Balagopal Reading Group- 17 Oct 2020

Balagopal Reading Group
Development-Globalization-Democracy

Two aspects to Globalization:

• The entire world becoming an uninhibited, unrestrained marketplace
• A revolution in communications connecting anyone from corners of the world

Readings- 

Mr. Wolfensohn and his falsehoods- K. Balagopal/ 24-11-2000

"..has been refuted by the Opposition parties, but in understandably vague terms"- understandable because they also agree/ collude with and ostensible opposition is just political posturing?

Need more context around this-Possibly this BV Raghavulu essay (yet to read)

BG raises the question of distinction between guidelines, even conditions, and behaviour-altering prescriptions

The tussle of highest power between Republic Sovereignty and Multi-National Corporations is quite old. But is it really that different from the collusion of Big Business and a National Government?

-Mandatory Policy Directive:

1. Governmental subsidy should be reduced and eventually be taken down to zero
2. Cross-subsidy: "the rich could be charged more so that the poor could be charged less" should be completely eliminated
3. Tariff proposals must be approved by the World Bank
4. By 2007, distribution of electricity must be completely in private hands
5. Tariff payable by customers must increase by 15% for first two years, and 12% thereafter

To what extent should the executive have unguided fiat? And when is it okay for the legislature to create an independent body to oversee its workings? Isn't the office of the CAG an example of that? Also, this reminds me of a P Sainath talk criticising the Jan Lokpal Bill for wanting to create an 'independent', unaccountable body to oversee the workings of the elected representatives.

"Mr. Wolfensohn was telling lies"- What were they?

I remember this time when CBN wanted to turn into the CEO of Andhra Pradesh and wanted to run an efficient Economic state-corporation a la Singapore.

The World Bank is obsessed with giving out loans to third-world countries, under the guise of poverty alleviation, because:
"as little as possible of Society’s savings should get into the hands of the State, because that way lies fiscal profligacy and economic disaster, or so the new wisdom says. And then, as much as possible of the resources that do get into the State’s coffers must be put to use for developing the high-tech and high-cost infrastructure that multinational Capital needs if it is to grace these wretched lands."
"The World Bank's model of restructuring puts a high premium on the capitalisation of all natural resources"- This, though quite obvious since the past few years, must still have been accepted knowledge even at the time of writing. That this obsession with 'growth' was unsustainable and, more importantly, unrequired. This is the famed insatiable hunger of capital. I guess most of us thought that those in power knew what they were doing until GFC blew away all pretensions of control and anything other than greed.

"These natural means of livelihood – of `poverty alleviation’ - are put out of the reach of the poor, and reserved for the engines of growth."

Infact seen this way, populism is an expression of democracy where a large group of shunned people get together to pull down the 'elites'. The bigger problem ofcourse is to prevent from a new elite rising up. I need to read up if any society (larger than a tribe of few hundred people, if even that) has managed to create a more equitable society for large periods of time. And if not, why our 'liberal' obsession with that? Or is a vocal opposition to that idea in itself the means and the end to keep power in check?

The World Social Forum Arrives in Hyderabad (Opposition to Globalization)- K. Balagopal/ 09-08-2002

Opposition to World Bank-style Globalization must be global itself:
So that those in power get to see the large numbers of people opposing them
So that people opposing globalization for various reasons get a chance to speak with each other. Some of those flavours of opposition:
Leftist groups who believe that Globalization is only an intensification of capital exploitation
Environmental groups, artisan groups, housing rights groups etc.- Possibly because they're against the global homogenization of everywhere (?)
Some who may not oppose capitalism or the market-economy but believe that "in the form of neo-liberalism it lacks the minimal human concern that civilised existence demands"

Principal international agents of Globalization: the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO etc.

World Social Forum meets at the time, and as opposition to, World Economic Forum on the first principle that Social Concern is missing from the prescriptions of WEF on the Third World.

They identified Discrimination as the opposite pole of Globalization.

The intention of the WSF is good but to organise something at this scale requires large funds and that means, obviously, to reach out to the 'Elites of WEF'.

Its the same old problem: Should you protest against Facebook's policies on Facebook itself? If I don't, I might show personal integrity but it is detrimental to my cause. And if I do, I might be able to reach large sections of people but my message would be corrupted before I get a chance to say it.

Another: As a liberal nation, should I allow illiberal organizations to form in my country. If I don't, I'm undermining my own principles. And if I do, I'm letting an enemy build enough forces to pull me down despite my nobler intentions. And ofcourse liberalism is not a suicide pact.

The best answer I've received so far to this conundrum has come from Kapil Komireddi in this wonderful, despite Komireddi's know-it-all tone, conversation with Amit Varma around his book, Malevolent Republic. Komireddi argues that Khilnani's Idea of India, which in itself is an articulation of Nehru's vision, is the one idea that can hold all the other ideas of India, and the same can't be said for, say, the Hindutva Idea of India, and so making that a much higher principle.

So I think that Mathematical formulations of political problems is not always the best way to proceed and to enter the realm of politics is to move away from definite absolutes to a more porous reality. Like Prof. Pratap Bhanu Mehta says, a politician who compromises is a way better politicians than the one who argues as if he has an autonomy over truth. Ofcourse, its important to understand the reason for compromise and if its purely lacking in higher principles.

"People’s movements tend to be represented in international gatherings by those who have access to funds, who are not those who are truly representative of the ideas and aspirations of the masses."- I don't understand if he's saying this is a good or a bad thing.

Do turkeys enjoy Thanksgiving? 

(This was not part of the readings but was shared as it was a speech at WSF 2004)
 

Discussion-

Like Gujarat was the laboratory of Hindutva, AP was the laboratory for Neo-Liberal reforms.

Basheerbagh 2000 protests

Neo-liberalism is not the state moving away from regulating the market but re-regulating it to suit the need of MNCs

Electricity is : Production -> Transmission -> Distribution

And WB forced CBN to unbundle and handover distribution to private firms

WSF one crucial schism was between Social Forums and NGOs

Why are NGOs more accepted than Armed Resistance in a Capitalist society?

EPW article- Electricity Bill 2020

Direct Benefit Transfer is a way to slowly remove Subsidy

"Now we are no more citizens, we are tax-paying consumers"

This is being celebrated by the middle-class because they think corporations improve on efficiency

Chomsky- The pandemic is a creation of the neo-liberal product

Progressive International

Do we want everyone to oppose Capitalism or we want to create a coalition?

Amartya Sen's conception of Freedom

Federalism vs Capitalism- Stars Project in Education. Federalism is interested in State-building and as such is not in favour of or against Capitalism. But now we see Big Capital using Federal structure to entrench itself further.

"State not being the bigger power must compromise infront of Capital"

Protest infront of two companies profiting from Iraqi war (from the Roy essay)- Related topic is SC recently ruling that Shaheen Bagh protestors cannot protest and inconvenience people for long times. But if the protest is not causing disruption, isn't it just posturing?

From ascendancy of free markets of that time, we've come down to countries wanting to close down their borders

The importance of groups representing themselves (Eg: Not an Economist talking on behalf of farmers regarding Farmers Bills 2020)

Even well-meaning leaders, once they come into power, inevitably end up being controlled by capitalists. What can be done to fight that?

Amaravati example: Inter-Shudra rivalrly between Kammas and Reddys

30,000 acres of land was taken without spilling a drop of blood

"Ideology has served its purpose when it becomes commonsense"

Another participant: The Inter-Shudra rivalry is not an essential part of it.

Narmada Bachao Andolan opposed WB in the 1990s.

WB pulled out of Amaravati because Jagan, who is more pro-welfare, won with a huge mandate and they felt that their demands would not be met.

Apart from the economic dispossession, there is also cultural dispossession. The sacred sites of tribals have literally been submerged."The perversion of mind is more dangerous than appropriation of matter"- BG
All said and done, you must agree that Capitalism is enticing.

<I left the discussion about an hour in>

Migrations and the making of cultures in Early India- Prof. Romila Thapar

Prof. Satish Chandra Memorial Lecture

Lecture Notes-

Introduction by Prof. Mridula Mukherjee-

Prof. Satish Chandra's work- Argued it wasn't Aurangzeb's religious outlook but structural issues with Jagirdari System that led to the decline of the Mughal Empire. Part of galaxy of RS Sharma, Romila Thapar, Romila Thapar, Arjun Dev.

Indian Historical Congress

Indian Ocean Studies

His work was inspired by the Anti-Imperialist, Nationalist framework of the Allahabad School. And by Marxist thought.
He was always stringently secular.

Prof. Romila Thapar's work- Pre-eminent Historian of Early India

Books- Penguin History of Early India, Ashoka and decline of Maurya Empire, Past and Prejudice, Past is present

Her work was to focus away from kings to a larger public.

