One cannot cover the farming without challenging the big landlords, just like one cannot cover the labour without challenging the big capital. Without recognizing raising extreme inequality in the country

On Sunday, July 21, dozens of students, young journalists, activists, trade union leaders, and other sympathizers of the working-class movement gathered in Vidyasagar Hall, Kotturpuram, Chennai for a day-long workshop titled “Reclaiming the Space for Labour in Journalism: Beating Capital with Labour Beat”.

The Working Class consists of more than 50 crore of the Indian population, yet the journalistic space given to the stories that reflect the objective interests of the working class is vanishingly small in today’s media landscape.

Historically, there existed a dedicated ecosystem in the media, that covered such stories of interest to the Working Class. In the journalistic lexicon, it is called “Labour Beat”.

Given that this vanishing of labour beat from the media ecosystem is symbiotically related to the weakening of labour movement itself; a group of journalists, activists, and general sympathizers of the labour movement (in itself and its role in the overall democratization of the society) felt the need to have a closer look at the situation and brainstorming the way forward to nurture a newer generation of labour journalist equipped with newer tools available due to progress of technology. Thus arose the idea of this workshop.

In this report, we have documented various sessions of this workshop such as speeches on systematic erosion of labour beat, labour economy of Tamilnadu, ethics of Labour Journalism as well as hands-on interactive sessions on how to storyboard and methodology involved in making a video story. We also look at the various questions related to the demography of participants and accessibility of the venue, praises and criticisms from various sections, and reflect on the future possibilities.

This report emerged from our continuous engagement with the organizers over the weeks leading up to the program on Sunday and with our interactions with the persons from diverse backgrounds who participated in the program.

P Sainath’s Speech on the History of Labour Beat

Sainath in his speech covered how the media landscape (in terms of its class composition and its interest in the kind of stories it deems worthy) changed over the last few decades of economic liberalization and steadily increasing corporate monopoly over the media industry. He established his points with details of various publicly available statistical data.

He emphasized greatly the point that aspiring labour journalists must understand the context of change in the political economy and the rise of extreme inequality in the country in which they will be operating.

He started with his own experience of joining journalism nearly half a century ago and how things have changed since. At that time every established newspaper had a full-time labour correspondent.

In the early liberalization era of mid 90’s not a single newspaper had a full-time labour correspondent. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, the idea of dedicated labour beat itself started getting vanished and it essentially got merged into the industrial relation (IR) beat.

By 2005, there were essentially IR correspondents, who were basically communicating with the PR offices of the corporates.

It is ironic that such correspondents don’t have any actual contact with trade unions or the working class in general and they are essentially talking with industries to report about labour.

Sainath also emphasized that a number of other beats also essentially disappeared in the post-liberalization era. Around 15 years ago agricultural correspondents were basically communicating to agricultural ministers, not the people who make their livelihoods through farming.

Such agricultural ministers are so alienated from the actual farming process that they can’t even differentiate between two actual farm produce in practice. Today, such agricultural correspondents essentially talk to agribusinesses, not even govt officers in the agriculture departments.

No agricultural correspondent found it worthy to inform their readers about open official partnerships between certain agribusinesses and the Govt of India.

So, agribusinesses can now promote their products through official govt mechanisms. An aspiring journalist must understand this context and cover the stories through the lens of people.

Sainath also stressed that to cover a story genuinely from the people’s lens one needs to understand the labouring process first and need to challenge the persons holding the power positions. One cannot cover the farming without challenging the big landlords, just like one cannot cover the labour without challenging the big capital.

Sainath stressed about the rapidly rising inequality in India, especially after the liberalization in the nineties. He cited the work of the Inequality lab led by Thomas Piketty  and his team which concluded that the wealth inequality in today’s India is greater than the heyday of British colonialism. Till 1991, India didn’t have any dollar billionaires, while the first dollar billionaire arose in 1996.

Today India has 240 dollar billionaires, which consists of only 0.000015% of the country’s total population, and has an accumulated wealth nearly equal to 29% entire country’s GDP.

Their accumulated wealth is greater than the country’s agricultural budget itself. Even among them, 30% of wealth is controlled by the top 5 richest person of the country. Such a massive accumulation of wealth didn’t come from nowhere, but it came from the exploitation and pauperization of crores of ordinary toiling masses.

