Figure this. "Only Don Lucchesi can reach between these two worlds". "Italian politics have had these kind of men for centuries." Says Al Pacino in Godfather III, "They're, the true Mafia." On the other extreme, Indian media has trivialised this term by labelling every petty criminal, small time hoods, bluff issuers as mafia. So we have today, terms doing rounds in media - coal mafia, wood mafia, video (piracy) mafia, timber mafia, land mafia blah blah. Worse, the title of Don is a commonplace adjective attached to every tom, dick and harry of this 'mafia'. Perhaps, no other term is as grossly misused as this 5 letter word. It is worth looking into what the term exactly stand for, the true meaning of the mafia.
The term, in normal meaning, applies to Sicilian mafia or the Cosa Nostra (our thing). It was meant to be a kind of organized crime being active not only in several illegal fields, but also tending to exercise sovereignty functions – normally belonging to public authorities – over a specific territory. The word "mafia" is taken from the old Sicilian adjective mafiusu, which has its roots in the Arabic mahjas, meaning "sanctuary" (source Mario Puzo's The Sicilian). Sicilian ethnographer Giuseppe Pitre claims "Mafia is the consciousness of one's own worth, the exaggerated concept of individual force as the sole arbiter of every conflict, of every clash of interests or ideas."
Banditry and murder had been fairly commonplace since the Middle Ages but the Mafia has existed as a loose network of local criminals only since the early years of the nineteenth century. Like the nobility, its roots are feudal. From humble rustic origins, not unlike those of Japan's Yakuza, and with its own equally fanciful rites and mythology, the Mafia developed largely as a result of Sicilian social conditions. Despite some charming stories of a medieval origin in secretive sects such as the legendary Beati Paoli, there is no evidence to suggest that the Mafia existed as a hierarchical organization until the latter decades of the eighteenth century. With the abolition of feudalism, it became all the more necessary to control baronial interests through coercion, for with the abrogation of feudal taxes came higher rents. But by the 1850s it was clear that the mafiosi would also represent the interests of an ordinary farmer or tradesman who paid them well to settle a score or reconcile a perceived injustice, giving the popular perception of mafiosi as "Robin Hoods" or even "knights." From being "friends of the friends," the more important mafiosi soon came to be known as "men of honour." In truth, the Mafia code is the antithesis of the code of chivalry, or at least a bizarre interpretation. Many Sicilians' clannish nature, and their instinctive dislike for inconsistent law enforcement and a repressive hereditary aristocracy, created a favorable climate for the mafia.
Another fascinating link to mafia is how and from whom they themselves trace their origin and also consider the greatest amongst themselves. I was astonished when I first stumbled on his name - Alexander Borgia, more popularly, Pope Alexander VI. He was the father (please note, Pope being father) of a man of no ordinary talents - Cesare Borgia, the hero of Nicolo Machiavelli's 'The Prince' and had briefly employed Leonardo da Vinci as military architect and engineer. (source Mario Puzo's The Family)
Giuseppe Esposito was the first known Sicilian Mafia member to emigrate to the United States. Mafia activities, restricted until 1920, exploded because of the introduction of the prohibition. Al Capone's Syndicate in 1920s ruled Chicago. By the end of the 1920s, two factions of organized crime had emerged, causing the Castellamarese war for control of organized crime in New York City. With the murder of Joseph Masseria, the leader of one of the factions, the war ended uniting the two sides back into one organization now dubbed Cosa Nostra. Salvatore Maranzano, the first leader of American Mafia, was himself murdered within six months and Charles "Lucky" Luciano became the new leader. Maranzano had established the code of conduct for the organization, set up the "family" divisions and structure, and established procedures for resolving disputes. Luciano set up the "Commission" to rule their activities.
The period also saw rise of non-Sicilian gangsters as well, like Arnold Rothstein (the original Big B or Big Banker) famous for baseball's Black Sox scandal where he fixed the 1919 series. Luciano is considered the father of modern organized crime and the mastermind of the massive postwar expansion of the international heroin trade. Mafia, or Cosa Nostra, exists even today in US, inspite its biggest name since Luciano, John Gotti getting arrested few years back. (source: Gotti, an HBO original movie)
So the next time this word is used, it needs to be understood that mafia rarely operates in the realm of legality, it operates in the realm of sovereignty. A more careful usage of this word would be appropriate.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Lalu ji ki Chuk Chuk Gaadi
Lalu Yadav's new innings as the Railway Minister has seen a complete transformation of his image as well as the image of Indian Railways. The Indian Express carried out study on this (http://www.indianexpress.com/story/9023.html) and found the turnaround to be real, beyond-mere-restructuring and has indeed been led by Lalu. No wonder students from IIM-A, Harvard and Wharton listen when he speaks. But for a man who was at the helm of Bihar for 15 years and still could not provide basic governance and maintain law and order there, the question becomes too obvious - what has he done?