She rejected the idea of India as an unchanging society and worked extensively to answer the British question that Indians didn't have a sense of history

Migration and the Making of Culture in Early India- Prof. Romila Thapar

Prof. Chandra's contribution- Indian History advanced out of a Colonial perspective and even a national perspective to a much larger scope.

"How does the past relate to the present was a question all of us were driven by"
If you understand the past, you might begin to understand the present. And if you are able to understand the present, you might begin to understand what the future holds.

The choice is subject is in the nature of a plea that India's historians should focus more on migrations as shapers of cultures
3 examples:
1. Aryans in 2 BCE
2. Kushans in Early centuries CE
3. Arab traders in second millennia

Today we may call them foreigners but earlier we understand how much they contributed to the host culture

Migration should not be mistaken for Invasion
Invasion: Can be dated to a particular point in time. A large body of trained and armed soldiers, who use maximum violence to conquer and loot. If they're victorious, they take over governance and appropriate revenue
Migration: Entirely different in historical impact. Is not a uniform process. Who came, from where, to where etc. Large groups of people in a slow place move about. Migrants transported their goods and cattle, so their progress was slow.

Migrations do not become invasions; Invasions at most indicate possibility of a migration

Pre-modern times:
Pastoralists- for new grazing lands or when they were driven out. Look for places with similar ecology and more sparsely populated regions. A small group generally set out first.
Peasants- seldom migrate. When they migrated, it was because of high taxes.
Traders- Much lesser numbers compared to pastoralists. Migrant traders often had partners in their home country.
Eg: Cities like Bukhara had areas specifically assigned for traders

Historians these days are arguing that what we call tradition is invented. But the invention of patterns of living come from many sources including many groups who migrated to an area and settled there.
a. If the language of the migrator and the host differ, then one of them adopts or a mixed language comes up
b. Status is based on technology, if the migrant brings superior technology and Inter-marriage (surprisingly high numbers)
c. Religion

The above dimensions contribute to creating an identity. Identities are consciously constructed and are multiple.

1. Harappa- There's a new argument now if Aryan speakers were migrants or indigenous people
Data to consider- Structure of linguistics of Indo-Aryan language, DNA and Genetics etc.
Rig Veda- It was familiar to only North-western parts of India. The later Vedas speak of regions in the East.
Shatapatha Brahmana
Language of Rig Veda similar to language of Old Iranian
Awastha- Apta Hindu/ Saptha Sindhu
The mlechchas (who couldn't speak the Indo-Aryan language) confused the r and l sound.
Dravidian languages do not have the retroflexive sound- Ta, Tha, Da, Dha, Na
Aryavarna vs Dasavarna- The dasas are culturally differentiated (amanusha, adeva) and are said to be phallic worshippers.
Aryas were associated with the horse. People consigned to more servile work started to be addressed as dasas/ dasis.

Wealth- Cattle, dasis etc.
Satyakama Jabala- Brahmin father, dasi mother

One of the things genetic analyses are teaching us is that there is no absolute purity of descent. "We are all hopelessly mixed".

Symbiosis- Peasants let pastoralists after crop is harvested for the animal to eat the stubble and improve the soil by animal droppings

2. Same area but a millennium later- Type migration here is different from the first. These are pastoralists who later became traders.

--Abandoned at this point in the lecture because I was bored

A short course on Indian Communism

A short course on Indian Communism, 1920-1947 taught by Vijay Prashad

Class 1

Readings:
Russia and India- Gandhi
Why I am an atheist- Bhagat Singh
Castes, Classes, and Parties in Modern Political Development- EMS Namboodiripad
History of the Communist Movement in India (LeftWord Books)- Chapter 1

Class notes:
Internationalism or Extinction- Noam Chomsky
For many people in Africa or South America, the prospect of extinction doesn't begin on 06-Aug-1945 (Hiroshima Day)
"Barbarism vs Socialism" -Rosa Luxemberg
Extinction is not just about Nuclear winter. It is about inter-generational hunger and lack of opportunities to develop.

Communism is the part of dialectic of human history
The Jail Notebook- Bhagat Singh

Today's agenda- Indian Radicalism before Communism
Communism in India doesn't come from outside. It comes from the context of Indian history itself.
Indian struggles predate Communist Movement by a hundred years.
The British were terrified about these agitators coming from Moscow.
How the British reshaped Social life in India and created new class structures.
There have been movements against the wretchedness of caste since hundreds of years. Eg: Buddhism (Ajeevikas)
There is scholarship that argues that Imperialism destroyed India and things might have been different. But India didn't need the British to be wretched.

Irfan Habib's books- Tulika books

"Some argue that pre-British India was dynamic. I argue that it was involuted." -VP
Caste is the main disciplinary instrument to draw more and more surplus from labour. There was no incentive to improve technologically.
When the Mughals come in, there is a break from the places they come from. The same is true for many rulers who come in. This is important.
When the Mongols went to Europe, they were not able to maintain their supply chains. It was not possible technologically. That's why their empires couldn't expand beyond a certain size. The same is true for Mughals. But by the time the British come, technology is improved for them to be able to stay linked.
Until the British, invaders who came ended up settling in.
Christianity came to South Asia before it came to Europe (St. Thomas dies near Nungambakam)
The settlers remain- This becomes very important for the Economic life of a society

When the Portuguese came in (and most trade was in luxury goods), the rulers ignored them because most revenue came from owning land and not from trade.
The English don't arrive as a force of the British Empire. They come as a Joint Stock Company. This, we see, is the beginning of Capitalism.
Indian Economic life was fairly static.
Note to self: Must read Dalrymple's Anarchy
Joint Stock Companies are a very clever way of raising capital and sharing risks. That's what the share market is.
"Approach of Dalrymple's White Mughals is so romantic, so unnecessary. Even if they lived in Calcutta, even if they enjoyed Hindustani music, the structure of what they were doing was to take wealth from India and take it elsewhere"
Dalrymple's argument is that the British were part of India until 1857. That maybe true socially or culturally but not true economically. They were already leeching.

The problem with Colonialism wasn't that they were English. The problem was that a structure of exploitation was created. They were no more exotic than the Persians or anyone else.
The EIC became land revenue collectors in Bengal.
In India nobody drank tea till the 19th century. It started because the English started dumping it from the Chinese. And they were paying it by the Silver and Gold mined from South America. The Chinese wanted bullion because they refused to trade with any other commodity. The English didn't like that, so they did two things: 1. They started selling Sea Slugs (and so colonised Fiji) 2. And Opium (and forced (?) them to be addicted).
The Forbes family, among others, made their money from the Opium trade. "These old money families smell of Opium".

Perpetual Motion Machine of profit.
Imperialism- Take money from the working people of a place and move it to a different place where people didn't work for that money

Utsa Patnaik- From 1765 till 1938, the British took out 45 trillion dollars.
Marx's Capital- There is a tendency to substitute labour by machine

• EIC were able to do it without changing the structure because caste was already in place Eg: Even today one million people manually clean sewers (and this is usually along caste lines)
• Abundance of labour, cheapness of labour Eg: Till today many Indian households have manual labour clean their homes
• Lack of economic incentive to invest in improvement of social relations
• This form of Imperialism is like Finance Capital. It is extremely short-term
  

The railroad was constructed to move goods to ports. It was not done to improve the lives of people.
Social relations of production.

-Commodification of Labour-No other option than to sell labour to Capitalist

• Free from Bondage
• Free to Starve

Wage theft is built into the system

-Brutalisation of Labour

1757 is the Diwani in Bengal- Right to collect land revenue

1770- Catastrophic famine in Bengal. 1/3rd of the population dies.
Till 1943 famine in Bengal, they come one after the other.
These famines were not happening prior to the imperial conquest.
The commodification of land- Revenue was not in kind, it was in cash. Commercialisation of Agriculture- If you can't pay, either you're kicked out of the land or have to turn to the money-lender.

Development of Capitalism in Russia- Lenin

It wasn't the British that colonised India. It was Imperialism. It was a dynamic capitalist system that overcame them without destroying them.

Marx in 1853- "British has to do two things in India. Destructive and Regenerative." Later he wrote that they didn't destroy Asiatic society, they just took and put it to their use. The form was in collusion with the wretchedness of caste and patriarchy etc.
Neel Darpan- Play in 1861- Critique of Indigo plantation society

British trade was financed by slave trade and theft.

Max Weber- Capitalism is produced because of Protestant Saving.
VP - "He was dreaming".
Capital comes dripping from the Earth with blood. Primitive Accumulation.

Deccan uprising of 1875- They burnt the house of the moneylender and not the sheriff

Abstract form of capital against concrete form of physical power

1. Zamindari System- Creation of the landlord class. They supplanted institutions of the Mughal state.
2. South India- Thomas Munroe (who had read Riccardo)- Ryotwari system- the state collects tax from the farmer.

Dadabhai Naoroji- "Drain of wealth from India". India was being charged to pay for the bills of Imperialism.

