitalism. These dichotomies and paradoxes are at the core of the moral and ethical dilemma posed by the ongoing discourse on Climate Change.

Climate Change and natural disasters do not respect the territorial boundaries of the nation-states. Hence, it is important to locate the ongoing discourse beyond the narrow confines and interests of the nation-state to a moral and ethical plane of ecological and planetary justice. It is important to locate the discourse within the framework of human rights, and social and economic justice. The issue of global warming raises a deeper moral dilemma: Isn’t it immoral to promote an unsustainable consumption-based economic growth model that would make disastrous consequence to the coming generation as well as to very sustainability of the planet?. Without discussing the core problem of unsustainable and unjust consumption and economic growth model that survive on extractive relationship between the rich and poor countries and the rich people and earth, we can not have a morally viable discourse on the politics of global warming and climate change. The ethics and politics of climate change need to precede the economic calculus of climate change. Hence, it is all the more important to bring the issue of human rights and justice to the heart of the discourse on global warming.
.

Removal of injustice demands the advancing of justice. Hence it is time to talk about ecological and planetary justice. The root of justice is ethics. These ethical roots of Justice are to a large extent derived from the inter-faith legacies. Justice constitutes a set of moral conditions and choices to advance fairness through equality of human persons, human dignity, capability as well as universal human responsibility to each other and to the sustainability of bio-sphere and this planet.


Human rights are universal, indivisible and inalienable. Justice too is indivisible. The justice perspective precedes the human rights perspective in many ways. Regarding the right to food, we must consider both ecological justice and economic and social justice. These are indivisible. You cannot talk about one without the other. The issue of economic growth can not be discussed without understanding the historical and ecological injustice involved at the core of extractive power-relationships of colonialism, imperialism and exploitation. From the perspective of ecological justice, the impacts of climate change are unequal and unjust. Poor countries and poor people contribute least to the climate change and are affected most by the consequence of it. G8 countries create more than 40% of emissions. China and India will soon overtake the G8 countries in this respect. Poor people and island nations are already experiencing the adverse effects of variations in the weather patterns. Recently, millions of people in Philippines have been affected by tropical storms and flooding. We must be aware of these impacts and what it truly takes to mitigate them. The irony is that even the new enthusiasm of various conferences on climate change has a high carbon footprint. Many of us flew here for these discussions and we are staying in an air-conditioned hotel , eating imported food.


There is a profound irony in the ongoing development paradigm which is based on high energy intensive and carbon-emission technologies and life styles and at the same time trying finding solutions with the same problem. As long as we – our life styles, modes of transports and modes of consumption- are a part of the problem, how can we find a viable solution without altering the content and character of the development paradigm- that is still based on the industrial and extractive character of the modern capitalist model.



Interfaith Perspective on Ecological Justice.

Without discussing mode of living, modes of production, modes of consumption, modes of technology and modes of economic growth, how can we have any meaningful discussion on ecological and planetary justice? This deep paradox between the gap between the walk and talk, deeds and words, reality and aspiration raise the issue of moral vacuum within the mainstream climate change discourse

The interfaith perspective on justice and human rights would help to build a more ethical discourse .The idea of human dignity is the cornerstone of human rights and justice . The notion of human dignity can be traced to various ideas and experience of the divinity. In almost all religious and faith traditions one can see affirmation of human dignity as well as the idea of divine. In that sense human dignity can be seen as a reflection of the divine- a reflection of a universal ideal- omnipotent and omnipresent- beyond the time and space.

The bridge between dignity and divinity is the constant search for truth and freedom- a perennial source of human creativity and explorations. The ethical as well as existential link between human beings and nature signify an eternal planetary communion: a commitment to share the resources of nature- air, water, earth, trees, forests, rivers, hills, birds, animals and every expressions of life- the entire biodiversity and the living species. The notion of sharing is what makes communions an ethical act. This divine compact of planetary communion is violated and broken by the human greed to accumulate, acquire and subjugate.

The ethical act of sharing is displaced by the exploitative acts of extractive accumulation, subjugation and injustice. The violation of the compact of planetary communion between of all living specious is symptomatic of a moral crisis of the erosion of divinity as well as human dignity in human lives and choices.

When Bhagavad-Gita says “ Loko samstha Sukinobhavnthu”( let all in the world be well)- it reflects a primordial commitment and compact of planetary well-being and communion. Vedas and Upanishads clearly talk about the life-centric perspective- as distinct from an anthropo-centric world view. In the Mount Sermon when Jesus said “ You are the salt of the earth”( Mathew 5:13)- it was to remind us of the human responsibility towards the earth and other living specious. Salt is the metaphor of life, sustainability ,preservation, and shared resources- symbolizing the elemental and life constituting character of human responsibility .In Islam, Buddhism and all other faith traditions one can trace the same ethical assertion about the universal human responsibility. St. Francis of Assisi helped us to understand the divinity and spirituality in a sort of mystical unity of human beings with all the living species. In fact this ethical assertion of human responsibility is what makes justice and human rights eminent moral choices of our times.

An inclusive ethical commitment to the sustainability and well-being of all living specious is at the core of planetary justice: a part and parcel of universal human responsibility. Ecological justice is an expression of the universal moral human responsibility to all earth and all expression of life- on the land, in the water, in the air, and within the sea or on the tops of mountains

Food Sovereignty and Right to Food.

Among many, there are two immediate concerns in the context of the possible consequence of global warming and changing weather patterns- as a consequence of Climate Change. The first one is the increasing instance of various natural disasters- which may or may not have a direct connection with climate change. The second one is the issue of food sovereignty. More and more communities and countries are losing their food sovereignty. Food sovereignty indicates the ability and power to control and manages the sources and modes of production of the food, within a given community or country. Food sovereignty involves the right of people and community over land, water and forests – that would enable them to control the sources and means of production. There is a decrease in the food production, part in many countries, particularly among the small and marginal farmers. This has to do with the changing weather pattern and increasing take over of agriculture by the corporate monopolies and rich countries. There is an increasing trend towards corporatization of agriculture and take over millions of hectares of land in Africa- at the cost of the small and marginal farmers and food sovereignty of communities and countries


Along with air and water, food is the most important elemental necessity for every living specious and human beings to survive. Right to food is the first among the enabling rights of human beings. The fast changing weather pattern – potential result of climate change- affect food sovereignty and right to food of communities and countries.