Not long ago, in 2001, Indian Railways was declared to be 'heading towards bankruptcy' by the Expert Group on Indian Railways(the Rakesh Mohan Committee). And today, it stands as the second largest profit making Public Sector Undertaking after ONGC. The Railway's balance crossed Rs.12,000 crores in 2005-06, (from Rs.149 crores in 1990-2000) and the total investments being planned for the eight-year time frame (2007-2015) is tentatively in the order of Rs.350,000 crores. This turnaround in two years has coincided with Lalu Prasad Yadav being at the helm of affairs. As a recognition of this ‘turnaround,’ some of the world’s biggest asset managers, investment bankers and consultants including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Mckinsey etc have shown interest in working with Indian Railways. The essence of the ‘turnaround’ was in the fact that
(i) total revenues increased by a significant percentage in the last two years and
(ii) the net revenues continued a robust upward move.
Without getting into figures, almost all segments have shown growth - goods, passenger, parcel, catering, advertising - everything.
The brightest segment is of goods - a combination of increased loading (as for coal, cement) and increasing rate by change of classification of raw material (as iron ore) has done the trick here. It is important to note that while the public perception had been that there was no tariff increase, iron ore etc. had been subject to tariff increases by revision of classification. Taking the case of iron ore for exports, a maximum of Rs 277 crores (current yield multiplied by the increase in traffic) out of the increase of Rs 733 crores was attributable to the increase in loading. Some of the extra income may be attributed to
(i) busy route surcharges, (ii) busy season surcharges and (iii) priority allotment of rakes for willingness to pay at two classes higher. A whole host of schemes have been put in place to attract the freight customer, since July 2005. These include mini rakes for the small customer, volume discounts for the large customer, lean season discount scheme, long term freight incentive scheme, loyalty discount scheme, discounts for providing traffic in the empty direction, incentives at terminals like engine on load and construction of sidings, wagon investment scheme etc.
In the passenger segment, a reduction of one rupee was offered in the second class ordinary fare, 10% in AC-II and 18% in AC-I. However, there has been increase in cancellation charges, more trains being made superfast with a reduction in time and thus imposing a superfast charge, booking tickets from an origin different from the place of reservation, separation of tickets if a through a journey involved more than one train or a break of journey – thus not offering the telescopic benefits (the last charge has since been withdrawn).
The tatkal scheme, targeted at the ‘last minute’ passenger was extended first from one day to three days and then to five days. This offered a window of opportunity to increase earnings through differential pricing, based on the time of booking. Outsourcing in catering through the IRCTC was a major initiative, which received increased attention during the past two years.
Underlying all this was the strategy of increasing asset utilisation.
More significantly, in the past two years, the approach to freight tariffs has recognised the market scenario and price elasticity of demand where in
(i) Railway has a competitive advantage in the generally ‘low rated’ bulk raw materials and can afford higher rates and (ii) it faces tough competition in the generally ‘high rated’ finished goods and cannot afford higher rates.
On the tariff strategy, it is important that the stance that tariffs have not been increased be underplayed, since tariffs have actually been increased, and significantly so in the case of iron ore, by reclassification. The Railway Board had taken a decision in early May 2004 to increase the chargeable carrying capacity (CC) to CC+2 for all commodities loaded in BOXN/BOXNHS wagons. As per section 72 of the Indian Railways’ Act 1989, the maximum CC for wagons had to be fixed by the Central Government and hence the approval of the Railway Ministry was required. Initially, there was resistance from the engineering department, fearing implications on track and bridges, and consequently on safety. A consistency of direction from the Ministry got the initiative going. Similarly, the initiative on providing automatic upgrades to passengers was initially resisted as a loss making proposition. Again, consistency of direction from the Ministry got the initiative going. All major policy initiatives require the Rail Minister’s approval. Hence the role of the Ministry vis-à-vis the Board became critical.