Caste and Class are not identical systems. But there is a very strong correlation.
Ambedar's interrogation of Marxism- including his paper On the origins of Caste- Ambedkar and Communism

Sanyasi and Fakir rebellions- Late 1700s
Peasant uprisings- "Defensive movement" because they don't want to give such high taxes

Tibagha Movement
Santhal Hool- Tribal rebellions: They are against commercialisation
"Restorative struggles"- They want the old way. "We want our kings back". Bahadur Shah Zafar, Jhansi Rani

1800 Vellore Mutiny- issues of animal fat

"It is wrong to call 1857 an Indian mutiny. There was very little rebellion in South India"
Recommendation: Satyajit Ray's Shatranj ke Khilari (based on Premchand's story)
Awadh is the only place where there's mass uprising.
Nepali soldiers were told that if you defeat Lucknow you can take whatever you want. The big prize in Nepal casinos was once called Lucknow Loot.

At this time people like Raja Rammohan Roy were quick to realise and argue that Indian society is weak and the internal weaknesses need to be rectified. Problems of hierarchy, caste and gender. This is where Social reform starts.
The trajectory of the middle class radical. They take interest in Socialist ideas.

You can't have freedom until you have social wealth- Tagore
People like Tagore, Bankim Chandra and other mainstream celebrated thinkers talk about Socialism. But it is indigenous, it doesn't necessarily come from outside.

In 1885 a bunch of fairly heterogeneous people create the Indian National Congress. They are mainly middle-class petitioners asking for more room, more say in their rule.
1905 uprising in Bengal- Swadeshi movement. Its against the partition of Bengal on religious lines by Lord Curzon.
Gandhi says that you need a much bigger project that self-interest; You need patriotism.

A lot of the political ideas associated with Gandhi come to the fore around this time when Tilak is arrested: boycott of goods, Hartal etc.

Gandhi's essential political character was moderation. He understands that Congress was a national platform even though they don't understand power. They think that the British government is a government of reason and not of capital and power.

• The Congress is useful for its organization and not its political line
• Students were extraordinarily committed. But they were infatuated by the cult of the bomb. It was classic anarchist. But they bring self-sacrifice and a lack of self-interest
• There are mass struggles all overThe Gandhian project was about bringing these three things together.
• You see this in Champaran which then leads to non-cooperation movement.
  

Problems are many:

• Gandhi's a serial compromise with the capitalists. He tells the workers that believe in the capitalists. They are guardians of your wealth.
• He compromises with caste. He has problems with implementation but not the idea of it
• He also compromises with imperialism to a certain extent. He is reluctant to call for Poorna Swaraj. (Its the Gadar babas who create a party in California in 1913 and call for it)

There was a big gap between between these two which led to the Communist-Socialist intervention.
This is the socio-political milieu in which communists/ socialists enter the fray.

The role of the organizer- You can't build a cadre until you have people working full-time
Deepesh Chakabarty's book on jute workers. "It was shocking to see how disparaging it was to the organizers."
"A soldier is a peasant with a rifle" -Lenin

Justice- class 10

Notes from class

What is the relationship between theory and practice? What is the relationship between individual responsibility, with limited power,  and the obligation of justice?

There is an interweaving variable between theory and practice- that's politics.

Two facts of politics :    

    a. there are many of us

    b. we profoundly disagree

How does theory of justice respond to these two?

A theory should grant us:   

    a. all of us equal, moral standing (unlike with nature and animals where it might be benevolent but one-sided). Other people need to be treated as independent.

    b. i. we might disagree that we should treat each other independently. So everything that follows might be moot including "do unto others.." and that "I have no natural authority over you (not even I'm smarter than you, so I have authority over you)". I have been endowed by god, or birth, or something is becomes valid. This is not a political conception because it's not taking the other person's moral right or difference seriously.

        ii. and even if we agree on the previous point, the problem of disagreement becomes an even more challenging problem- To come up with a moral rule that acknowledges our plurality and difference and yet to come up with laws that all of us agree with.

Social Contract Theory from Rousseau to John Rawls.

The realm of politics is the realm of legitimacy and persuasion. It is not a domain of taking a pre-existing truth and imposing it on the world.

The problem of truth in politics is very particular- It is simply that we disagree. So we could go round in circles or undermine the other's legitimacy.

How do we agree that our world stands on equality and moral legitimacy- By acting like that.

"The powerful can do what they want and the weak must suffer what they can"- This is also one form of negotiation. By putting a gun to your head. But for us to feel legitimate, both parties must feel that this is an agreement that they would've freely chosen.

In a modern society, politics is the only bridge between theory and practice- You can't say I'm god's regent or a philosopher king.

Kant- "The only authority we have is the free agreement of reasoning beings"

How do get people included in this circle of politics?- Jews and Palestinians, Hindus-Muslims, racism etc.

One way to think of the advancement of justice- The cause of justice is the cause of giving more and more people equal standing by overcoming arbitrary factors.

Richard Rorty- "Justice is simply the expansion of loyalties".

"Just because of who you are there is no reciprocity of rights" - That is the problem of ethnic exclusion. The harder question is why do we do this, why do we feel like denying some people a fundamental political relationship? Earlier we did this on hierarchy, now we do it on difference. This question cannot be solved by theory of justice and one way to do it is to understand your own psychology. The activity of politics is to bridge the gap between unjust reality and just theory by crafting new relationships between us. 

participant: Education entitlement- what if the other knows less, what do we do then?

participant: When you put it this way, you've reduced politicians to managers of principles of justice.

participant: Is fascism a form or politics or is it outside the realm of politics?

participant: Foucault's Discipline and Punish- Problem of justice is the problem of distribution of power.

prof: According to Foucault, all constituencies of human relationship is power through and through. Even this, the fact that we should mutually agree is infact an imposition of a certain demand. "Why should I justify myself for anything?" Also, there is something dangerous and insidious in saying that because you consented to some laws, you are bound by them now. A mad king who said because I have power, in any way, I can take your head off for a crime. As brutal as that is it is atleast clear and out in the open. The problem with us justice folks is that we try to, in sense, rationalise it. Because we agreed to these procedures, now that you have committed a crime, it's not us that are punishing you but yourself. 

Duryodhana- "Justice just is the interest of the stronger in which we get the weak to participate to legitimize the chains we bind them in"- Thrasymachus, Nietzsche, Marx, Foucault all say something like this.

Marx- "The nice thing about feudal power is that nobody pretended otherwise"

Even asserting that we are free and equal is a form of intimation

Response 1: Performative contradiction- Even the skeptics don't believe their skepticism because if I exercised power against them, their personal reaction would be a feeling of injustice, not understanding and acceptance of power relationship experientially.

The idea is to expand this feeling to others as well.

Response 2: Practical- We are individual but we also like the goods of social co-operation. To say that just the fact of social co-operation puts us at the mercy of somebody else, although that's true to some extent, it is difficult to imagine a human condition without a social contract.

Either the skeptics can occupy an ultra-anarchist position or it has to occupy a nihilistic position- There are no questions of legitimacy or justice to be asked.

Response 3: More ambitious- Why is the theory of justice good for me outside of utilitarian and pragmatic answers? On the face of it, it is a huge burden; So why? Plato, in the experiment of Gyges's ring, is the only philosopher who took this question seriously. The essential question is: do we act just for it's own sake or because we're afraid of punishment?

    a. When I say justice is not good for us, what kind of social contract do I have in mind? The good of a just society is that when you are part of it, you gain more pleasure than when you are 'independent'. Would you be protected by security guards all the time? We act as if injustice pays but we don't acknowledge the hidden costs of insecurity, guilt etc.

Reading recommendation: Plato's description of the tyrant. A tyrant is the paradigm of the unjust person. He's the ultimate anti-political creature, someone who's constantly restless. "When do I have enough power such that.. "- the longing is insatiable. When you look at the life of a tyrant, it's a deeply unhappy life.

What is insatiability indicating- that you don't have a conception of your own good.

Would any of you be able to inhabit a completely Darwinian world? Rhetorically it is brilliant but can you imagine and do you want to live in such a world?

Shanti parv, Kant- Being just is good for you. Living with integrity is to live without integral contradiction.

Simone De Beauvoir- The city and the soul are intimately connected. How you are connected to others gives you a sense of your own being?

Stoicism: Whether or not we can make the world just is a different question. What we have is our mind and soul. 

Gandhi: You are the change you want to see in the world. The route through which your transformation changes the world is through exemplarity. At its fundamental articulation, that is what Satyagraha is.

participant: A lot depends on society in which an agent finds himself in. Game theory and incentive structure. What if many are willing to be unjust. Then do I still hold onto my sense of justice?

Sherlock Holmes- "Your grasp of the obvious amazes me"

Bentham: "Any robust theory must begin with equality theory and that we're all self-interested creatures"

Mill: "My worry is that it is not descriptive of people sometimes, but that if everyone believed in this, they would start becoming like that"

Human nature is reflexive in that sense. Often public opinion is a self-fulfilling construct- I act like this because I think this is public opinion and because I act that way, it becomes public opinion.