He told how the Covid-19 pandemic served as a clear indicator to understand the process of wealth accumulation at the top of the economic pyramid by making crores of labouring people poorer. While crores of Indians were trying to sustain the bare minimum; in the first 12 months of the pandemic, India added 42 dollar billionaires, 24 of which are from the health sector.

Rapid concentration of wealth is reflected in the expenditure of electoral campaigns and as a consequence who gets elected. The number of Crorepati MPs grew from 53% in 2009 to 93% in 2024.

Thus nearly 500 crorepati today represent crores of Indians who are on bare survival. Thus it is not hard to understand why people’s issues like poverty and unemployment are not focussed by them. Sainath gave a rather interesting analogy for visualizing the actual mammoth scale of unemployment in today’s India. He said that, if one makes a queue of unemployed persons in India, with each unemployed person covering half a meter, the resulting queue will be more than 3 times the length of the entire coastline of India (even including the coastline of the islands).

He concluded with an explanation of why all these don’t get represented in the media today. Today’s media is essentially the media and entertainment industry controlled by big monopoly capital.

There is an ownership concentration of the registered media, with most registered media owned by a handful of corporates, each owning many at a time. It is practically impossible to raise any issue that is against the interest of the owners.

Sainath also stressed the fact that how change in class composition in the journalists resulted in the change in class concerns as a result of liberalisation. Historically, in the ’60s and ’70s most journalists used to come from the working class and lower middle-class background.

They were less “educated” in the traditional sense, but had an organic link from the class they were coming from. Gradually, as journalism turned more towards corporate PR & entertainment and a profitable business model around it arose, journalism training schools started popping up like business enterprises.

This created a generation of journalists totally alienated from the labouring people. One needs more journalists from the working-class background to change this situation.

Sainath also stressed that while the emergence of newer forms of digital alternative media has enabled the possibility of bypassing the censorship of anti-establishment news in the print and Television media, one must keep in mind that there is a possibility of even worse censorship coming on these alternate media through the algorithms and modern technologies.

However, there still exists some space for pro-labour reporting in alternate media and one must utilize it.

To watch the recorded version of Sainath’s Lecture the interested reader can go to the YouTube Channel WU Live or Workers’ Unity Tamil.

A highly important question regarding the status of unionization of journalists came up during the Q & A session following the talk. Sainath replied that instead of an increase in unionization, rather there has been steady de-unionisation. It is more likely that this is related to the changing class composition of journalists.

Vidyasagar’s Speech on Labour Economy of Tamilnadu:

In his speech titled “Labour Structure & Conditions in Tamilnadu”, Vidyasagar, with the backing of various govt and non-govt data, explained the overall patterns in India’s labour economy from liberalization onwards, as well as specificities of labour economy of Tamilnadu.

He identified how the trend of growth without employment generation and Capitalism’s increasing aggressiveness to negotiate in favour of capital is worsening the already dire situation of the working class in terms of wages, social security, workplace safety, fighting strength, and organizational capacity.

Post-1991 union govt’s policies too aligned with pro-capital, anti-labour tend.

As a result of the influx of capital, there is a general trend of exodus from agriculture. However, this exodus didn’t happen to manufacture. There is a growing service sector and more rural labour are entering it.

As a general trend, over the last 30 years, both industry and agriculture is loosing the capacity to absorb labour. Construction provided around 36% of jobs between 2000 and 2015.

Even in the high-growth industries employment generation is stagnant. Nearly 50% of the workforce in India still depends on agriculture. To increase employment generation and wages in agriculture more govt intervention is needed, but capital is forcing the other way.

While both in industry and agriculture the output has increased, wages have declined. In fact, export production has seen an inverse relationship with the labour standards.

Vidyasagar emphasized about decreasing of formal/regular employment and increasing contract labour along with decentralization of industries as a general trend in the neoliberal era. In fact, contract labour is employed more in capital-intensive industries like automobiles. The percentage of contract labour in the automobile sector increased from 11.6% in 2000 to 44.7% in 2011-12 and currently, it is nearly 60%. The gap in income levels between contractual and regular workers is increasing drastically.