Food sovereignty has been taken from producers and farmers by their own nation-states and then by huge corporations that monopolize technology. The modern notion of Power is related to the monopoly of technology and knowledge. Monopoly and control over Technology is often used to take control over the food production and resources. Such corporatization of agriculture, in the name of “food security” – and “green revolution” is hardly green. Such efforts take away the viability and sustainability of small and marginal farming. This also would eventually make food less available, accessible and affordable. And eventually many communities and countries will be dependent on big companies and markets for their food. The lack of control of food would undermine the human rights to food.

The adverse impacts of climate change on ecosystems also affect sovereignty over food production. Firstly, life cannot adapt as quickly as the climate is changing. We are experiencing unprecedented instances natural disasters. Don’t blame God. This is not an accident of history. This is our making and comes from unequal and unjust power relationships of extracting and exploiting natural resources: forests, water, marine resources and air . Food decreases due to changing weather patterns- untimely rain, decreased rainfall, and unusual drought . Secondly, desertification decreases the amount of arable land. Thirdly, migration from rural to urban areas increases due to lack of water, natural disasters and the unviability of small and medium farming.Urban poor across the world are environmental, economic and social refugees.

The urban-centric, energy-intensive economic growth model induces rural urban migration at unprecedented level and further accentuates the high carbon-emitting economic growth model. This on the one hand affects the food production and viability of sustainable agriculture in the rural areas and on the other hand increases unprecedented level of human density in the urban areas- with consequent pressure on environmental resources, demand for water and resultant pollution. The increasing number of urban slums and urban poverty poses new challenges to the idea of food sovereignty and ecological sustainability.


Mining factories in the rural hinterlands are emitting both carbon and poor people. Instead of addressing poverty, factories are in the business of displacing and killing the poor. Polluting factories and corporatized agriculture will displace millions of marginal farmers and excluded communities at the receiving end of the extractive economic development paradigm. While the rich people waste millions of tons of food, there are hundreds of millions people who go bed hungry every single day. This is unjust. This is a result of ecological as well as economic injustice.

Biofuel and agro fuel are also produced and monopolized by huge transnational corporations. Land is used for fuel and not for food. Monopoly of technology and economy leads to corporatization of land, which leads to disempowerment of people, poverty, and food crisis.

The question is not merely about how much food is produced, but who is producing it and how and where and for whom.


We are once again witnessing a repetition of colonial sins with the way food is produced and distributed. Some of the new “revolutions” to combat climate change and promote food security are also manifestations of new colonialism. Millions of hectares of land in Africa are taken over by rich companies and rich countries. The soc-called new green revolution in Africa- Advancing the Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) are promoted by some of the most powerful companies and countries of the world. While one may that we need to produce more food- one wonders whether such new corporatization of agriculture in Africa will further impoverish large majority of people experiencing hunger and injustice every single day. Apart from the question of how “green” are the proposed green revolution, there is a serious concern that in the proposed promise of food “security” – food sovereignty of the people of Africa and elsewhere will be compromised. As of now there is nothing much of “green” or “revolution” in the new search for monopoly control of natural resources and land in Africa.

The question is whether the “green’ revolution enriches the rich or enables the poor to have food on the plate. The new environmental and economic unviability of small and marginal farming also undermines the human dignity and human rights of farmers. Thousands of farmers in India committed suicide because their dignity is violated. Farmers are the most dignified people in the world. They produce with their mind, soul and body. A farmer would rather protect this dignity with his death than lose it through the dehumanization that comes with loss of control of production methods and the loss of food sovereignty. Pesticide resistance and patented crop varieties are among the many mechanisms that huge companies use to control production and ensure monopoly over nature. Yes, we need to produce more food. But who produces for whom , where and how do matter .

Sustainable and eco-friendly small scale agriculture and sustainable technology – are key to food sovereignty of impoverished communities and countries.
Food sovereignty of nations and people can only be realized by strengthening sustainable agriculture and protecting the right of small and marginal farmers to live in dignity. Governments must protect these without compromising the climate and environment.

The struggles for justice and human rights have to be at every level. Human right to food is non-negotiable. The adverse impact of climate change and corporatization of agriculture would undermine our right to food. We need to ask hard questions about the nature of consumption and the nature of economic growth model. Climate change is an issue of justice, as is food rights. A call to act for justice-ecological, economic and social- should precede the technical negotiations of climate change. If human dignity is rooted in divinity. The idea of divinity rooted in our search for truth. The truth is that there is something terribly wrong and immoral in the way exploit the beauty and bounty of the earth- all that what makes it a sustainable habitat for millions of living species. Such a truth should help us to be free- free to imagine different choices of life, consumption and living. A freedom that makes the earth and all in to sustain and thrive.


The time has come to rediscover ethical assertion by the Chief of Seattle at the dawn of modern civilization in the mid 19th century

“This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.”

(This is an expanded version of the key note presentation in the International Interfaith Consultation on Climate Change in Bangkok on October 1, 2009)

Raaga …

John Samuel


Music makes memories intimate.
Rekindles nostalgia,
Of unfolding worlds within,
And beyond.
Music makes a magic,
Of the breeze deep within.


A Raga of Bhimsen Joshi
Stirs up the intimate worlds.
And the gush of youthful memories..
Of Sawai Gandharv
Of festivals.
Of moonlit nights,
Of motorcycle rides..
Of a tree...in a starry night
Smell of a winter.
Anticipating a spring.

Discovering
Everyday – sunrise, noon, evenings and moon
Smell of burgi at GaneshKhind.
A fountain in a circle,
Days of sunny drizzle..
Of Music, Cinema, Poetry, Politics
And Love.

Getting Lost
Rediscovering again and again
Learning new pathways.
The raga of a dawn
Makes me smile.

Towards a Transformative Politics

John Samuel



What is Politics?