Gandhi steps out and lifts the pall of fear. It's not that the exemplary hero changes your mind. It's that more people feel empowered because they can now believe that more people are thinking like that.

Levels of difference- You can tolerate someone for having a different view but can you tolerate someone who doesn't believe in the reciprocity principle. When those people come and seek toleration, that difference doesn't have the same moral standing as a political difference. 

What I call the liberal contradiction?

Fully ideological politics is an oxymoron- If you go into politics thinking that the only kind of victory that counts it making the world correspond to your ideology, then chances are you won't take differences seriously. Because you believe you have a monopoly over truth. You have to bring integrity which is very different from ideological purity. Ideological purity is the demand that they must conform to you. Ideology is easier, integrity is much harder. 

"If people disagree with you, let me elect another people"

Free speech and deplatforming people: Their legal rights to speak cannot be abrogated. For instance, you are not free in a classroom. Our fiduciary responsibility is to make everyone comfortable. Free speech is institutionally contextual. There are some things you can't say in a court of law, doesn't mean the court is against free speech. 

Rawls- Basic structure of society. 

State is obviously a sight of justice. Should religious organizations be just, should families be just?

One of the big challenges for a liberal society is that we do grant people freedom of association which means people will choose associations (like a gold club) with an internal structure of authority and exclusivity principles.

Morality or justice appropriate to the state- We should treat each other equally, the state should treat each other equally, authority by consent etc. 

Should all intermediary sights also uphold these rules?

In the name of associational diversity, we have allowed injustices despite knowing that it would play a consequential role in larger society (gender inequality in a house plays out).

We don't want the state to be found on god's word but my religious organization can be run that way. Is the state crossing its limits when it tries to meddle with it? If it tries to impose the same rules as that of state, then is all talk of diversity just lip-service?  

There will be many political parties with each having a different set of rules of membership and thus practising exclusivity of some sort (Eg: if you do not agree with CPI polit bureau diktats, you need to leave). This is not the place to scream democracy.

Is the harm being produced by that intermediate association so large that the state has to step in. And that's tricky because it might not be apparent but so widespread that it has an impact on people as citizens.

Rationalist vs pluralist conception of associational life.

Radhakamal Mukherjee: What keeps a liberal society liberal is that even though no association has liberal power, the sum of it is that the society is liberal because of the fragmentation of power. You are flattening out the wold in a different way.

-Should MPs be allowed to defect?

    a. Because they're part of a democracy, they should be democratic.

    b. If you don't like the party, leave and join a different party. If you violate the rules of a party, you're out.

Michael Walzer- Spheres of justice

Private home owners not letting their houses to people from a certain religion:

    a. My property, my choice

    b. But if it's systemic, institutional discrimination (Eg: no Muslims) though is a problem

        Exclusion where you think the tenant is not going to pay rent is legitimate. 

"People don't give to lawyers because they think lawyers won't vacate and it's hard to defeat them in a court of law"

Bill in Partialiament- Shashi Tharoor- Horizontal discrimination in housing

Q: If my assessment that this person won't pay rent is justified, why not the opinion that says that people from a particular religion are bad tenants? If I can discriminate based on Economic status, why not on religion, gender etc. What is the moral difference?

Libertarians: In things that affect only me, I must be sovereign. 

Boundaries of freedom: Defines harm that is non-questionable

Segregation is interesting because its a lot of individual decisions adding up to social discrimination. 

If black people move into a neighbourhood, the belief is that property prices will dip. Let's assume that most people are not racist but by being rational, they end up discriminating.

Heroes are tipping points because they tap into the suppressed sentiment that I had assumed that no one would do it, so I hadn't done it.

Heroism is an act of faith but there are lots of incidents where people do heroic acts for their own sake but nothing happens. An act of heroism is not enough in itself.

Why is Irom Sharmila not more of a national hero, why are protests against AFSPA not more in the public consciousness?

--

And with that I finish the course. What an honour it has been to be in the presence of someone as brilliant as Prof. Pratap Bhanu Mehta and to share space with such intelligent, articulate, passionate people. Absolutely loved the course. 

now reading: Nassim Taleb's Antifragile

Taleb's Fooled by Randomness is one of my favourite books. It gave me frameworks and mental models that I've used extensively, so much so that they've slipped below the radar now. As far as I remember, it was where I discovered Karl Popper and epistemological skepticism (which is a fancy way of saying question and understand where your beliefs and certainties come from and don't be too attached to them). I had many epiphanies while listening to that book, which I did while driving to and from Seal sometime in late 2014. 

Detour: After a long time, the latest eureka moment I had in the presence of a formidable intellect was in one of Prof. Mehta's early Justice classes. I don't remember the exact topic of discussion now but when he was dissecting a social phenomena in mathematical fashion, it struck me that the point of education, the primary purpose of education, is to de-invisibilize the structures shaping our actions, desires and judgements. This is to go beyond first principles, which I believe are more conscious, and find the factors creating them. Infact, in retrospect, I think this realization first came into my consciousness while reading Erich Fromm's Man in the Age of Capitalist Society but I didn't recognise it then. A part of me sees that the triteness of that aphorism but possibly because it wasn't imposed on me and came from experience and struggle, I'm totally enamoured by its power. 

Anyway, I am about to start reading Antifragile, having abandoned Black Swan a few years ago because I found Taleb insufferable and yet because I find him a brilliant, idiosyncratic generalist, I thought I'd give him another shot. This post is as a thought diary of that book reading.

--

I like the idea of chapter summaries. Yesterday, I heard Samanth Subramaniam talk to Amit Varma about writing (creative) non-fiction in this insightful interview and I had a couple of takeaways:

    1. Essays have primarily two aspects: themes and angles. You may bring a particular lens, economic, sociological, historical etc., to the proceedings, and you look to cover multiple themes- risk, public institutions, urban planning etc.

    2. Good writing has subtext. Themes are stacked in layers and a writer's primary duty is to weave the narrative through them.

Chapter summaries seem to be part of that design framework. And considering how discursive Taleb's writing is, as one reviewer wonderfully put it, fractal-like, it seems a good idea to share it with the reader.

Digression: My writing has always been bottom-up, literally, because I see myself as a transcriber of what floats up, from the depths of my mind, into my consciousness. 

"As if every thought that tumbles through your head was so clever it would be a crime for it not to be shared."- The Social Network

But finally I seem to be able to understand why top-down planning has its uses. I'm particularly wary of these best-of-both-worlds type answers; The purist in me cringes but how many purists ever get much done? Not only does having the plot clothesline going to free me up from constantly worrying of the next steps of the story, it is going to bring writing into workmanship territory, something I've always admired and respected. 

Justice- class 9

Notes from class

Prof. Mehta appreciates AOC's work. Must tell Sravani.

When we speak of Justice typically, you might say it is forward looking. The idea is to create a new social reality. The other dimension is backward looking- some event happened in the past, the object of justice is to come to terms with that past event.

Is punishment corrective or retributive? 

Reparations- colonialism, slavery, caste, the curious case of South Africa

Truth and Reconciliation commission on Partition, Kashmir etc.

Treaty of Versailles- Keynes thought was fundamentally unjust

The assumption was that reparation was subsumed under current social contract. If our current conditions are made just, where does a question of reparation arise? If the contemporary condition of the historically oppresses is fairly just now, why should we go back into history? Opposition to that concern is that, even if we have made current society more just, there is still an independent issue of wrongs done in the past. 

Question of reparations are not the same as retributive justice. 

Nozick- Just outcomes are whatever come out of free transfers as long as those original positions are just.

If a harm was done in the past, are we, the descendants, responsible for it- How do you attribute causal responsibility? When you think of harm, you should have some baseline account. But how do you actually come to the determination that those people would've been better off if not for your actions (Eg: colonialism).

I don't have to get into a debate if India/ West Africa would've done better if they weren't colonised. It is enough to understand that harm was done- but by who's standard. What is the counterfactual you're thinking while ascertaining that harm?

Warren Hastings trial- Edmund Burks

My thought: A pall is cast on those who are given reservations now for injustice against their predecessors. In that sense, they will keep suffering from social injustice.

Susan Faludi- Backlash

Pankaj Mishra essay on How Germans handled their Nazi ancestry and why doesn't the US or India do it

You could say that I'm not a casteist/ racist/ colonialist, then why should I pay? The issue is not that. It is not about individual responsibility. But because of the patterns that were instituted, you have been and are a beneficiary of something that was acquired "unjustly". You can acknowledge the harm without punishing someone. The act of injustice was perpetuated over centuries. The simple question is: Am I identical to my white ancestors. No but you are part of the structure which created those injustices. You may not have committed the crime but you are a beneficiary.

participant: When the EIC came in, they colluded with Indians for symbiotic gains. 