He also mentioned various categories of informal labour like self-earning initiatives, working in family enterprises, in establishments, etc. Surprisingly, self-earning initiatives like street vendors, hawkers, etc, have increased to cover nearly 60% of the informal labour. At present 93% are informal workers, while formal workers only account for 7%. New labour codes will only increase this trend of contractualization and informalisation, and workers will lose their existing rights.

The fighting strength and collective bargaining capacity of the working class have decreased drastically. Despite the tremendous increase in number of workers from the 1980 level, the number of days of workers’ strikes has decreased significantly. Currently, there exist around a dozen Central Trade Union Federations, with nearly 60k registered unions. However, due to causes like the reserve army of labour, and low-paid contract workers, the organizational strength of the workers has weakened significantly.

Vidyasagar then focussed on the specificities of Tamilnadu (TN). TN, with consistently ranking among the highest in the country in terms of Gross State Domestic Product (GDSP), significantly contributes towards India’s overall economic growth. In TN, there are major industrial clusters like automobile, manufacturing, textile, electronics & pharmaceuticals. Chennai, the state capital is a prominent IT & business hub further bolstering economic activity.

TN is among one of the highest-performing states in India in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI) has seen significant improvement over the years in social indicators like education and healthcare. TN also has a legacy of social reform programs & it has been pioneering in social welfare programs. Although compared to other states TN’s performance is better, there are disparities in this success story. Gender roles and expectations continue to shape societal norms, influencing labour force participation patterns. Caste dynamics, prelevant in many aspects of life, also impact economic opportunities.

He pointed out certain important facts about the TN Labour Force patterns based on various public data. Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) per thousand individual population, Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) [https://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/PLFS], and National Sample Survey Organisation(NSSO)[https://mospi.gov.in/NSSOa] data were used to arrive at these facts. The estimated labour force (15-59 years) grew at 1.19% per annum from 44.7% in 2001 to 45.6% in 2011. The ratio at all India level during the corresponding period was lower at 39.1% and 39.8% respectively.

2023 TN estimate is 54.7%. He mentioned that between 2001-2011 the proportion of persons who are not working in the state increased from 30.30% to 31.16%. Rural LFPR for men saw a gradual decline from 897 in 1993-94 to 838 in 2021-22, while rural LFPR for women in the same period declined more sharply from 680 to 530. The general national trend of increasing unemployment holds for TN also with 1.6% in 2011-12 to 3.6% in 2018-19.

He went further about characteristics of labour in TN with an emphasis on the young people (15-35 age group) who consists 35% of the state’s population. 7 out of 8 workers in TN work in the non-farm sector, with most of them being contract workers with a ‘footloose nature’ [https://www.amazon.in/Footloose-Labour-Working-Informal-Contemporary/dp/0521568242] of labour. Many youths were compelled to join as gig workers in Swiggy, Zomato, Ola, Uber, etc. They earn a mere 400-500 Rs per day with an average work time of 12+ hours per day. There is a trend of rural to urban youth migration with migrant workers being absorbed more in certain sectors. He also pointed out that about 30% of the people in 15-18 age are out of school and an increase in adolescent labour.

He ended his talk with certain criticism about the Dravidian model, especially on urban land usage and urban poverty, despite its relative success compared to other northern Indian states in terms of HDI. Dravidian model promoted urbanization through industrialization, increased infrastructure investments, introduction of pump sets for irrigation, creation of co-op societies, and so on to change caste-based occupations & caste discrimination, supported by social justice policies. In the process, urban areas are getting overcrowded, and more & more slums and in some cases, caste-based settlements are arising in urban areas. There is a repeating trend of slum clearance by the govt which has deprived youths of livelihood opportunities. Govt is planning to create a land bank of 45k acres in the next five years to attract investments, but there is nothing for the workers even in MOUs.

Journalistic Ethics and Labour Journalism:

The speech by Vidyasagar was followed by shorter talks by two in-house journalists of Workers’ Unity, namely Vaishnavi and Sandeep. They shared their insights on certain ethical issues while covering labour struggles and also a few minute but technical aspects that need to be kept in mind.