Initiatives of market oriented tariffs, asset utilization and competition in container movement are attributable to Mr Lalu Prasad. Non interference with Railway Board has done the trick for him. “Downsizing may make thinner, but not necessarily healthier” has been his answer to all those asking for downsizing Indian Railways - Regenerate competitiveness and leverage resources rather than restructure and downsize. He believed in instilling hope and excitement rather than fear and anxiety. The vital question is whether the strategies and processes are sustainable ? Only time will tell. Till then, its bravo Lalu and team !!
Not long ago, in 2001, Indian Railways was declared to be 'heading towards bankruptcy' by the Expert Group on Indian Railways(the Rakesh Mohan Committee). And today, it stands as the second largest profit making Public Sector Undertaking after ONGC. The Railway's balance crossed Rs.12,000 crores in 2005-06, (from Rs.149 crores in 1990-2000) and the total investments being planned for the eight-year time frame (2007-2015) is tentatively in the order of Rs.350,000 crores. This turnaround in two years has coincided with Lalu Prasad Yadav being at the helm of affairs. As a recognition of this ‘turnaround,’ some of the world’s biggest asset managers, investment bankers and consultants including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Mckinsey etc have shown interest in working with Indian Railways. The essence of the ‘turnaround’ was in the fact that
(i) total revenues increased by a significant percentage in the last two years and
(ii) the net revenues continued a robust upward move.
Without getting into figures, almost all segments have shown growth - goods, passenger, parcel, catering, advertising - everything.
The brightest segment is of goods - a combination of increased loading (as for coal, cement) and increasing rate by change of classification of raw material (as iron ore) has done the trick here. It is important to note that while the public perception had been that there was no tariff increase, iron ore etc. had been subject to tariff increases by revision of classification. Taking the case of iron ore for exports, a maximum of Rs 277 crores (current yield multiplied by the increase in traffic) out of the increase of Rs 733 crores was attributable to the increase in loading. Some of the extra income may be attributed to
(i) busy route surcharges, (ii) busy season surcharges and (iii) priority allotment of rakes for willingness to pay at two classes higher. A whole host of schemes have been put in place to attract the freight customer, since July 2005. These include mini rakes for the small customer, volume discounts for the large customer, lean season discount scheme, long term freight incentive scheme, loyalty discount scheme, discounts for providing traffic in the empty direction, incentives at terminals like engine on load and construction of sidings, wagon investment scheme etc.
In the passenger segment, a reduction of one rupee was offered in the second class ordinary fare, 10% in AC-II and 18% in AC-I. However, there has been increase in cancellation charges, more trains being made superfast with a reduction in time and thus imposing a superfast charge, booking tickets from an origin different from the place of reservation, separation of tickets if a through a journey involved more than one train or a break of journey – thus not offering the telescopic benefits (the last charge has since been withdrawn).
The tatkal scheme, targeted at the ‘last minute’ passenger was extended first from one day to three days and then to five days. This offered a window of opportunity to increase earnings through differential pricing, based on the time of booking. Outsourcing in catering through the IRCTC was a major initiative, which received increased attention during the past two years.
Underlying all this was the strategy of increasing asset utilisation.
More significantly, in the past two years, the approach to freight tariffs has recognised the market scenario and price elasticity of demand where in
(i) Railway has a competitive advantage in the generally ‘low rated’ bulk raw materials and can afford higher rates and (ii) it faces tough competition in the generally ‘high rated’ finished goods and cannot afford higher rates.
On the tariff strategy, it is important that the stance that tariffs have not been increased be underplayed, since tariffs have actually been increased, and significantly so in the case of iron ore, by reclassification. The Railway Board had taken a decision in early May 2004 to increase the chargeable carrying capacity (CC) to CC+2 for all commodities loaded in BOXN/BOXNHS wagons. As per section 72 of the Indian Railways’ Act 1989, the maximum CC for wagons had to be fixed by the Central Government and hence the approval of the Railway Ministry was required. Initially, there was resistance from the engineering department, fearing implications on track and bridges, and consequently on safety. A consistency of direction from the Ministry got the initiative going. Similarly, the initiative on providing automatic upgrades to passengers was initially resisted as a loss making proposition. Again, consistency of direction from the Ministry got the initiative going. All major policy initiatives require the Rail Minister’s approval. Hence the role of the Ministry vis-à-vis the Board became critical.