Politics is the dynamics and expressions of power relationships within and among human beings, society and institutions. Power is dynamic, relative, contextual and processeual. Power gets formalized in various institutional arenas- from family to the state. However, even formalized power may get in to different flux and expressions in different cultural and social contexts.

There are different locations, sources and process of power. Power can be expressed in poetry as well paintings; power also can be expressed through aggression and accumulation; through contestation and collaborations; through brutal war and lasting peace and through crimes as well as punishments. Such locations and sources are negotiated by contexts and culture. Locations and sources of power operate through language, resources, knowledge, technology, networks, and economy and above all human will to act and change a situation or condition. There are gentle as well as fierce expressions of power dynamics. Power can act horizontally, cyclically or vertically – depending on the context and institutional situation.

An understanding of the sources, dynamics and expression of power is important to understand and approach political process. Notions like “Power over”, Power with”, “Power to” and “Power within” help us to understand the multiple dimensions and process involved in politics. The most obvious and dominant form of organized Politics is based on the institutionalization of “power over”: power as a means to control, manipulate, dominate and even subjugate.

Such dominant modes of power operate through coercion or consent. When such coercive power construct consent – as ‘common-sense”- hegemonic power-relationships are formed in a society. In a modern and postmodern society such hegemonic power is managed and regulated by the State- by claiming both monopoly of and legitimacy to regulate power. Since State is expected to be the site of collaborations for managing the monopoly claims of power, those who have relative control over natural and economic resources tend to capture the state through either military might or majoritarian legitimation through the electoral politics. Though State makes a monopoly claim over statutory power – through “Rule of Law” and power over the “Law and order”, in reality the dominant modes of power get expressed and operated through the Military, Market and Media. This is precisely why those who control the State Power- seek to establish the legitimacy of their power through multiple negotiations and trade off with Military, Market and Media.

One has to understand and appreciate politics in plurality of process as well as expressions. This can only be done by decoding the institutional and institutionalized dimensions of power. There is politics of the State. Then there are other manifestations such as the politics of the people, politics of knowledge, politics of technology; politics of identity, geo-politics; national and international politics. Such manifestations of politics signify various institutionalization of power within a given space and time.

Personal too is political. There is politics in sex; politics of body; there is politics in rituals and religions and there is indeed politics in language. Politics operates in the bedroom, dining room, class rooms and board rooms. Every arena of human action has a power dimensions and relationships - and hence there is nothing which is apolitical. However, for the sake of analytical clarity, one has to make a distinction between micro-politics and macro-politics.

Micro and Macro-politics

Micro-politics is about the dynamics, locations and process of power-relations within family, immediate institutional or social community. Such micro-power relations get expressed through language, locations, attitude, behavior, knowledge as well as social and cultural legitimation process. Issues like gender, cast, race and religion operate actively at levels of individual , family level and community , through micro-politics. At an intimate level, micro-politics operates in terms of once choices and expression of sexuality as well as the experiences of pleasure and pain.

Micro-politics signifies the internalized genealogy and pathology of power. This is how over a period of time various gender roles are constructed to legitimize unequal and unjust power relations- in the structures and locations of family, religion and community. The most manifest form of micro-politics is the control over productive and reproductive sources. And this control is mostly expressed in terms of patriarchy that seeks to control women- as the most important reproductive source of life and living. Most of the unjust power-relationships codified in micro-politics of expected roles, and spaces- of body, life and life-worlds: in terms of rituals associated with birth, marriage and death. And in relation to sexual roles, pleasure and pains involved in orgasm- and sexual choices.

Social transformation requires intensive engagement with micro-politics- by challenging, changing, reforming and transforming to make it just and equitable. This involves changing language, attitude, behavior as well as spaces and expressions of power within the family and communities.

Macro-Politics is the dynamics of power-relationships among and between Institutions and institutionalized forms of power. Such institutions may include that of state, religion, market and civil society.

Institutions are expression of the grammar of power. By grammar I mean a formalized set of rules, norms and defined inter-linkages- legitimized by knowledge and norms. The modern paradigm of Macro-politics is mostly expressed in the power of the state, governments, governmentality and governance.

The nation-state derives its power from the legitimacy and legitmation of the constitution- with a claim of sovereignty and monopoly of power over a territory and people living in such a territory. Every constitution is constituted, through historical, knowledge, economic, social and cultural process- through various negotiations of power in all such spheres. The politics of the State is often the defining force of Macro-politics. Because the grammar of the power within and beyond a given nation-state determine the power-relationships in all other institutional arenas. The “statutory” legitimation process of market, civil society and religion are based on “regulation” of the power and politics of the state. Such constant negotiations and ‘regulations” of technology of power tend to create cultures of govermentality of power- in terms of legitimation, control as well as spaces.

The grammar of power- within micro and macro arena is often controlled by the institutionalization of knowledge, norms and historical and cultural ordering of life-worlds. This ordering of power is more often unequal and mostly unjust. Such unjust power-relationships get expressed through discrimination, deficit of dignity, exploitation, alienation and eventual dehumanization. So it is moral responsibility to humanize, deconstruct, decentralize and democratize power in all its forms and expressions.

Power can be an immense source of positive energy to create, to seek, to bridge, to build and to sustain. As a positive energy, power operates in an eternal cyclical interplay of “Shirsti” (creation) “Sthithi (sustenance) and Samhara. (destruction). And politics is everywhere- from bed room, to bath room, from class room to board room- in our taste-bud and language.- within our body and beyond. And human creativity and life involves the ability to learn and deal with power- in its million manifestations.



Towards Transformative Democratization

I am a proponent of the politics of transformative democratization: more of a political praxis that I have learned over a period time- through theorizing practice and practice that emerge out of a theory of change and world.

My politics is driven by a universal ethics- moral choices and value premises - informed by human dignity, equality, justice, responsibility to each other and the planet. It is informed and inspired by movements and struggles for economic, social, gender and ecological justice. My politics derives its moral legitimacy from various struggles and efforts to humanize the world- all through history- through care and love; through our creative and committed searches for making the world and planet a better place to live. My politics is about imaginative potential of human beings to influence and transform the world within them, around them and beyond- in constant search for freedom and justice. Democratization is at the core of it. Democratization can only happen when there is spaces for dissent as well dignity: spaces to protest as well to propose; spaces to imagine as well as innovate. Creativity, Community and Communication (through language and technology) are three aspect that make human different from animals. And democratization is a process to affirm and constantly rediscover the potential and possibilities of human creativity, community solidarity and communicative actions.