Vaishnavi used a video footage from a mainstream media covering a particular strike of women workers. She emphasized with particular examples how the reporting of that media is actually reporting from an angle of industry that production is being stopped, and not from the perspective of workers.

That’s why they didn’t take any in-depth interviews of workers there. They also didn’t ask the question about wages and working conditions in their report and what objective causes might have created so much anger among the workers. The entire environment was very emotionally charged and Vaishnavi emphasized that covering the story from a working-class lens doesn’t mean getting carried out by the emotions of workers also. A responsible labour-journalist must independently verify the claims made by workers also.

Sandeep said that at a time when rapid changes in the economic organisation is leaving the workers perilous, the journalistic resources, human and infrastructure, is scantily deployed to cover issues of labour relations. In other words, the ‘Labour Beat’ has been missing at a time when it is dearly needed.

Young journalist should come forward and cover the untold stories burried behind factories workshops around the country.

After this, there was a lunch break and a closed session for the pre-registered participants started after lunch.

Aparna’s Speech on Making Video Stories & various ethical issues:

The session after the lunch started with an “ice-breaking session”. In this session the participants were first asked to get familiar with the space by walking through the whole space and pausing periodically. Then they were asked to form pairs with someone they don’t know already and talk in pairs for sometime. After that they were asked to take the identity of other person in the pair and introduce the other person as self. We later came to know from the organizers that such a “ice-breaking session” is common practice in theatre circles.

Following this there was a talk by Aparna Ganesan on methodology involved in making a video story. At this point a brief introduction of Aparna is required for the reader.

Aparna Ganesan is an independent journalist and documentary filmmaker from India with five years of experience. She’s worked with DW News, Faultline Videos, Mongabay, and Asiaville. Aparna is a 2022 Earth Journalism Network Grantee and 2024 GRID ArendalGrantee. She’s one among ten journalists selected by the East-West Centre to do an Indian-Pakistan cross-border documentar

The post Journalist cannot cover the labour beat without questioning extreme inequality- P Sainath appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On march 2024, the World Inequality Database released a report titled “Economic Inequality in India: The “Billionaire Raj” is now more Unequal than the British Colonial Raj” which comprehensively analysed wealth and income inequality in India from 1922 to 2022.

Among the 92 crore adults (aged 20 and above) in India, the average annual income in 2022-23 is Rs. 2.3 lakhs, which translates to less than Rs. 20,000 per month or Rs. 800 per day (assuming 25 working days per month). However, this average is misleading as most Indians earn significantly less. For instance, someone earning Rs. 24,000 per month earns more than 90% of the population, meaning that 82 crore adults earn less than Rs. 2.9 lakh per year.

The median annual income in 2022-23 is Rs. 1 lakh, meaning anyone earning more than Rs. 8,750 per month (Rs. 350 per day) earns more than the bottom 50% of the population, which consists of 46 crore people. For this bottom half, the average annual income is about Rs. 71,000, or less than Rs. 6,000 per month (Rs. 250 per day). The middle 40% of the population, about 36 crore people, have an average annual income of Rs. 1.6 lakhs, equating to Rs. 13,000 per month or Rs. 550 per day.

In contrast, income distribution in India is highly concentrated at the top. The top 10% (9 crore people) earn an average annual income of over Rs. 13 lakhs. The top 1% (90 lakh people) earn over Rs. 53 lakhs annually, and the top 0.1% (9 lakh people) earn over Rs. 2 crores. At the pinnacle, the top 0.01% (around 10,000 people) earn more than Rs. 10 crores annually, and the top 9,223 individuals earn an astounding average of Rs. 50 crores.

According to Forbes billionaire rankings, the number of Indians with a net wealth exceeding $1 billion (Rs. 8,300 crores) increased from just 1 in 1991 to 162 in 2022. Their total net wealth grew from less than 1% of India’s national income in 1991 to 25% in 2022, surpassing the entire Union budget of India. Among these ultra-wealthy individuals, savarnas are significantly overrepresented, making up 90% of the total. STs have no representation, OBCs own about 10% of the billionaire wealth, and SCs only a meagre 2.6%. Interestingly, during the Modi years (2014-2022), the OBC share in billionaire wealth fell below 10% from 20%, while the savarna share rose to 90% from 80%.