Initiatives of market oriented tariffs, asset utilization and competition in container movement are attributable to Mr Lalu Prasad. Non interference with Railway Board has done the trick for him. “Downsizing may make thinner, but not necessarily healthier” has been his answer to all those asking for downsizing Indian Railways - Regenerate competitiveness and leverage resources rather than restructure and downsize. He believed in instilling hope and excitement rather than fear and anxiety. The vital question is whether the strategies and processes are sustainable ? Only time will tell. Till then, its bravo Lalu and team !!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Greatest Mughal
We, in India, prefer to look at our history from religious glasses. Perhaps another lasting legacy of the Raj era. Infact, our understanding of our own history is largely guided by what the British wanted us to see. James Mill's communal compartmentalisation of Indian history into Hindu, Muslim and British India has continued even today, just that we are prudent enough to name them more secularly as Ancient, Medieval and Modern. Today, Akbar stands as one of the greatest kings who ever ruled in India, because of his religious tolerance. And, on same table, Aurangzeb is demonic, for obvious reasons. Is tolerance the factor for deciding a ruler's place in history or should merely be one of the factors ? If we dare to look beyond religious angle, understand and appreciate the socio-political scenario of the period, Aurangzeb stands taller than all other muslim rulers in India.
Aurangzeb. This name evokes more hatred today than any other name from history- largely due of desecration and destruction of temples, prominently Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and Keshav Rai at Mathura. Historians as Romila Thapar, M.N. Roy etc., the so called Marxist historians, have given an equally plausible political reasoning for these temple destrcutions. Without getting into details and reasons for these destructions (also, no reason can be justifiable enough !!), it would be more enlightening to ponder whether Aurangzeb was a religious bigot and anti-Hindu.
Undoubtedly, he was a staunch sunni and tried to enforce shariat (as any staunch sunni ruler before him had done, be it Firuz Shah Tughluq, Sikander Lodi,etc). But was he intolerant? Evidence point to his being more 'tolerant' than his great grandfather, Akbar who would not allow non-sunnis into his Ibadat Khana at Fatehpur Sikri for the first few years and who drowned several ulemas for opposing his religious aspirations of becoming supreme in judicial matters. The benevolence of Akbar be viewed not in the sense of a muslim ruler's towards his non-muslim subject, but by an aspirant for Prophethood who sought following for his Din-i-Ilahi. As a military conquerer, Gondwana and Ahmadnagar conquests register him as a less than honourable foe. Contrast this with Aurangzeb who would not mince words.
Coming to the biggest blemish on Aurangzeb, I am not justifying his temple destructions but alternate reasons is worth looking into. Temples those days were points of assemblage, particularly famous ones as those at Varanasi and Mathura. Keshava Rai temple of Mathura was centre of jats in the region and destruction was preceeded by a peasant revolt in the region. For Vishwanath temple, B.N. Pande (former chairman of the Gandhi Darshan Samiti and former Governor of Orissa) as well as historian Gargi Chakravarty have narrated the Maharani of Kutch - episode that irked the emperor. But, as said, there is no justification for destroying a temple. But equally true is the fact that Aurangzeb was not anti-Hindu. The number of Hindu mansabdars actually went up in Aurangzeb's time to 33% in the fourth decade of his rule, from 24.5% under his father Shah Jahan. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's army, Raja Jaswant Singh and Raja Jai Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals with mansab of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Bhim Singh of Udaipur and Indra Singh. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him. It is true that Aurangzeb promoted Sunni sect and gave incentives to converts, but this only reflects that he tried to lure people into conversion rather than force them. Infact, there were hardly any forced conversion (to the extent mentioned by many). Sword is powerful enough to wipe out civilisations, as was in the case of Egypt where mass conversion to Islam by force of sword ceased to evoke pride in Pyramids. And during his reign, Aurangzeb's power was unchallenged. And if some one feels, Hindus were ill-treated in war, please look at what Aurangzeb did to Shia states of Golconda and Bijapur. The truth remains that he couldn't enforce mass conversion because of the same reason that would have tempted him - he was staunch Sunni. The Quran prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). Aurangzeb spent nearly 27 years, from 1680 to 1707, in Deccan and interestingly, no prominent south Indian temple was broken.