I tend to think that social and political transformation happen through a whole range of cumulative process for radical shifts as well reformist advocacy: through knowledge, language, technology, and institutions. Hence influencing of such cumulative process for reformation as well as radical shifts is key for transformative humanism and democracy.

Critiquing the institutionalized forms of power is the first step towards transforming the dynamics of power. Institutionalized and dominant forms of power tend to self-preserve through benign or malignant modes of tyranny and terror; coercion and consensus; and “common’ sense as well culture. If not constantly critiqued and challenged, all forms of institutionalized power can be oppressive, subjugating and dehumanizing. Hence, critiquing and transforming institutionalized power is an effort to resist dehumanization and relentlessly trying to humanize and democratize power.

This requires a combination of the politics of people, politics of knowledge, and politics of communication to challenge the dominating forms of power: whether it is the power of the state or power of the market or power of mafia.

My mission is to constantly work towards the humanization and democratization of structures and institutions of power through contestation, collaboration and cooperative action and communicative action - based on value of justice, freedom and equality of human persons. Such an approach seeks to bridge between the Ideal and Real. It may involve working in, working with and working beyond the institutionalized forms of power, without compromising the values of transformation.

I believe that every human action and institution needs to be historicized, problematised, politicized and democratized. Critical transformative approach involves consistent and constant critique of power and a commitment to challenge unjust power-relationship so as to humanize and democratize people, society, knowledge and institutions. Critical transformist approach to politics involves working within institution and working beyond institutions; such an approach involves resisting, engaging and persuading power-relationships to ensure justice as fairness and human dignity as the right to live in freedom.

There is a tendency of those in controlling the nodal locations of power to monopolize power- through claims of sovereignty. This monopolization of power to control natural, productive and reproductive resources, through ‘discipline” and promises of “security”, are at the root of unjust politics both in its micro and macro expressions.

So politics for me involves challenging and changing monopolization of power, and injustice that is inherent in such unequal and unjust power relationship. Politics for me challenging and changing unjust power-relationships to ensure a life of dignity, choices and freedom to all human beings. Politics for me is all about humanizing life-worlds as well quest for justice- towards sustainable, just and democratic society, governance and futures.

Politics for me is the democratization of power, knowledge, technology and language. Politics for me is the celebration of human dignity- through asserting and demanding human rights. Politics for me is to make change happen towards a just, sustainable, responsible world- without poverty and war. Politics for me is to fight injustice, exclusion, marginalization and dehumanization.

Politics for me is to take responsibility to imagine and suggest alternatives to unjust power-relationships. Politics for me is to imagine a utopia- a world without poverty and injustice where every person can live a life of dignity, freedom, enjoyment and responsibility. Politics for me is to listen to the voice of the last person. Politics for me is when every person can celebrate her/his dignity and right to dissent and development. Politics for me is to make market work for the people- not the other way around. Politics for is to accountability from all power-holders , State, Market and civil society. Politics for me is all about sovereignty of people- citizens- and the democratization of at levels of human action and institutions.

Politics for me is the courage of conviction to ensure sustainability of our planet, people, and eternal dreams for a joyful and justful world

Accountability Matters!

John Samuel

Accountability denotes the rights, responsibilities and duties that exist between people and various institutions that affect their lives. Accountability and legitimacy are two sides of the same coin. Lack of accountability will result in lack of political legitimacy. Lack of legitimacy will result in democratic deficit and the consequent abuse of power by decision makers and power-holders.

Democratic Accountability is both political and ethical. Accountability also denotes legal, social, economic and managerial aspects. Accountability is about answerability and enforceability. Answerability means the right to get information and clear response from any institutions or authority and the obligation of such institutions to provide information and response to such stake-holders. Enforceability denotes the capacity to ensure that a redressal is done or action is taken to correct a wrong action, wrong policy. Empowerment of people in terms of information, knowledge and mobilization is a prerequisite to demand any form of effective accountability.




From the perspective of democratic governance, people and citizens are the owners and the shapers of the State. The sovereignty of the Sate is derived from the sovereignty of the citizenship. Hence, all institutions of the state and governments are duty bound to be accountable to citizens. However, power is no longer the monopoly of the state or governments. Increasingly big transnational corporations, media, various public and private institutions, political parties, civil society formations and NGOs wield power and control resources and take actions and decision that affect the lives, choices and livelihood of people. Hence there has to be broader understanding, politics and ethics of accountability.

The big players in the markets like transnational corporations, big financial operators, including the banks and big media corporation increasingly tend to shape the boundaries of the state and lives and choices of the people. These unaccountable and powerful actors can become the biggest threat to Just and Democratic Governance in their quest for profit, unbridled free market, and accumulation of wealth and information.


Hence the notion of public accountability should ensure accountability of the state, governments and its institutions, corporate accountability, media accountability, accountability of the political parties and that of NGOs. All institutions and organisations that operate in the public sphere and market place need to be necessarily accountable to people, citizens and all stake holders.

One of the preconditions for Accountability is the Right to Information and political space and institutional mechanism to seek effective accountability from the various governmental, corporate, public and non-governmental institutions. Transparency, Accountability and legitimacy are interdependent conditions for any just and democratic form of governance. The exercise of any form of power or authority requires provisions for accountability to ensure that power or authority is not abused or used for self-interest of the few powerful. In many ways Autonomy and accountability are very much linked. More the autonomy, more the need for accountability.


It has been rightly pointed out by Held- Mathias that: “ Accountability refers to the fact that decision makers do not enjoy unlimited authority or autonomy but have to justify their action vis-a-visa affected parties or stake holders. These stake holders must be able to evaluate the actions of decision makers and to sanction them if their performance is poor or even removing from their positions of authority”

There are many innovative forms of seeking Accountability. The process of budget tracking, social audit, citizens’ tribunals, public hearings, people’s commission, and the monitoring of institutions of governance and public policies by citizens grouped proved to be effective means towards strengthening accountability.