Inequality in India declined after independence until the early 1980s, but has been rising sharply since the early 2000s. In 2022-23, the top 1% of the population (just 1 crore people) controlled 22.6% of the national income and 40.1% of the national wealth. This extreme concentration of wealth and income among a tiny fraction of the population is likely the highest since 1922, surpassing even the inequality seen during British colonial rule. The report describes the present as an era of “Billionaire Raj,” dominated by India’s modern capitalists. India’s top 1%’s share of national income is among the highest in the world, exceeding that of South Africa, Brazil, China, the UK, and the US, making India one of the most unequal countries in the world. Meanwhile, 46 crore people, or 50% of the population, account for only 15% of the national income.

Now let us examine wealth inequality in detail. Physical assets like land and buildings constitute almost 90% of total household wealth. Since 1991, wealth concentration has increased, paralleling the trend in income inequality. The top 10% of the population saw their wealth share rise from 45% in 1961 to 65% in 2022-23. In contrast, the shares for the bottom 50% and the middle 40% have significantly declined over this period.

The top 1% of Indians have an average wealth of Rs. 5.4 crores, which is 40 times more than the average wealth of Indians (Rs. 13 lakhs). The bottom 50% have an average wealth of Rs. 1.7 lakhs, while the middle 40% have Rs. 10 lakhs. At the very top, about 10,000 of the wealthiest individuals own an average of Rs. 2,260 crores, accounting for 16% of national wealth, which is more than twice the wealth owned by the bottom 50 crore Indians.

To be in the top 50% of the population, one needs a wealth of Rs. 4 lakhs. To reach the top 10%, Rs. 22 lakhs is required, Rs. 81 lakhs for the top 1%, and Rs. 275 crores to be among the 10,000 wealthiest people (top 0.001%). The bottom 50% of the population holds just 6% of national wealth, while the top 1% owns 40%, more than five times that of the bottom half. Less than 1 crore people at the top own more wealth than the 85-crore people at the bottom. Furthermore, Forbes’ annual rich lists indicate that the net wealth of Indian billionaires has increased by over 280% between 2014 and 2022, a rate that is 10 times faster than the growth of the national income, which was 27.8% over the same period.

Savarnas, who make up just over 25% of the population, own nearly 55% of the national wealth, making them the only caste group whose wealth share exceeds their population share. In contrast, the wealth shares of SC and ST are less than half of their respective population shares. Other Backward Classes (OBCs) hold just under 35% of national wealth, which is about three-quarters of their population share.

Pai and Vats (2023) reveal that a very small segment of Indians dominate consumer transactions. Their data shows that only 1% of Indians (1 crore people) account for 45% of flights, 2.6% (4 crore people) invest in mutual funds, and 6.5% (5 crore users) handle 44% of digital transactions on the Unified Payment Interface (UPI). Additionally, 5% of users (29 lakh people) make a third of the orders on Zomato. The entire consumer and digital ecosystem are primarily designed to cater to the top 5% of the population.

The Indian government imposes minimal taxes on its wealthiest citizens and allocates very little funding to public healthcare, making it one of the lowest healthcare spenders globally. Instead of investing in a robust public health system, it has favoured the growth of a powerful private health sector. Consequently, quality healthcare has become a luxury accessible only to the elite. Despite being a leading destination for medical tourism, India’s poorest states suffer from infant mortality rates higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, India accounts for 17% of global maternal deaths and 21% of deaths among children under five years old.

Life expectancy at birth is significantly lower for the bottom 20% of households in India, at 65.1 years, compared to 72.7 years for the top 20%. Dalit women, on average, die 14.6 years earlier than savarna women. Tribal populations in India have a life expectancy approximately three years shorter than the non-tribal population, with 42% of tribal children suffering from malnutrition. Despite 75% of the population living in rural areas, only 31% of hospitals and 16% of hospital beds are located there. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, the lack of adequate public health infrastructure and the high cost of private healthcare are impoverishing over 5 crore Indians annually.