Apart from temple destruction, another blemish on Aurangzeb is imposition of Jaziya, the religious tax on non-muslims. This must be seen in back drop of Hanaffiya jurisprudence of Abu Hanifa which permits non-muslims to reside in a muslim state upon payment of Jaziya. All others prescribe 'Islam or death'. Besides, Shariat is not so lop sided on non-muslims when it comes to taxation. It prescribes zakat (2.5% of savings) and ushr (10% of agricultural products) from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab) besides sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished as they were not prescribed by Shariat, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury. The truth remains, an average Hindu paid less tax during Aurangzeb's reign than during Akbar's reign.
Aurangzeb's simplicity and piety is undoubted. Unlike his alcohol-and women-absorbed predecessors, he led an extremely simple life and followed Muslim precepts with his typical determination. He knitted haj caps and copied out the Quran throughout his life and sold these anonymously. He used the proceeds, and only these, to fund his modest resting place. He didn't draw any salary from royal treasury.
Only if he had no father to kill and no temples to destroy, Alamgir Aurangzeb would have gone down as perhaps the greatest ruler in the history of the world.
Aurangzeb. This name evokes more hatred today than any other name from history- largely due of desecration and destruction of temples, prominently Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi and Keshav Rai at Mathura. Historians as Romila Thapar, M.N. Roy etc., the so called Marxist historians, have given an equally plausible political reasoning for these temple destrcutions. Without getting into details and reasons for these destructions (also, no reason can be justifiable enough !!), it would be more enlightening to ponder whether Aurangzeb was a religious bigot and anti-Hindu.
Undoubtedly, he was a staunch sunni and tried to enforce shariat (as any staunch sunni ruler before him had done, be it Firuz Shah Tughluq, Sikander Lodi,etc). But was he intolerant? Evidence point to his being more 'tolerant' than his great grandfather, Akbar who would not allow non-sunnis into his Ibadat Khana at Fatehpur Sikri for the first few years and who drowned several ulemas for opposing his religious aspirations of becoming supreme in judicial matters. The benevolence of Akbar be viewed not in the sense of a muslim ruler's towards his non-muslim subject, but by an aspirant for Prophethood who sought following for his Din-i-Ilahi. As a military conquerer, Gondwana and Ahmadnagar conquests register him as a less than honourable foe. Contrast this with Aurangzeb who would not mince words.
Coming to the biggest blemish on Aurangzeb, I am not justifying his temple destructions but alternate reasons is worth looking into. Temples those days were points of assemblage, particularly famous ones as those at Varanasi and Mathura. Keshava Rai temple of Mathura was centre of jats in the region and destruction was preceeded by a peasant revolt in the region. For Vishwanath temple, B.N. Pande (former chairman of the Gandhi Darshan Samiti and former Governor of Orissa) as well as historian Gargi Chakravarty have narrated the Maharani of Kutch - episode that irked the emperor. But, as said, there is no justification for destroying a temple. But equally true is the fact that Aurangzeb was not anti-Hindu. The number of Hindu mansabdars actually went up in Aurangzeb's time to 33% in the fourth decade of his rule, from 24.5% under his father Shah Jahan. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's army, Raja Jaswant Singh and Raja Jai Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals with mansab of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Bhim Singh of Udaipur and Indra Singh. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him. It is true that Aurangzeb promoted Sunni sect and gave incentives to converts, but this only reflects that he tried to lure people into conversion rather than force them. Infact, there were hardly any forced conversion (to the extent mentioned by many). Sword is powerful enough to wipe out civilisations, as was in the case of Egypt where mass conversion to Islam by force of sword ceased to evoke pride in Pyramids. And during his reign, Aurangzeb's power was unchallenged. And if some one feels, Hindus were ill-treated in war, please look at what Aurangzeb did to Shia states of Golconda and Bijapur. The truth remains that he couldn't enforce mass conversion because of the same reason that would have tempted him - he was staunch Sunni. The Quran prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). Aurangzeb spent nearly 27 years, from 1680 to 1707, in Deccan and interestingly, no prominent south Indian temple was broken.
Apart from temple destruction, another blemish on Aurangzeb is imposition of Jaziya, the religious tax on non-muslims. This must be seen in back drop of Hanaffiya jurisprudence of Abu Hanifa which permits non-muslims to reside in a muslim state upon payment of Jaziya. All others prescribe 'Islam or death'. Besides, Shariat is not so lop sided on non-muslims when it comes to taxation. It prescribes zakat (2.5% of savings) and ushr (10% of agricultural products) from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab) besides sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished as they were not prescribed by Shariat, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury. The truth remains, an average Hindu paid less tax during Aurangzeb's reign than during Akbar's reign.