There are multiple approaches to accountability. A typology of Accountability( adapting and strenthening the IDS versions) will help us to develop clear approaches and strategies to seek accountability in various arenas of power.

Political accountability

i) Consists of Checks and balances within the state including over delegated individuals in public offices responsible for carrying out specific tasks on behalf of people or citizens.

ii) The state provides an account of its actions, and consults citizens and stake holders prior to taking action in order to enforce rights and responsibilities.

iii) Mechanisms of political accountability can be both horizontal and vertical. The state can have its own horizontal mechanisms like, such as ombudsman, parliamentary audit committee, autonomous office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Citizens and Civil Society uses elections, court cases, public interest litigation or political mobilizations.

iv) Legal provisions and effective mechanism for Right to Information as well as information disclosure.

v) Regular and predictable space for citizen’s and people’s participating in the formulation and monitoring of budget.

vi) A new accountability framework for the Political Parties (as they hold enormous power in a democratic polity) to disclose their sources of income, expenditure and provisions to regulate corporate donations for political parties.

Social Accountability:

i) Focuses on people’s actions or civil society initiatives to hold state and its institutions of government to account for using social mobilization, people-centred advocacy, investigative reports, media advocacy, public hearings, social audits, reports card, and citizens’ tribunals.

ii) Addresses such issues such as human rights violations, security of people, judicial autonomy, and access to justice, electoral frauds and corruptions at various levels.

iii) Seeks to expand social and political spaces to seek accountability from Corporate Houses, Media and other powerful actors.

iv) Demands accountability from powerful financial institutions, including all International Financial Institutions such as World Bank, to be accountable, transparent and responsive to the communities where their projects are implemented and to people at large.

v) Seeks to strengthen the accountability mechanism and transparency measures of civil society organisations, NGOs and all such institutions in the public space.

Ethical Accountability

i) Stresses accountability to a certain systems of values within democratic principles as well as values of Justice, equity and Freedom. Ethical accountability has both personal and institutional dimension and scope beyond the conventional territories of the nation-state.

ii) This also means Powerful countries are not only accountable to the people or ‘demos’ of their respective country. They are also accountable to the people of countries affected by the actions of such governments. In this way, the United States should be ethically and socially accountable to the people of Iraq, and Afghanistan who are at the receiving end of military aggressions and conflicts perpetuated for the sake of maintaining the global military hegemony.

iii) It also focuses on seeking accountability of Business Corporation who seeks to monopolize agriculture and food products and those who are in the business of making various kinds of medicine and drugs and research in biotechnology or patenting of life forms. This has deep moral implications beyond one country or people. Hence ethical limits to market monopoly and efforts to regulate such corporations and make them accountable to this and coming generations can be a part of ethical accountability.

iv) Inter-generational accountability in terms of environment and climate change. This includes personal accountability to values of sustainable consumptions, less carbon emissions and accountability to peoples and generations who will be affected by our own individual and societal action, consumptions and behaviors.
v) Includes ethical accountability in terms of attitude, behavior and language to ensure dignity and respect for women, ethnic, religious or racial minorities and resisting all forms of discrimination based on gender, race, language, cast or ethnicity.

Managerial Accountability;

i) Focuses on financial accounting and reporting, system accountability within state institutions, judged according to agreed performance criteria

ii) Regular Auditing , appraisals and systems to ensure internal management integrity and effective and efficient use of financial and management resources

iii) New forms of accountability such as environmental and social audits

iv) Disclosure of the sources of income, expenditure and management principle in a predictable and systematic manner. Managerial accountabilities are often upward accountability. However, increasingly notions of horizontal accountability and downward accountability are recognized.


As accountability is a function of power relations, it is important to identify and expand the spaces and processes of power in each context. This requires legal provisions, constitutional guarantees, social mobilization, information and knowledge as well as the innovative use of media, technology, internet as well as social and policy research. As the power in the international arena and global space are increasing appropriated by the big transnational corporations, operators in the international finance market, and International Finance Institutions (IFI), there is a real challenge to seek accountability and transparency from these organisations.

Weighed voting at the World Bank and IMF means greater control and power by few rich countries in the global north. Though the World Bank and IMF claim that they are accountable to their stake holders and they are relatively better transparent in terms of information disclosure and they have Inspectional Panel and Evaluation agencies, these organisations are far from being democratically accountable and often they become the handmaiden of the rich countries and the business interest of the rich and powerful corporations.

The role of International and National NGOs and Civil Society organisations have increased significantly both in terms of resources, network, knowledge, discourse as well as the power of influencing. These institutions and organisations function in the public sphere and most of them work on behalf of the poor and marginalized people. Hence they are public institutions and depend largely on the financial support from people or from the tax payer’s money through bilateral funding. Hence, there is an urgent need for NGOs and all Civil Society Organisation to ensure effective, transparent and accountable management. Public accountability will be a prerequisite for the moral and political legitimacy of NGOs. Without moral and political legitimacy, NGOs will have less credibility or power to influence the policy and decision makers to be accountable, just or democratic.

A vibrant and accountable political party system is very crucial for sustaining the democratic system of governance. There is indeed a link between the health and maturity of the political party systems and the state of governance in a given country. One of the key challenges for democratic accountability is the marketisation of political parties and media.

Political parties have been increasingly reduced to electoral network or instrumental mechanism to capture the State power. Politics itself has been reduced to a media exercise played by powerful nexus of political elites and media elites, often negotiated or controlled by the corporate interests of the marker forces. In many parts of the world political party system is becoming increasingly made redundant by an unholy alliance of political-corporate- media elites. This is also because of the fact that political parties and elections are more and more shaped by the corporate donations and kick backs by vested interest groups and business corporations. As a result political parties are less based on ideological or moral conviction and more by competing interests among the market elites. The crisis in political parties and its leadership signifies a crisis to the very ideal of democracy and democratization.

Hence, there is indeed a need to work towards a new ethical and political accountability framework for political party leaders and political party institutions. When political parties themselves become business enterprises in the electoral market, the very moral fiber of democratic accountability is in peril.