According to the Oxfam report 2023, India has the highest number of poor in the world, with 23 crore people living in poverty. Wealth inequality has deprived 70% of Indians of a healthy, consumable diet, leading to 17 lakh deaths annually from malnutrition-related diseases. Even the median wage earner, who earns more than the bottom 50% of the population, earns just enough for basic sustenance, and losing a week’s income could push them to starvation. Wages for the bottom tier have stagnated, and rising inflation has led to reduced consumption and eroded household savings. A 1% increase in food inflation can cause a 0.5% rise in undernourishment and a 0.3% rise in infant and child mortality rates. The bottom 25% of the population spend more than 53% of their income on food, making them highly vulnerable to acute malnutrition due to food inflation. This inflation forces them to cut back on essential expenses for health, education, clothing, and shelter.

Another major issue is the lack of quality education for the majority of the population, which is made deliberately expensive so that it will remain accessible only to the elites. According to the 2011 census, nearly 30% of Indians were still illiterate. In recent years, the government has cut funding for social justice schemes, such as scholarships for students from marginalized communities. Additionally, public universities across the country have seen massive fee hikes. Dropout rates among primary classes doubled in 2021-22. The dropout rate at the secondary level is 15.6% for the general category but significantly higher for marginalized communities: 22.5% for SCs, 26.9% for STs, and 20% for OBCs. The unavailability of schools within 5 km makes it difficult for girls to attend school, putting ten million girls at risk of dropping out. More than half of children between 14 and 17 years old are unable to access secondary education in India.

In India, the majority of workers are in the informal sector, lacking job security, fixed salaries, or legal protections. According to the NCRB, an average of 115 daily wage workers died by suicide each day in 2021. Inequality is further exacerbated by caste and gender, with marginalized castes earning 55% less than savarnas, and women earning only 63 paise for every rupee earned by men. Additionally, rural workers only earn half as much as their urban counterparts.

Official statistics reveal sluggish economic growth during the Modi years, with real year-on-year income growth rates declining from over 6% in 2015-2016 to 4.7% in 2017, 4.2% in 2018, and a dramatic drop to 1.6% in 2019. This downturn occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic, which further caused incomes to plummet by 9% in 2020. Unemployment rates, especially among youth (15-29 years), saw a significant rise from 2011-12 to 2017-18. Real wages across various sectors have stagnated over the past decade. Between 2014 and 2022, the primary beneficiaries of government economic policies have been the super-rich, particularly the top 1% and above. Wealth concentration at the top has significantly increased, making India’s recent economic system resemble a “conclave economy.” In such a system, decision-making and economic benefits are concentrated among a small, exclusive group of elites who wield disproportionate control and influence over economic policies, resources, and opportunities, often to the exclusion of the broader population.

Direct taxes, such as income tax and corporate tax, primarily target the rich (top 10%), while indirect taxes, such as Goods and Services Tax (GST), excise duties, and sales tax, affect everyone, including the bottom 90%. Income tax is progressive, taxing higher income earners more, whereas indirect taxes are regressive, impacting all individuals equally regardless of income. From 2017 to 2020, only 9% (8 crore) of Indians filed income tax returns, as only those in that bracket earned enough to pay income tax.

In 2019, before the pandemic, the Central Government reduced the corporate tax rate from 30% to 22%, with newly incorporated companies paying just 15%. This policy change resulted in a revenue loss of Rs. 1.8 lakh crore. Similarly, in 2020-21, the government lost over Rs. 1 lakh crore in revenue due to incentives and tax exemptions for corporations (an amount exceeding the budget for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)).

To offset these losses, the Union Government increased GST on essential goods and excise duties on diesel and petrol while reducing exemptions. This shift towards higher indirect taxes disproportionately burdens the most marginalized populations. Failing to tax wealthy individuals and corporations fairly exacerbates inequality, forcing the government to raise indirect taxes and cut spending on essential services like public health, education, and social security, which are crucial for reducing inequality.

Consumption taxes like VAT are regressive, as the poor pay a larger share of their income. The bottom 50% of the population pays six times more in indirect taxes, as a percentage of income, compared to the top 10%. Of the total taxes collected from food and non-food items, 64% comes from the bottom 50%. Nearly two-thirds of the total GST revenue comes from the bottom 50%, one-third from the middle 40%, and only 3% from the top 10%. More than 50% of the government’s tax revenue comes from indirect taxes, disproportionately affecting the poor.