The problem with people who say let's start with a clean state is that you're not acknowledging the pain and suffering my people had to go through. 

Culturalist argument- "It is true that we are better than other people, that white Americans are doing better than black Americans, is less because of our oppression than inherent flaws in them". This is also a favourite colonialist argument.

"I like my black neighbour but the fact that he moved in means my property price is going down"

There are ofcourse variations but the idea is not to count of every single act in history.

Shashi Tharoor's accusations against British colonialism is similar to caste oppression.

Billy Brant- German chancellor went to Warsaw, got down onto a knee and cry. It is a society coming to terms with its unjust acts. But then again, some actions are easier to account for than others.

participant: Can the Indian state morally ask for reparations from Britain when it hasn't resolved its own internal contradictions.

Prof. Mehta- In principle, the moral quality of the entity asking for the reparation is not important. I may have wronged someone but if I'm also wronged, then I don't need to solve the former to get justice for the latter. It is hypocrisy but it can be done.

Some have argued that caste is way more complex than colonialism. But even colonialism is not simplistic, we're just choosing move convenient options. 

We as colonialists have done wrong but it's not differed from most states always. If the British hadn't done it, maybe the French would've or the Marathas. There is no ideological reason behind this ebb and flow of history.

What is the continuing harm?- We don't know because we can imagine the counterfactuals. But then isn't that the question with any justice? Or any understanding of the past? Also, what about looking at these from a modern lens of what's justice or not? Apparently, this is a classic relatavist's argument: That a wrong was done in the past comes from our standard. And the production of the standard of the time, is a collaborate effect in it's own way. It may look horrible to us but caste seemed to have been accepted then. The perpetrators didn't have epistemic access to our formulation of injustice. They were not moral agents who were capable of seeing the truth as we now see.

participant: Isn't injustice an absolute term or am I always having to compare them to other possible injustices and weigh which is less worse.

Is there ever a closure to this grievance? Today Tharoor says that give me a pound a year as gesture. What if someone comes tomorrow and says that is not enough?

Q: In one of our first classes, we discussed about a modern society considering birth an accident and doing everything, atleast in principle, to bring people to a common, equal ground. Then by constantly bucketing people into different identity groups and saying that there is inherent trauma suffered by some, aren't we negating that axiom? If someone discriminates against me based on my caste or colour now, that's wrong. But if they don't, do they still have to acknowledge and apologise?

A: That's the normative goal. One of the common things about caste, race, gender, colonialism is that you as an individual are part of an ideology that denies your individuality. They are denying you a right to be an individual. The objective of reparation is not to keep you as prisoners of this identity. It's to liberate you from that burden. We are using this as an identifier to understand how freedom has been snatched. 

Judith Butler- Medicolegal issues around gender

Post-Apartheid South Africa- You will make society whole by acknowledging the truth. In order to facilitate truth and reconciliation, you have to move away from retributive justice.

Truth and Reconciliation commission- We want them to acknowledge that there was injustice perpetrated. And we want the acknowledgement of truth to be separated from retribution, compensation or punishment. That will create a better new social contract.

participant (regarding acknowledging the truth and seeking forgiveness): Consider India's incidents like the 1984 riots, or Godhra, or Babri. Someone can say that I'm generally a decent human being and I was brainwashed during that period to be part of a cult or a clique, and now I'm saying I'm sorry. But is that enough?

On TRC- By giving on the demand of reparation, it didn't create the foundation for an ongoing just society. It more or less provided exoneration. For all its problems, it is interesting because it provides an alternative mode of thinking than just crime and punishment. The reason people, and communities, came out on a dialogue because the perpetrators were promised amnesty. They took a bet by saying that that was better for society than punishing a few perpetrators. 

In so many areas of our life, we need to confront injustices of the past to move on. And the question of restoration doesn't go away because now you're trying to make a more equal society.

Justice- Class 8

Readings:

Why Nationalism (Ch 1,6,7)- Yale Tamir
Ch 1 : The New Nationalism

Nationalism being on the rise everywhere is surprising. Liberals believed that their century (starting from 1945) would see the end of wars, spread of reason, beginning of new enlightenment- Endless economic growth, expanding opportunities, ongoing increase in well-being.

Trump-Brexit-Le Pen could  have gone either way. No, says the author. They are symptoms of a deeper malaise.

My thought: Major shocks have us question the structures we inhabit. They have us ask why the structure shook or collapsed. Until that happens, we don't bother to enquire; We are preoccupied with different concerns. But that is not a bug of the system, its a feature. We built those structures precisely so that we could stop thinking about them. Then why do so many pundits who're dissecting the reasons for failure come after the elites/ leaders for 'missing' the warning signs and not acting in time? Admittedly, they misjudged the signs or were too distracted. However, what about the crises they averted by doing what they were doing? Not only does it mean that they're never congratulated for averting crises we don't see (I wonder how incentive structures work with this? If I see that I'm only noticed when I'm seen resolving a crisis, I'm going to make sure that everything I do will come off as courageous firefighting), they will never technically win because we always compare them to a could've-been-better-world.

Paused on page 5

Notes from class:

Partial attachments and political theory.

Assignment: 300-500 word essay that suggests or critically examines-
i. a conceptual dilemma that you encounter or
ii. propose a particular policy that will address what you think is important

-We took a particularly unusual stance to understand democracy better in our previous class

The role of partial attachments in justice
-One of the challenges of thinking about nationalism is that it is deeply entwined with our experience of modernity and democracy
-Democracy required that you configure yourself as a demos: who are we as people
-Power and sovereignty must be exercises in the name of people
-People are individuals and also a collective compact for each others' well-being

Ernest Gellner- "The political dilemma of modernity is that every ideology claims to be universal, but every postcard it sends is disguised with nationalism"
JS Mill- "If you're not part of a nation-state, you're a nobody"

3 questions:
1. Who gets to be a member of the nation? - Membership question
You can say that this question is not amenable to justice. You're converting the arbitrariness of birth to membership of your community.
2. We are a people because we claim a distinctiveness for themselves (language, religion etc.). Who has set the terms of this identity? - Identity question
Process of forming an identity is in itself a clash between competing identity arbitrary attributes.

Origins of Totalitarianism- "Universal ideology is a great idea but its doesn't protect you when you're being dispossessed".

Nationalism is the only modern ideology that deals with death, not communism or liberalism. In that sense, it is the only competition to religion. Dying for the nation or killing for the nation.
It is psychologically important- an antidote to cultural homelessness
Modern economy works around it

Modern nation-state vs empire
1. public education
2. voluntary army vs mercenaries
3. modern state percolate much more culturally

Not only ethno-national, even liberal nationalism is discriminatory.

Q: Ownership is a by-product of discrimination. Then is that justified?

Liberty: Political Freedom
Equality: Economic Freedom
Fraternity: Social Justice

Note to self: Read JNU Nationalism lectures

Q: The state should privilege the rights over identities.
I'm a good Indian when I uphold its constitution. But not everyone who upholds those values can become an Indian.

My question: What if the person in power changes the definition of what it means to be an Indian?

Edward Gibbon about Roman Empire- "All the philosophers thought that religion was false, all people thought it was true and all politicians thought it was useful"

"History is one thing, justice is another"

"History is a fool's paradise"- Gandhi

If you want to say medieval India about conflict, it is true. You want to say its about co-operation, it's true. This is not about facts. It's about what story you want to say. Those who want to say we've always been multi-cultural, will find relevant facts. Those who argue otherwise, will find relevant facts as well. If tomorrow you discover a document that thousands of temples have been destroyed, should that change the nature of modern India?

If the colonialists say that India didn't exist before, that's true for France or England as well. The nation-state is a particularly political form.

Nation vs Nation-state

1. An Australian minister used to quip that, "while we fully understand that first-generation immigrants cheer for sports teams from their country of origin, their Australian born kids should be screaming for Aussie teams". There is this idea that Chinese identity is almost like a qaum. Because I'm an outsider here, I clearly see that many white folks have a soft corner for Europe. It seems to me not much different to the attachment some Indians have for Hindus in Afghanistan than with other Indian Muslims. So where does the religion of religion end and the religion of nation begin?
2. How are we going to reconcile with the fact that more and more children are being born to parents of mixed heritage and live in sort of a rarefied abstract idea of a nation. Like how some Silicon Valley libertarians ask to be granted sovereignty. Are we seeing the expiry of the nation state as we know it?

Susan Okin- Is multiculturalism bad for women? - The demand for multiculturalism is a demand for partial jurisdiction.

Even if you are not a person who thinks culture and nation are tightly intertwined, the state still has to make choices about, say, what languages to use- for effects of scale and for mobility. Or Mumbai's Marathi culture is eroded by many immigrants. How, in that case, can justice be done?

One of the brilliant things about the idea of India is an extraordinary attempt to subvert the European premise
A national unit has a state attached to it

India as State-Nation- Linz, Stepan, Yadav

If India becomes rich and people don't have to migrate for work, then will we become more like the United States- Strong linguistic and territorial links.