Aurangzeb's simplicity and piety is undoubted. Unlike his alcohol-and women-absorbed predecessors, he led an extremely simple life and followed Muslim precepts with his typical determination. He knitted haj caps and copied out the Quran throughout his life and sold these anonymously. He used the proceeds, and only these, to fund his modest resting place. He didn't draw any salary from royal treasury.
Only if he had no father to kill and no temples to destroy, Alamgir Aurangzeb would have gone down as perhaps the greatest ruler in the history of the world.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
From the Manifesto of the Communist Party to the Banker to the Poor -II
(Second and concluding part .. )
Marxism is about freedom and constraints, about the circumstances and conditions that prevent working men and women, the actual producers of all wealth, from controlling the conditions of their own lives and work. And it is about how these circumstances can be changed and how working men and women can create a truly free society in which all contribute according to their ability and receive according to their needs - a society free from exploitation, free from oppression, free from racism, from unemployment, from war, from poverty and inequality. "A man must eat before he can think," Marx wrote. That is the basic idea.
The class struggle is the motor of social change. Reduction of poverty in a sense empowers the depressed for this struggle. Microcredit is one such potent tool - a brainchild of Muhammud Yunus. Spoken roughly, microcredit is small loans extended to poor and those who really need it. Commercial banks will lend you only if they are convinced you can repay (i.e. credit-worthy), and often you may not need it. In his recent speech at Satyagraha centenary celebrations in New Delhi, Yunus claimed that for most banks, 2/3rd of humanity is not credit worthy and he prefers to see it as most banks are not people worthy. That explains the importance of micro-credit. It has successfully enabled extremely impoverished people (mostly women) to engage in self-employment projects that allow them to generate an income and, in many cases, begin to build wealth and exit poverty. Due to the success of microcredit, many in the traditional banking industry have begun to realize that these microcredit borrowers should more correctly be categorized as pre-bankable; thus, microcredit is increasingly gaining credibility in the mainstream finance industry and many traditional large finance organizations are contemplating microcredit projects as a source of future growth.
Yunus' approach was revolutionary for another reason. In a society in which women are seen as " no good" and regularly told by their families that they should have been " killed at birth, aborted, or starved, Yunus insisted on lending almost exclusively to women, He found that women , when given loans, tended to think about providing for their children and house themselves. With this important gesture, yunus injected credit into a segment of the Bangladesh economy that had never known it. Loans to women as a percentage of all bank loans had been less than one percent prior to Grameen’s establishment. Tody, Grameen bank– type projects have sprung up in places as diverse as Vietnam, china, the Philippines and parts of Latin America.
What more Yunus has done is, he tried to further Marxian priciples using some of the acknowledged capitalist tools. His embrace of the market system has helped make micro–lending a favorite among policy makers and business leaders –from Hillary Clintion to Ted Turner- because it demands minimal resources, the loans get repaid, and supports the reigning ideology of free enterprise and self reliance. Contrast this to annual pledges made by G8 countries for aid or their not fulfilling the assurances they gave for implementing the MDGs. Of late, he has been advocating for an exclusive stock exchange for corporates with social responsibility. (based on an editorial in The Hindu). Marx and Engels said, "Workers of the world unite", and that is why real socialists must be internationalists. Marx believed that capitalism itself had created the force that could overthrow it and establish a classless society. Yunus may not be close to it, but is closer than any one I can think of.
I have given the barest outline of some of Marx’s ideas. The incredible richness of his thought nowadays supports a whole industry of commentaries on commentaries on Marx and so on, ad infinitum. The people who make a living out of this, and not a bad living either, are not Marxists although most of them think they are. Why not? Because as Marx wrote,
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
To be a Marxist, you have to be a fighter in the cause of the working class, nationally and internationally, as Marx himself was. Over a hundred years ago, Frederick Engels, Marx’s lifelong friend and co-worker, spoke these words at the old man’s funeral. They cannot be bettered:
"For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success that few could rival."
Marxism is about freedom and constraints, about the circumstances and conditions that prevent working men and women, the actual producers of all wealth, from controlling the conditions of their own lives and work. And it is about how these circumstances can be changed and how working men and women can create a truly free society in which all contribute according to their ability and receive according to their needs - a society free from exploitation, free from oppression, free from racism, from unemployment, from war, from poverty and inequality. "A man must eat before he can think," Marx wrote. That is the basic idea.