It is important to revitalize and reinvent the political party System with courage of conviction and deep commitment to democratic accountability. That is why we need a broader movement to rediscover a new politics and ethics of accountability in the public sphere as well as private sphere.

Women’s Rights and spaces in Kerala

John Samuel


There is indeed a whole range of issues related to gender, women's political participation, space and voice in Kerala. But I also think there is increasing awareness and discussion on these issues in Kerala, in relation to many other states.

In spite of relatively better human development index and gender development index of Kerala, there is indeed a real question about the entrenched patriarchy and less space for women' voice in the political party process, public debates and discussions.

This paradox of gender "development" index and the relative lack of women's empowerment in Kerala need to be discussed and understood. There are a number of paradoxes, contradictions and tension - operating in Kerala society (and that is also the case with almost all other societies.)

The paradox of ‘empowerment’ and ‘space’ is one among them. In spite of having one of the biggest percentage of highly ‘qualified’ or ‘educated’ women in Kerala, there is relatively less space in the leadership roles, articulate voices and empowered roles within the public and private spaces. The fact that such issues are discussed is also the beginning of a change process. Such a process of transformation requires more affirmative action and more active political participation of women in all arena- in academics, politics, media, and social action.

The first thing women and men will have to fight is an entrenched sense of cynicism.
It is important for enlightened and educated women and men to work together to expand the quantity and quality of those spaces. It is important to participate and shape the discussions elsewhere. When we begin to believe in change, change begins to unfold within us and beyond us.

There is nothing like a homogeneous category of ‘women’ or ‘men’- beyond their physical/biological differences. Multiple identities are as much operational among women as much as among men- class, cast, religion, locality, sexual orientation etc.

Both women and men can be perpetrators of patriarchy. In fact, many such values may be perpetuated by women- partly because of the internalized sense of ‘norms’ constructed and made almost pathological over a period of time.

Just because a woman is part of a reactionary, or fundamentalist or established power structure does not necessarily make such structures and processes less patriarchal. Almost all women leaders in South Asia are the torchbearers of a set of conservative values -- and not expressions of feminist politics-- by any stretch of imagination.



I wonder whether the kind of trend of growing fundamentalism is specific to one gender- women. In fact, the "patriarchal" power is perpetuated by the men - who control religious establishment, consumer stores and institutions of spirituality and religion. It seems there is nothing new in the fact that women seem to be more in to "bhakti" mode or more manifestly religious or spiritual. This also may have to do with ‘family' behavioral pattern (again perpetuated by a patriarchy). And there is nothing new about the trend- about relatively more spiritual/religious inclination among women. This aspect requires more serious research in relation to the constructed roles of gender in different societies and its relation to "cultural", "spiritual" "creative", "reproductive" and "fertility" etc.

There is indeed a revival of religion- in its conservative as well as consumerist avatars. And this new revival of religion - in institutional, political and market varieties- is a larger trend. So how can one link this only with "gender"- or say that "why women are like that?" Of course, we tend to see what we look for.

The new revival of religion- and "spiritual" customer-care oriented new market approach has a lot to do with new sense of alienation and insecurity - in the midst of economic growth, increasing disintegration of community/family spaces, saturation of "secular" dreams, and increasing sense of social, economic and political insecurity, as well as political reactions to perceived sense of marginalization, exclusion etc. So it is nothing peculiar to Kerala. This is happening all over Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia, Europe and the USA.

The new revivalism is also partly a reactionary response to and partly a byproduct of aggressive economic globalization. These days there are many "drive in Churches"- very customer-care oriented, well-marketed, no-strings attached- of course one is expected to pay for a well-organized/managed "Sunday" service. There is no-community or real communion. They are the new service providers in a new market place- because there is new demand for a particularly packaged "psycho-comfort," "feel-good" product- available, accessible and affordable.

We need serious discussions and explorations about the "gender spaces" in Kerala. We need to explore the apparent dichotomies and tensions of such gender-power relationship in the ‘public’, ‘private’ and ‘intimate’ spaces. There are serious contradictions in Kerala between the perceived ‘empowerment’ of women- taking the social development and gender-development indicators and real ‘disempowerment’- particularly in the private spaces of family and ‘intimate’ spaces of bedrooms, though seemingly ‘empowered’ in the public sphere.



This also may have to be done by challenging our own personal attitude, behavior and communication. It is true many of men (including me) tend to be arrogant and argumentative in our communication- without enough patience or grace to listen to the perspective and perception. Many may find the aggressive argumentative mode of communication (which many of us men are used to) as a sort of masculine behavior. At a personal level, it is indeed a struggle to challenge and change our default mode of aggressive mode of arguments and modes of communication. I hope we all can continue to challenge and change ourselves at the personal and societal level.

Though there are some discussions in the Kerala on issues related to women's space and empowerment and the entrenched patriarchy, I think Kerala society has to go a long way in terms of recognizing and addressing the issue of women's space and empowerment -at all levels.


( This is a part of my discussions on women's rights in the Fourth Estate e-mail discussion group- moderated from Kerala. I would like to thank my partner Dr. Bina Thomas and my friend Mr.NP Chekkutty, senior journalist, for stimulating and compiling the discussions on women's rights in Kerala)

On Leadership and Organizational Culture

John Samuel



The quality of an organization- its culture, its over-all character- is to a large extent influenced by the quality of its leadership models. Many institutions unconsciously tend to imitate the leader in terms of culture, character and leadership styles. The character of Leadership can be contagious in a positive as well as negative sense.

Confident leader will induce a confident organization. Insecure leader can induce an insecure organization.

Insecure leaders and organization can also develop an acute sense of paranoia; a derivative of "self-doubt"-and internal crisis of conviction. When a leader or an organization suffers from "self-doubt"- or credibility-deficit, they tend to externalize a problem. They will not take the responsibility for their leadership gaps and the consequent crisis within an organization. Usually insecure leaders tend to find fault with others, external factors rather than taking responsibility by themselves. They tend to correct others and less inclined to introspect or correct themselves.