Liberal stance : Let people have free choice and however that affects society is a consequence of that free choice. Any structural imposition is elitist. But is it possible to live in a truly egalitarian society and if not, why is it wrong if a well-intentioned, 'intelligent' person tries to improve a people's lot? Hang on, isn't that white saviour complex?

Relationship between identity and justice. 

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

Justice- Class 7

Readings:

Should democracy work through elections or sortition? -Tom Malleson

The Politics of Presence (Ch 2) - Anne Phillips

Class notes:

Philanthropy and higher education (Prof. Mehta's research)

Comparison of 50 trusts pre and post independence

    a. Pre-independence was high

    b. They gave to institutions they did not control

Curzon to Jamshedji: 

"If it's genuine philanthropy, it must be given to institutions you do not control" -C

"I agree. We'll give to independent institutes. And only have minimum oversight" -J

Q: Are lotteries a legitimate form of representation?

Representative (First past the post etc.) - They legislate on our behalf

vs

Direct democracy

Representative Democracy should satisfy:

a. Peace- Transfer of power is peaceful

b. Political Agency- The idea that somehow we have some role and participation in creating the form of     legislation. Gives us dignity in an existential sense. By the people.

c. Responsiveness- For the people. We will not re-elect you if you don't respond to us.

d. Impartiality- Technically, legislature must be for the common good. 

e. Equality- One person one vote. 

f. Representation- Democracy creates a mode of representation.

If we're unsatisfied with our democracy, its probably for one or more of the above reasons.

Do elections satisfy: Responsiveness, Impartiality, Equality, Representation?

Aristotle's definition of democracy: "You ruled and you were ruled in turn"

It takes so much money to even fight an election that most people can't afford it. Then does that mean it's still equal?

Women are less than 50%, ethnic minorities are extremely under represented- Then you might ask, who are the elected representing really?

1. Design democracy better: Quotas, Campaign Finance Reform etc.

2. Sortition/ Lottery

"The drawing of lots is more in the nature of democracy. In an aristocracy voting is appropriate" -Rousseau

You could win because you're wealthy, because you have good social connections, you could win because you're smart, or a mesmerising orator: Rousseau says that democracy is a way of amplifying certain characteristics. Paradoxically, you're electing an aristocracy. It's a way of us saying that some people are superior than others. 

My thought: The Modi type- Someone who's better at winning elections than governance. Then aren't we choosing the wrong type.

If competence is what you want, why do you want democracy? Why aren't you going for a more technocratic system?

We think that our form of democracy is canonical. But until the 19th century, it was understood that democracy by voting is against representation. So the idea was that you had to create a lot of differentiated electorates.

Hume- divide society into main constituents and make sure all of them are represented.

Reminds me of Madhav Khosla's account of how our Constituent Assembly was assembled. Wilful representation across different communities.

But then we're still excluding other types (other forms of division) because you can keep fine-tuning will you come down to a unit of one. 

Yale political theorist- Helene Landemore

Responsiveness: Incentive dimension and Epistemic dimension

If you had a democracy which had no migrant workers, then is it a surprise that we forgot about them? 

Could the Rajya Sabha be created via sortition?

Collective competence of assemblies vs the aristocratic view of competence

If you come from the background that our birth itself is based on deeper cosmological reasoning, then convincing people would be easy. But based on our 'modern' notions of the accident of birth, how will people react to this idea of lottery?

Predictability & Continuity are important in terms of national priorities and foreign relations. How do they correspond to sortition?

Constituent Assembly debates:

1. If it was actually an elected body, it would have too many interest groups- BR

2. If you had a majority body drafting the constitution, then who's going to stop it from being fascist.

How about we have an elected body for day-to-day governance and a sortition body for major decisions?

It was important for the Congress party to show that the CA was mirroring the nation - to gain legitimacy.

Are you going to be better if you don't have the corrupting thought of wanting to be re-elected?

James Fishkin- Deliberative Polling

The idea is not to distribute representation by identity. But conversely, if there is too less representation, it probably means that they don't have political power. Absence acts as a proxy that other reasons are disempowering them.

On what dimension to divide- Why only gender? Why not class? Why not caste? Why not education? Selection of any dimension is in itself an arbitrary act. Then are you congealing those identities?

Politics is the contest of ideas. And ideas are best represented by parties. That's why they've become more important than representation. 

"Really bad books make you think a lot more than really good books sometimes"

If say 40% of the uneducated are represented proportionately, would they then have the incentive to educate themselves?

We are not looking at representation exactly. We're looking for ideas/ arguments which would be missed without their presence. 

The adversarial legal system. 

Because of parties, partisanship has trumped ideology. The club character of politics- I need to win at any cost. That has become much more salient in our representative process. 

Territorial representation vs proportional representation

In a democracy we might not even be able to agree on what values we privilege.

The idea is not to solve the metaphysics of identity. It is to ensure that you're listening to as many voices as possible.

Justice- Class 6

Capitalism and Ideology- Thomas Piketty

Ch 8- Ternary Societies and Colonialism: The case of India

First paragraph has a reference to the caste system and its "rigid and extreme type of inequality". This is accepted knowledge now. But I want to deep dive and understand the history of Caste system- both from the historical (sociopolitical) perspective as well as the from more, for the lack of a better word, mythical perspective (Vedas, Smritis etc.). From both the left and the right, if I may. Because I'm curious to see how such a social structure came about and more interestingly, how it survived/es for as long as it did. 

Oh, well, looks like Piketty is going to give a brief tour of exactly that. 

If the British came in and sanctioned, even entrenched, the caste system within the state, then does it mean that prior rulers didn't consider caste in their dealings? 

"The course of Indian inequality was profoundly altered by its encounter with the outside world in the form of a remote foreign power."- Does it mean that 1. the British was the first foreign power which leveraged the caste system for its benefit or 2. British was the only remote foreign power because almost everyone else who came in stayed back and thereby are not foreign powers?

Fernand Bruadel argues that India and China have always had more people live in those areas than Europe because the latter are predominantly meat eaters and it takes more acres to produce animal calories than plant calories.

The same claim of India being a recent (post-1947) political entity. Contrast that with the idea of Bharatvarsha, the stories of Yogis and Sadhus who have walked across the length and breadth of the country for centuries, and what Diana L Eck refers to as India's Sacred Geography (I haven't read the book yet). The fact that Republic of India survives, and occasionally thrives, is proclaimed with admiration and it would be interesting to understand why it does. Did we come together after the British arrived because it is easy to differentiate between the whites and the browns, and coalesce as one. Or are there deeper forces at work. Is it Hinduism and its correspondent mythology, or Sanskrit, Prakrit and closely related languages, or is it cultures and customs (food, dressing, even music) that somehow tie so many of us together? Or infact is this idea of unity my retrospective superimposition on a set of disparate societies? The only parallel I can think of to India is Europe, with its seemingly common ethos, and I need to search if someone's written about this parallel.

Difference between secular and multiconfessional?

Note to self: Read Willaim Dalrymple's Anarchy to get an understanding of how a trading company managed to take over the administration of a huge kingdom(s). If I remember correctly, Niall Ferguson alludes to the immense power EIC held came from the the new inventions of capitalism in that era- limited liability and shareholders without executive power; Other developments being fractional reserve banking and promissory notes.

Piketty briefly states the relationship between Indian Hindus and Muslims from the 12th century, since the inception of the Delhi Sultanate, till the advent of the British. 

"Hinduism is more explicit in linking religion to social organisation." 

"Other religions purport to be egalitarian, atleast in theory."

Origins of the Caste System

Earliest European organisation of society- 10th and 11th century

Trifunctional- religious class, warrior class, labouring class

Vedas talk about Varnas from 2nd millennium BCE

Though the fundamental text was Manusmriti(written between 2 BCE to 2 CE): I think it was in one of the episodes of the Seen and the Unseen podcast that there is a discussion regarding the arbitrariness of putting Manusmriti on a pedestal. The speaker argues that when the British came to India, they were confronted with a bewildering medley of social groups and to make sense of it, the orientalists looked at the texts and were led by some Brahmins to the Manusmriti. Because it seemed to roughly map to what they could see on the land, they assumed that this was the primary guiding ideology and thus used it to arbitrate Indian cases. Most Indians didn't know about Manusmriti and caste was apparently a more fluid entity; There were many examples of kings from lower castes who, with the help of the right priests, could be instated to the level of the twice-borns.  This seems like an interesting argument to me, a hypothesis that could be explored further.

paused at the end of page 311

Notes from the class-

Inequality and Indian democracy

You can pick apart Piketty's chapter in many ways but it is a good summary.