The class struggle is the motor of social change. Reduction of poverty in a sense empowers the depressed for this struggle. Microcredit is one such potent tool - a brainchild of Muhammud Yunus. Spoken roughly, microcredit is small loans extended to poor and those who really need it. Commercial banks will lend you only if they are convinced you can repay (i.e. credit-worthy), and often you may not need it. In his recent speech at Satyagraha centenary celebrations in New Delhi, Yunus claimed that for most banks, 2/3rd of humanity is not credit worthy and he prefers to see it as most banks are not people worthy. That explains the importance of micro-credit. It has successfully enabled extremely impoverished people (mostly women) to engage in self-employment projects that allow them to generate an income and, in many cases, begin to build wealth and exit poverty. Due to the success of microcredit, many in the traditional banking industry have begun to realize that these microcredit borrowers should more correctly be categorized as pre-bankable; thus, microcredit is increasingly gaining credibility in the mainstream finance industry and many traditional large finance organizations are contemplating microcredit projects as a source of future growth.
Yunus' approach was revolutionary for another reason. In a society in which women are seen as " no good" and regularly told by their families that they should have been " killed at birth, aborted, or starved, Yunus insisted on lending almost exclusively to women, He found that women , when given loans, tended to think about providing for their children and house themselves. With this important gesture, yunus injected credit into a segment of the Bangladesh economy that had never known it. Loans to women as a percentage of all bank loans had been less than one percent prior to Grameen’s establishment. Tody, Grameen bank– type projects have sprung up in places as diverse as Vietnam, china, the Philippines and parts of Latin America.
What more Yunus has done is, he tried to further Marxian priciples using some of the acknowledged capitalist tools. His embrace of the market system has helped make micro–lending a favorite among policy makers and business leaders –from Hillary Clintion to Ted Turner- because it demands minimal resources, the loans get repaid, and supports the reigning ideology of free enterprise and self reliance. Contrast this to annual pledges made by G8 countries for aid or their not fulfilling the assurances they gave for implementing the MDGs. Of late, he has been advocating for an exclusive stock exchange for corporates with social responsibility. (based on an editorial in The Hindu). Marx and Engels said, "Workers of the world unite", and that is why real socialists must be internationalists. Marx believed that capitalism itself had created the force that could overthrow it and establish a classless society. Yunus may not be close to it, but is closer than any one I can think of.
I have given the barest outline of some of Marx’s ideas. The incredible richness of his thought nowadays supports a whole industry of commentaries on commentaries on Marx and so on, ad infinitum. The people who make a living out of this, and not a bad living either, are not Marxists although most of them think they are. Why not? Because as Marx wrote,
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
To be a Marxist, you have to be a fighter in the cause of the working class, nationally and internationally, as Marx himself was. Over a hundred years ago, Frederick Engels, Marx’s lifelong friend and co-worker, spoke these words at the old man’s funeral. They cannot be bettered:
"For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success that few could rival."
From the Manifesto of the Communist Party to the Banker to the Poor - I
Karl Marx stands today as one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented thinkers of all times. People have twirled and twisted his ideals since the time they were first published in communist manifesto in 1848. Today, his true legacy may not be fully appreciated and, less so, properly comprehended, but many have shared his visions - knowing or unknowing. One of them is Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Bangladeshi Grameen Bank, who vanguards Marxism in its true spirit.
Marx visualised the history of all hitherto existing societies as the history of class struggles. The two camps in this struggle manifest themselves variously in different eras as the freeman and the slave, or as the patrician and the plebeian, or in Marx's own semantics, the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. The struggle is ongoing, what changes is its nature due to emergence of new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle and of course, new times. That's about it? No. Thats as good as mocking one of the most original thinkers of all times.
To quote Hal Draper "there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike." Everyone has interpreted Marxism in way they understood it, or more emphatically, in the way it suited them. So we have may versions doing rounds - Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, and libertarian Marxism. Then what's Marxism truly? The essence lies in contrasting the alienated nature of the labour class under capitalism with its developed nature in cooperative production. Anything else, like atheism, is not core area of Marxism (came about because the same person wrote 'On the Jewish Question' that had some critical references to judaism and Christianity.). His prediction of fall of capitalism was no wishful thinking of a dreamer, but was based on an analysis of history of means of production.