Any one in leadership positions in any organization will have to be aware of one slippery road. Once your are in a position of power within the hierarchy of an organization, most of the people will tell you what you want to hear. Once you get in to that mode, slowly there will be more and more people around you, telling what you want to hear. Gradually only those people who say what you want to hear- will be around you. That is how coteries are being formed. They will tell you that you are the most fantastic leader they have ever "experienced". - They will use "superlative' to tell more and more lies about you to make you happy. Who does not like to be flattered? Who does not like praises?

Such coteries will keep “alerting” you about impending dangers, problems, about lurking trouble makers or about those who are not loyal. Coteries create a power-grid around the leader- to derive power for themselves. Coteries are usually formed by those who do not have their own steam or capacity and they derive their power through their perceived proximity to the leader. And those insecure leaders who cultivate and nurture a coteries around her/him need them to boost her/his sense of confidence and to guard against their perpetual fear about those who may try to undermine them. Eventually the coterie becomes an insulation around the leader- and the leader begins to lose touch with the pulse of an organization or the real issues within the organization. That is the beginning of the down fall of those who are in the leadership.

Usually those leaders with the courage of conviction and ability to rise above the rest will not cultivate or encourage coteries or partisan groups within the organization.

But those who get in to the trap of coterie will never “grow- within”. To grow- “within’- one has to constantly outgrow oneself. And one can not outgrow oneself if someone does not challenge oneself- constantly and consistently. Unless one keeps challenge oneself, one can not grow. Unless one begins to learn to listen, to be challenged and learn to absorb and manage them, one can not outgrow oneself. Unless one constantly learn and unlearn, one can not nurture her/his leadership quality.

Leadership is all about Integrity, Imagination, Ideas and Influence. Leadership is all about the ability to learn, listen, advance, enable, renew, and synergize. Leadership is all about the capacity and confidence to be honest, to initiate, to innovate and to inspire. Finally good leadership is driven by deep sense of people and purpose. The corner stone of good leadership is a sense of integrity, fair-play and courage of conviction. Leadership is also the ability to manage people, resources, and systems to make the best impact. Those with good leadership skills and capacity can become good managers. Those with managerial capacity do not have to be necessarily leaders or those endowed with high leadership qualities.

Managers are those with ability to make the best use of available resources in an effective and efficient way to get the best desired output or out-come. Managers are often driven by their task and targets within a given point in time. Good managers can optimize the use of people, and systems through plans, process and performance. Leadership requires the ability to inspire, envision and conceptualize strategies much larger than a given task or target or an operation. Leadership requires an ability to see the big picture and small picture at the same time.


An ethical and empowered leadership means enabling a creative, learning and confident culture with in the organization- through walking the talk and consistently bridging the gap between words and deeds. This also means the ability to be challenged and challenge – in an enabling manner. Such leaders will encourage colleagues to be frank and honest about their perception and perspective.

One of my most respected colleagues was the one who asked tough questions to me; the more he questioned, the more I learned- the more I listened to him, the more I learned. And when he realized that the more I learned, the more he supported and respected me. In the course I learned something I was less inclined to: Financial Management.

How does a leader derives power? What are the sources of power within a leader?

It matters weather a leader derives a sense of "power" from deep "within: - (from his or her sense of mission or calling) or from the positions he/she occupies in the organization

Many who derive power from "positions" tend to exert "power over"- through 'control' and 'manipulations. Their "empowerment" is directly proportional to the position they climb. When such people are internally insecure -emotionally insecure, they may even have 'self-worth" issue. When someone is internally insecure, they will begin to suspect many people who are smarter than them; who are more competent than them, who may be more recognized by the peers than them. Then they need a coterie to keep them float. They will use power over others to dictate, to discipline and to control. Those who manage a team through dictation, discipline and control will not induce a sense of ownership and consequent sense of creativity.
Such leaders may be able to “deliver” a project efficiently – but they will not be able to make change happen or to make path-breaking innovation within an organization.

Such people want to climb the ladder somehow- and since they may not have their "steam"- they derive it from those in positions of power. Those who get power- through loyalty or through "patrons"- also tend to cultivate "loyalty" and a coterie. They need a "coterie" to get a sense of power- because internally they are neither inspired nor empowered.

Loyalty is demanded. Commitment is committed. Commitment requires conviction.

In the case of "loyalty"- the agency is with someone more powerful. The more powerful may demand loyalty from the less powerful.

Those leaders and organization that demand "absolute" loyalty are those who are perpetually "insecure" about themselves- and they need "loyalists" - to sooth them- to tell them what they want to hear. Those who question or challenge the leader will be seen as someone who is less loyal to the leader and those are seen as less loyal to the leader will be projected as those who have less loyalty to the organization. Insecure leaders also induce insecurity all around. Such a sense of insecurity can create an organization consisting of people driven by a sense of “fear” and “punishment”. If the overall culture of an organization is that of mistrust, fear and insecurity, that organization will be a less effective organization and if such an organizational culture prevails, decay and degeneration sets in and the very organization itself may collapse or fade away.

Unlike loyalty, "commitment" is a choice made by a person out her/his own conviction- with a sense of freedom.

Good leadership thrives on challenges within and beyond. Without people challenging them, probing them, questioning them - there is no excitement. And if they are confident, they will induce confidence. The entire organizational culture will become positive, energetic and confident.

Confident leaders will recruit people smarter than them- better than them. A good leader is as good as her/his team. And one can only make creative team when you get the best of people- better than the leader in many ways. Smart leader takes smarter people. When you are surrounded by a creative, committed and competent team- the creative instincts and the learning curve of the leader keep moving to a higher plain- someone with an ability to see the big picture.

Someone whith high leadership quality will have greater instincts to understand and perceive a situation, a group of people and crisis, in much sharper and quicker way. They can understand the individual psychology of a person and the social psychology of the group. Such leaders will have a sense of critical self-awareness.: aware about their own strengths and limitation, opportunities and threat. Such leaders with critical self-awareness will constantly seek feedback from colleagues. They are not afraid to make mistakes and admit a mistake. They are not averse to take risk. They are keen to share credit with others.