Paradox in all democracies: Prior to the 19th century, one of the critiques of democracy (universal suffrage, electoral politics) has been that it will cause equality. If you give poor people the vote, the most likely thing that'll happen is that they'll appropriate property from the rich. Without stable property relationships, you can neither have freedom nor economic investments. If democracy is bad to property, ergo, approach it carefully. That's why there were no qualms of tying suffrage to property.

France of 18th century- Clergy, Bourgeoisie, Nobility

But in reality, democracy has become compatible not only with property rights but also with immense social and economic inequality.

What explains this fact? Ambedkar- Why doesn't political equality lead to social and economic equality?

Adam Przeworski- Political scientist

Elites realised that democracy not only challenges our power, it also legitimates that power.

Gregory Clark Big Data book on Sweden

Taxation is an instrument of both development and redistribution; historically Tax to GDP ratio has been low. WWII lays the foundation for the New Deal, for somewhat equal social welfare countries.

The levels of political will required for progressive taxation come only after major calamities. 

Escaping from Rome- Walter Scheidel

Land Reform- the second big instrument of some kind of Economic justice.

Atul Kohli- Comparitive Colonialism

British Colonialism relied on intermediate Zamindari class. Japanese Colonialism was suspicious of these classes, so they wiped them out. So Japanese Colonialism lead to better land reforms. And democracies are quite bad at LR too.

"Conservative parties legitimise their power by outflanking the Left"- So they end up doing more for the poor.

Piketty's chapter in a nutshell; three macro-theses:

    a. Historically, almost all societies have been divided into three classes

        i. Clergy

        ii. Nobility

        iii. Labour

    These three classes have been remarkably stable.

    India: Relationship between class and caste. Because Brahmins are not celibate like the European            clergy, they've validated endogamy (core institution of caste). Most of Indian political theory: Function of the king is to protect the order of caste, and thereby property. Contrarian examples: Shudra kings. But even if they are kings, the primary "Propertarian ideology" remains.

    You can destabilise that social order by:

    a. external shock- for India, most external shocks have worked with existing structures

    b. diffusion of human capital (Eg: education)- Ambedkar- "This is the resource that's most protected"

    c. disjunction b/w status and identity (like in Europe where there's tight coupling between social status and economic status)- in India, crudely oversimplifying, social fight between Brahmin and Kshatriya. But because of endogomy, status remains secure (Eg: poor brahmin without economic and political power is still socially powerful) 

Indian society had a deeply durable structure of inequality. Even now, rates of inter-marriage are extraordinarily low. Most class situation can be mapped to caste.

"British colonialism was called Brahmin Company Raj"

Democracies seem to be bad to inequality and India's caste structure. What do we do about justice in India?

Amit Varma's question of liberal constitution imposed on an illiberal people comes to mind.

Ambedkar, principally four mechanisms for social equality:

    a. equalisation in education (worldover public schooling is a great equaliser but not in India)

    b. John Dewey's endosmosis (inter-marriage which usually follows the previous point). Joke that most universities function for assortative mating (refer to Raghuram Rajan's Fault Lines)

    c. land reform

    d. taxation

    e. representation, affirmative action (creates a more diverse elite, changes aspiration because of promise of ability but does it produce far-reaching structural transformation)

Why are we unequal?

My hypothesis: Because people's identities are more tied to their caste and communities. What we generally celebrate about India being a thousands of years old continuing civilisation is what is hampering equality. Because we are too entrenched in our particular caste lifestyles (food, culture, dressing etc.)

Right now people vote for politicians who vote for policies. Why can't people directly vote for policies?

(referred in P Sainath's Everybody loves a good drought)

Poverty as a living experience is different from poverty as data. People who're poor are fighting with each other for the little pie instead of getting together to demand more.

Sanskritization is one of the modalities of social reform. If the lower castes are trying to aspire to a Brahminical lifestyle, then as much as it has its problems, if that assimilation is allowed, then it should break the barriers. But we don't see that happening either.

Why did we think that democracy was the right vehicle to bring about social and economic justice (Tocqueville's bittersweet take on American democracy)?

When the economy is growing so fast, people assume that they have a good chance to get rich next, so they're not willing to ruffle too many feathers in the existing structure. Also, even though real incomes have remained stagnant, the purchasing power has increased because of cheap technology.

Politicians don't have an incentive to work towards long term changes because their vision is only for the next five years.

Political mobilisation is specific to local reality. A dalit from TN won't vote similar to a dalit from UP. And a dalit and a brahmin will probably vote against a yadav. So, in that sense, the on-ground reality is different from the macroview. 

One participant: What if the caste system was meant to be horizontal with spread of specialisation, all equal, and it has somehow been 'corrupted' into this vertical structure? 

Fairly standard upper-caste view.

Prof: Paradox of India is that poor turn out in almost as equal numbers as the rich unlike other developed countries.

Mukulika Banerjee- "Elections are the only religion left to the people of India"

Why do we expect democracy to bring us justice anyway?- It is a framework with three very important characteristics:

    a. framework itself ideologically states equality. "Think of the thrill of democracy." aah! "One of its great existential charms is that even rulers rule at my suffrage". The idea was that this idea itself is a deeply destabilising thought. We believe that authority is a provisional grant.

To underestimate the degree to which that has happened is not right. There is only surface obsequiousness- cynical and instrumental.

    b. accountability incentive- you have to come seek my vote every five years, that's incentive enough to perform atleast to some level. It is a responsive framework.

Amartya Sen argues that democracy avoids famine, not at avoiding chronic problems like malnutrition.

    c. democracy's historical relation with nationalism- We now think that nationalism is a diversion from more pressing issues. But historically democracy and nationalism have a deeper bond because we are equal.

Piketty- Stronger welfare is empirically proved to happen in a more horizontally identifying population.

Prerna Singh's book on Sub-nationalism and welfare states in India: States formed with a strong sub-national identity (linguistic etc.) perform better in markers of welfare. Mutual identity between citizens. So TN and AP better than UP and Bihar.

Caste and identity: Ambedkar- "Caste was a division of labourers, not of labour". Some nationalists during the freedom movement argued about the horizontal, functional, uncorrupt view of caste (Retrieving from the past while divorcing from its odious aspects). But you can't sustain that argument as a historical thesis. Also it runs against individual rights. 

BR: The logic of caste was a form of involution. Almost everybody had someone they could dominate. You could find psychological recuperation for being dominated by dominating someone else.

Logic of fragmentation would make collective action too difficult. 

Politician incentives: India has a high anti-incumbency rate. In a low-wattage economy, no politician can make much change to an individual. Health and Education are peculiar because they involve high resources, a large number of actors and the results can be seen only in the long run. Countries where these work better is either in Communist regimes or for some exogenous reasons, elites commit to it (for instance, national pride).

Eugene Weber- Peasants as Frenchmen. You convert them by focus on education. What is it about Indian nationalism that we still don't get a take-off for common public education while all other nationalist movements focused on this.

Example of AAP- Which won on reforms in Education and Mohalla clinics.

"In North India caste is more cynically used. South India takes it more seriously." 

Notes- Justice Class 5

The readings for class 5 are: Excerpts from The Myth of Ownership (Murphy & Nagel) and from Justice as Fairness (Rawls). 

Previously, we covered Meritocracy and used those learnings to understand Universal Basic Income.

The Myth of Ownership: 

Ch 5- The Tax Base

Income, defined in one way, is Consumption plus Increase in Wealth.

Q: Is Consumption Tax better than Income Tax?

Q:What is the point of a Tax system?

    1. To raise revenue for public provision

    2. Secure economic justice

    3. Provide desirable behavioural incentives

The assumption of people being rational actors is not misplaced but, in my opinion, incomplete because definitions of rationality change both from perspective and scale. As much as I agree that people respond to incentives, they do not always act in ways an institution or a group of people might find rational. It is because I think some individuals, by doing the opposite of what might seem safe, send a different albeit stronger signal. Evolutionary Psychology might give me a framework to better understand that phenomenon. On a related note, the podcaster Amit Varma endorses Public Choice Theory a lot; I need to get some reading done on that.

Tax system should be simpler to reduce the cost of operations as well to give people less options to game the system for their benefit.

Why is it morally irrelevant as to whether a tax scheme imposes equal, or proportional, or any other pattern? If I do not take the libertarian view that all tax is theft, then I think I tax people based on their "ability to pay". As much as I understand that there is a certain arbitrariness to that mechanism, and as always there will be few exceptions, for the most part isn't it fair? I can see how people would game the system and show that they have less they really do (black money) but that's more of an operational issue than an ethical one. Need to read the previous chapter.

Outcomes are more important than intentions- As much as I want to, I can't think of a reason to refute that.

I don't understand Hall & Rabushka's Flat Tax Proposal- If the VAT is not 'flat' but is proportional to an individual's income, how is it different from the regular tiered income tax? Quick detour to Wikipedia doesn't help.

Cash Flow Tax- Individuals pay tax on all their earnings but deduct any amounts saved in the tax year. This seems like a more natural consumption tax.