Marx had also outlined a humanist aspect of communism and a good deal of influence of philosophies of Ludwig Feuerbach is evident here. Who a person is, depends on where and when he is — social context takes precedence over innate behaviour of the individual -adaptability of human nature. But its not unidirectional and it is human nature to transform nature, and he calls this process of transformation "labour " and the capacity to transform nature as "labour power".
“ A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. ” — (Capital, Vol. I, Chap. 7, Pt. 1)
Within every society, the mode of production changes, and that Europe had progressed from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist mode of production in first half of 19th century. Also, Marx believed that the means of production change more rapidly than the relations of production (as is today, we develop a new technology, such as the Internet, and only later do we develop laws to regulate that technology). For Marx this mismatch between (economic) base and (social) superstructure is a major source of social disruption and conflict.
Present day is very different from what it was 150-175 years ago. And yet, present day is so similar to what it was then. Scratch the surface and you will hardly find any reason to refute Marx's class struggles theory. [Reminds me of how ancient Rome at the time of Julius Caesar was so similar to India of today (my Roman history is not so good but basing my analysis on the HBO Series on 'Rome'). But thats a separate issue, fodder for another blog.]
Capitalism, imperialism, power balancing pacts, monopoly by few countries are all as potent today as they were then- only form has changed, not the substance. And so, humanist values of Marx is as relevant today as it ever was. And where do we find these, not in the Paul Volckers and Alan Greenspans, but the Jeffrey Sachs and Muhammad Yunuses. The growing developed-developing paradigm, more commonly in literature as the ever widening north-south divide, is a result of these and anyone attempting to fight this divide or bridge this gulf is torch bearer of true Marxism in present world. Muhammad Yunus should rank as one of the foremost, if not the foremost, among them.
Marx visualised the history of all hitherto existing societies as the history of class struggles. The two camps in this struggle manifest themselves variously in different eras as the freeman and the slave, or as the patrician and the plebeian, or in Marx's own semantics, the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. The struggle is ongoing, what changes is its nature due to emergence of new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle and of course, new times. That's about it? No. Thats as good as mocking one of the most original thinkers of all times.
To quote Hal Draper "there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike." Everyone has interpreted Marxism in way they understood it, or more emphatically, in the way it suited them. So we have may versions doing rounds - Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, and libertarian Marxism. Then what's Marxism truly? The essence lies in contrasting the alienated nature of the labour class under capitalism with its developed nature in cooperative production. Anything else, like atheism, is not core area of Marxism (came about because the same person wrote 'On the Jewish Question' that had some critical references to judaism and Christianity.). His prediction of fall of capitalism was no wishful thinking of a dreamer, but was based on an analysis of history of means of production.
Marx had also outlined a humanist aspect of communism and a good deal of influence of philosophies of Ludwig Feuerbach is evident here. Who a person is, depends on where and when he is — social context takes precedence over innate behaviour of the individual -adaptability of human nature. But its not unidirectional and it is human nature to transform nature, and he calls this process of transformation "labour " and the capacity to transform nature as "labour power".
“ A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. ” — (Capital, Vol. I, Chap. 7, Pt. 1)
Within every society, the mode of production changes, and that Europe had progressed from a feudal mode of production to a capitalist mode of production in first half of 19th century. Also, Marx believed that the means of production change more rapidly than the relations of production (as is today, we develop a new technology, such as the Internet, and only later do we develop laws to regulate that technology). For Marx this mismatch between (economic) base and (social) superstructure is a major source of social disruption and conflict.
Present day is very different from what it was 150-175 years ago. And yet, present day is so similar to what it was then. Scratch the surface and you will hardly find any reason to refute Marx's class struggles theory. [Reminds me of how ancient Rome at the time of Julius Caesar was so similar to India of today (my Roman history is not so good but basing my analysis on the HBO Series on 'Rome'). But thats a separate issue, fodder for another blog.]
Capitalism, imperialism, power balancing pacts, monopoly by few countries are all as potent today as they were then- only form has changed, not the substance. And so, humanist values of Marx is as relevant today as it ever was. And where do we find these, not in the Paul Volckers and Alan Greenspans, but the Jeffrey Sachs and Muhammad Yunuses. The growing developed-developing paradigm, more commonly in literature as the ever widening north-south divide, is a result of these and anyone attempting to fight this divide or bridge this gulf is torch bearer of true Marxism in present world. Muhammad Yunus should rank as one of the foremost, if not the foremost, among them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)