A leader with highly evolved leadership quality can rise above the rest and see the things others can not see. Someone who can see the same issue from various angles. Some one who can see the sky and earth at the same time. A good leader is someone whose feet are firmly on the ground and eyes seeks to go beyond the horizon. Someone in a constant mode of learning and listening begin to develop instincts and wisdom to see the unseen, to hear the unheard, to feel the ripples and make the waves. Such leadership will be intuitive enough about the future to shape and make future.

Inspired leaders will induce inspiration. If they are honest with themselves, they will induce people to be honest about their perception. Good leaders can induce positive energy- and once people learn that they can share their perception and feeling honestly- without fear or favor, then the magic happens. Everyone get energized because everyone begins to feel this is "my organization"; this ‘our’ cause- and I too have space and freedom.

The moment people have sense of space and freedom- they take initiatives, they begin to innovate, they begin to create. A good leader is someone who can induce a sense of space, freedom and ownership to each and every person in the team, treating every person as unique. An organizational culture that nurtures a sense of freedom from fear and freedom of expression can become a creative organization.
A creative organization can do wonders. Good leaders are those who can nurture leadership and leaders. The sign of great leader is not how or she is competent or charismatic. The sign of a great leader is how many leaders he/she helped to create. Someone with high quality leadership can simply outgrow herself/himself and move on to new arenas of learning and new sources of challenges. When they outperform themselves, they become redundant within an organization. Such leaders will soon outgrow the organization itself to become the leadership of a the whole sector or the larger society itself.

When the leader gives full credit to the individuals and team- they begin to transform together- and they enjoy mutual critiquing- as friends. Then the most creative discussions and ideas come through fierce arguments and endless debates in a pub or park. They thrive on arguments – and not on submissions.

A good leader will be empathetic, enabling, educative, empowering and enduring.
That is the magic of good organization- a magic of leadership willing to listen and learn; a leader who is slightly skeptical about his/her own ideas- someone who search for the best of ideas from anyone and anywhere- willing to learn constantly. Their enthusiasm and energy can radiate across the organization. They do not need any coterie- because they are driven by a sense of mission much larger than them.

When leaders have a sense of history and purpose larger than them- they know they are actually simple human beings- with feet of clay. Then they know how much they do not know. They should be able to laugh at themselves. When someone say “Sir/Madam you were not in element" or say" your lecture was boring"- they can laugh at themselves and say "Thank you for your feedback. I will try next time”

When we have sense of how much we do not know, then we begin to learn. And leadership is all about learning... from every single person and occasion...endless learning, unlearning, reflection and reworking- constantly thinking and acting....driven beyond the immediate interest, immediate criticism or immediate "loyalists”

Unfortunately in most of the organizations, there are more bureaucrats- and less leaders- with inspired leadership qualities.

Bureaucratic leaders derive power from their appointment letter, those who above them- from their chair. Without their chair, they become zero. So they self-preserve- somehow. There are indeed many good and sincere bureaucrats within organizations- those who go by the books, those with integrity. But they are a product of a structure and system. - not the vehicle for a larger mission- much larger than the person.


(This is a part of my interventions in a discussion on Modes of organizations and power in the Fourth-Estate Critique – an e-mail discussion groups moderated from Kerala, India. I thank my friend Mr. Damodar Prasad of CDIT, Trivandrum for stimulating this reflection largely based on my twenty years of experience in leading and managing organizations and team)

What Constitutes Knowledge?

John Samuel


What constitutes "knowledge"? What and how "knowledge" is generated require more explorations and discussions.

During various periods of history, there have been privileged paradigms of "thought process" "analytical modes" of thinking and expressions. How "knowledge" get constituted, generated, documented and conveyed, need to be understood from a historical, linguistic, technological and political perspective.

For example, stories, parables and poetry ( Jathaka Kathas to one line Taoist sayings to biblical parables) were also means of expressing knowledge at a given point in time. Alchemy was also a knowledge process at one point in time. So was theology. Many of the religious rituals also might t have had a knowledge-constituting function. A novel like Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov may give us more insights, illuminations and understanding than a well-argued and academically valued book on Existentialism, Human Behaviour and personality types.

So "critical thinking"( and critical theory etc) are only one of the many modes of thinking. Knowledge get constituted through language, communities, communications, signs, symbols as well through socialization. Various modes of thinking and expressions of such thinking can be involved in such process. The old carpenter could easily find the "sthanam" or "location" for a well and a house, without the aid of any modern technology or “formal knowledge”. His modes of thinking and expressions of thinking and technology may be different from that of a formally trained water-engineer.- who would use 'scientific" tools to understand "water-table" etc

Our own "privileged" notions of what constitute knowledge may be because of particular Institutional acculturation, 'disciplines", and socialization of knowledge through the modes and modules of "education" many of us have gone through. It may also because of our own preoccupations with the credentials, degrees, skills and language competence

. To a large extent we see what we are trained to see, what we are "socialized" to see, what we are "used" to "seeing" and "reading". We all may have delusions about our own "knowledge" and "competence"- because we are all "products" of particular institutional model of "education" and "knowledge process". It is also because of a particular "disciplinary legitimation'
. For example, for someone publishing a paper in the Economic and Political Weekly( EPW) is seen as signifier of "knowledge generation". For some other's it may be something else. This is also that we have our own "received" notions about who is an "intellectual" or who is a "scientist" or who is an "expert" etc- due to specific forms of legitimation and institutionalized power in various arena and domains of knowledge process.

One of my relatives is a top-rate mechanic- a school drop out. He has deep "critical" understanding and "knowledge" of what will work and what will not work and how to make an Ashok Leyland truck run in the top conditions. His cumulative understanding and knowledge of repairing - around 10 thousand vehicles a year- is amazing. I am almost sure that it is better than a top-end automobile engineer (who got a formal systematized knowledge- acquired in a particular manner).

The only difference is that modes of acquisition and modes of expressions of such knowledge are very different from each other. While the society at a given point in time "legitimize" on form of knowledge because of the received “statuses, other forms and modes of knowledge generation in every day world get ignored.

( This is a part of a discussion on Media and Knowledge in the Fourth Estate Critique – an active google discussion forum moderated from Kerala, India)