I'm beginning to think that this reading is a wrong idea for a liveblog pilot. The subject is very tough and the authors' writing is not very easy to follow. So more than a summary of my thoughts at the end of the chapter, this seems like a litany of confusing concepts.

The Kurt example clarifies some of the above concepts. 

The authors argue that a tax system should encourage savings because investment is good for economic growth. From my understanding, that means that most members of a society should earn money but since they do not have the necessary expertise to invest (read delay gratification) and would rather consume (read immediate gratification), a much smaller section of professionals can use the money 'rightly', for increasing the wealth of society as a whole. I can't speak for everyone else but I admit that I am probably worse than an average professional investor (I'm not completely sure of it, though, because I'm convinced by most of Nassim Taleb's arguments in Fooled by Randomness). That doesn't give me solace from the fact that I'm probably just another specialised worker bee. 

I'm pausing this reading at the end of sub-section III for now.

Justice as Fairness (pages 134-140):

Ch 3- The Original Position

"..the balance of reasons itself rests on judgment, though judgment informed and guided by reasoning."- I have always thought about how imposition of a liberal framework is i. arbitrary ii. an imposition. I think this is a wonderfully succinct summary of the liberal ideology. Another explanation that I absolutely adore comes up in a conversation between Kapil Komireddi and Amit Varma when, if I remember correctly, Amit asks his regular question of if our liberal constitution is itself an imposition on a largely illiberal society. While Madhav Khosla, again I hope I'm not misattributing, contests the argument that we are an illiberal society, talking about India's bottom-up liberalism honed by millennia of co-existence, Kapil references Sunil Khilnani's, and as an extension Nehru's, Idea of India by telling us that that's the idea of India which is expansive and accepting enough to accommodate and celebrate all other conceptions of India. This is what is at the heart of what I call the Liberal Disequilibrium- That an illiberal person can ask for the ouster of a liberal from society but a liberal person, by definition, cannot do that. A liberal is not a hyper-rationalist devoid of all opinions and judgements, but someone who's opinions are more learned, deduced than accepted, and at which he is able to look at as objectively as possible. Therefore, liberalism is not a religion but more of a framework akin to scientific thinking.

Rawls' elaborates on how political philosophy is a very social affair and it would be very hard to come up with almost mathematically precise and complete theories.

Ch 4- Institutions of a Just Basic Structure

Property owning democracy vs a capitalist welfare state

I like how Rawls qualifies his statements by clearly stating that they are not conclusive, expansive claims but illustrative thoughts. Not only does this increase my respect in the writer but it also leads me to think, and apply those theories and see if they work, instead of just accepting them as laws.

A liberal democracy tries to create a fair system of cooperation between free and equal citizens, as well as between generations.

5 kinds of regimes with political, economic and social institutions:

    a. laissez-faire capitalism

    b. welfare-state capitalism

    c. state socialism with a command economy

    d. property owning democracy

    e. liberal (democratic) socialism

4 questions regarding any regime:

    a. question of right- whether its institutions are right and just

    b. question of design- whether a regime's institutions can be effectively designed to realise its declared aims and objectives

    c. question of compliance- whether the citizens who's interests and ends are shaped by the regime's basic structure, can be relied on to comply with the 'just' rules. Corruption is a part of this

    d. question of competence- whether the tasks assigned to offices and positions are simply too difficult to those who hold them

This is riveting elucidation, almost a mathematical blueprint of how our societies are organised. I have noticed this aspect of almost mathematical abstraction even in Prof. Mehta's talks; It seems like as much as political theorists understand and consider unpredictable human behaviour, mathematical thinking, like when deducing conclusions from axioms, is the most conducive way to think of and explain politics and society.

I wonder how these concepts have been updated since the ascendance of Behavioural Economics (Eg: Nudge Theory). 

The importance of above questions is roughly in descending order.

Paused at the end of page 136

Notes from the class-

How do we think of property rights? 

Normatively speaking, we agree that everyone should have a share in the economy. 

What is property? What is the right to property? Indian constitution had such a right that was later removed.

Approaches to private property:

    a. Natural rights approach- I own my labour. If I mix my labour with something, by the virtue of my labour enhancing that thing, it becomes mine. Reservations: I might gain right to use, but why right to own; If labour grants a right to property, then what about latecomers (an extension of previous week's discussion)?

    b. Some right to property is an extension of our freedom and self-expression. It is very important to concretising our freedom (Hegel). 

    c. Hayek- Rules of private property allocation produce an efficient economy. (Hayek said something similar when talking about meritocracy. He agrees that the link between work and material reward is tenuous at best but it is necessary).

Relationship between property and sovereignty- If property is a good thing, shouldn't it be distributed widely?

Accepting property is good but :

    a. People's starting places are arbitrary

    b. And won't trade then increase inequality

How do we solve this?

We are embodied beings. We need property to be able to do many things including something as quotidian as to have the right to privacy you need a room you can call your own. Without property, what is taken away from you is the basic right of self-expression.

Q: What if you move from scarce forms of property, like land, to almost infinite forms, like data? 

    Growing the property pie instead of distributing it, even if some inequality will persist. Distribution need not be zero-sum. 

    Challenges to above idea: a. As economies get more complex, with other forms of property than land getting institutionalised, how do questions of ownership get determined? [I don't understand this]

    b. Nagel & Murphy- The patterns of accumulation that you see in any society are actually the constructs of property rules we've decided. They exist because we allow certain allocations to exist. They are not the basis of property rights but consequence of allocation in a certain way. Eg: If you take away my accumulated capital, then you're taking away my property. But it is your property in the first place because there are certain rules that allow you to have it in the first place- Inheritance. 

    We think: We have property, it is being taxed. Then we question why and how of it. N & M reverse that. The property that you have is a product of prior taxation rules. It doesn't exist independent of them. The question, then, is what is the justification of those rules? 

Forest Rights debates in India- Historically, communities had rights to use products of the forests which is different from right to dispose it or something. 

"The only guys who didn't have a free market right in their property were farmers"- Links to a SeenUnseen episode.

Paradox of India- We thought it was okay to restrict property rights in land for agriculture sector (the entire mantle of redistribution fell on them) but why does it not apply to other forms of property or capital?

Q: Why should distribution of property be an act of justice? Why can't it be a means through which enough money is raised to spend on more welfare-ish schemes?

Q: Conflict between different types of justice: Individual rights vs Environmental rights etc. 

You can't ask specific questions to know if something is just. It has to be turned into a more generic, big question. Something that Balagopal said as well. 

Yes, the economic usage of an asset is important. But the converse is also true: Dynamics of inequality that is produced by taxation can be measured by those calibrations. [Er..]

Inheritance

What is the moral basis for saying someone can inherit property?

    One argument for: Property continuity (wanting to leave my grandchildren something) is a form of expression of freedom.

Two problematic aspects:

    a. Somebody in society seems to be getting an undue share of unearned income- Granting moral legitimacy for something unearned

    b. It seems to be most obvious location at which social concerns about inequality and wide distribution of property can be easily located- Because of the nature of its compounding cumulative power

US till 70s had a steep inheritance tax

Is it possible to have a cut-off and then the state takes the rest- I'm thinking what are the second-order consequences of such an act. How will people find ways to subvert the system?

The person who has the money has the moral right to use it as she pleases. But if we're saying that we ought to use to money for social welfare, then there's no point quibbling over moral questions and we should concentrate on the efficiency of tax collection. 

Fundamental Right vs Legal Right

Countervailing considerations: 

    a. Consider a Land-only Economy: The small set of people who're getting land by virtue of their birth are enjoying freedoms that I don't. The same applies to cases where capital is very unequally distributed.  

    Could it be that the giver has the right to give but the received doesn't have the right to take.

    "Inheritance is, arguably, the most stable method of perpetuating inequality"

    Free transfer can only be free when all people have atleast a basic, adequate freedom/ power to be capable of doing a free transfer

    b. From the point of view of Well-being and Freedom: Yes, people can accumulate wealth through free exchange. By allowing high levels of accumulation, especially that is not earned (without consideration of marginal utility), society as a whole is signalling the fact that wealth is the most important social value.  You could utilize something like scientific esteem as an incentive.

Adam Smith- "Wealth is unnecessary to well-being and happiness beyond a certain point".

Q: If we have a problem with inter-generational transfer of wealth that's arbitrary, then are all arbitrary transfers wrong? 

Chicago Economists- I inherit property worth 5 million from my parents. You come and say I can wring out a value of 10 million from this. So the argument goes, auction off inheritance and increase turnover of property. All the time.

Efficiency (of usage) is not always the right way to answer questions of justice. 

How many of you are comfortable inheriting a large amount of money? There seems to be queasiness with the unearned nature of that income. But on the other hand, being born into money is not very different from being born beautiful or athletic etc. and the only reason we're debating this is because we can measure money. Although, large inheritance visibly channels social power and so is worth debating.