The Indian income tax system is also regressive when considering net wealth. A restructuring of tax laws to account for both income and wealth, along with broad-based public investments in health, education, and nutrition, is essential.

Oxfam report shows that just taxing the 160 Indian billionaires can significantly fund essential programs. A 3% wealth tax on billionaires can fund the National Health Mission for 3 years, while a 2% tax on them can fund the Supplementary Nutrition Programme. A 5% tax on the top 10 billionaires can cover tribal healthcare costs for five years. Raising health expenditure to 3% of GDP is achievable by taxing just the top 100 billionaires at 2%. Taxing the wealthiest 100 billionaires at 2% would cover the cost of running Breakfast Scheme for nearly 3.5 years. A one-off tax on unrealized gains from 2017–2021 on just one billionaire, Gautam Adani, could have raised Rs. 1.79 lakh crore, enough to employ more than 50 lakh Indian primary school teachers for a year.

A new progressive tax regime was proposed which taxes only the ‘crorepatis’ and leaves 99.96% of the population untouched, thereby taxing only the very wealthy. These taxes kick in only for those with a net wealth exceeding ₹ 10 crore (only the top 0.04% of adults would fall above this threshold). The total wealth of this top 0.04% is 25% larger than India’s entire economy. In the baseline tax proposal, a 2% annual tax on net wealth over ₹10 crore and a 33% inheritance tax on estates over ₹10 crore would generate 2.73% of GDP in revenue. The moderate tax variant suggests increasing the wealth tax to 4% for wealth over ₹100 crore, alongside a 33% inheritance tax on estates between ₹10 crore and ₹100 crore, and 45% on those over ₹100 crore, yielding 4.6% of GDP. The ambitious tax variant proposes higher rates of 3%-5% for wealth tax and 45%-55% for inheritance tax, potentially generating 6.1% of GDP in revenue.

The revenue from the baseline variant could nearly double the current public education expenditure. The moderate variant could nearly double the combined health and education budget or more than triple health expenditure alone. The ambitious variant could double the combined health and education budget and still leave surplus funds.

Savarnas hold a significantly disproportionate share of national wealth, and Indian billionaires are largely a savarna club. A progressive wealth tax package of the kind proposed above is most likely to benefit Dalit Bahujan Adivasis and the middle classes at the detriment of only a tiny number of ultra-wealthy upper-caste families. In that respect, besides addressing extreme wealth inequality, such taxes could also play a small role in weakening the rigid link between social and economic inequalities in India.

The government should also reduce the GST slabs on essential commodities which the poor consume, and hike the taxes on luxury goods which the top 1% consumes. This will lead to revenue generation, which is progressive in nature and reduce the burden on the poor. The government spending on public healthcare and education needs to be much higher and proper worker protection measures should be implemented to protect the labour rights of the informal sector. The government should stop working for the greed of 1% and work for welfare of the 99%.

“When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The post The Growing Divide: A Deep Dive into India’s Inequality Crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Oxfam, is a global organisation, with strong roots within India, that works on the ‘injustice of poverty’ and flags issues that enhance this injustice, structurally.[1] Oxfam also recently released a report on Wealth Inequality in India. One of the notable findings of the report is that the richest 21 billionaires own more wealth than 700 million Indians. Another startling finding is that top 1% of Indians now own 40.5% of the wealth in 2021 while the bottom 50% of the population has around 3% of wealth.[2]

This article is an attempt to understand how inequality finds its way into Indian system while the Constitution explicitly warns against such a concentration of wealth. The high concentration of wealth and economic inequality is used interchangeably in this article unless specified otherwise.

The numbers are alarming and there also have been questions raised on Oxfam’s methodology, data collection and calculations that led to these conclusions and findings. However, one does not need any clarification or a special investigation to conclude that staggering wealth and income inequalities exist in the country and in the whole world. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the international institution for lending, also presents that, contrary to the trends of global inequality, in-country inequality is on the rise- even in developed countries. This means that, while the gap between poor countries and rich countries is decreasing (global inequality), the gap between rich people and poor people in a given country has been increasing.[3] Studies which were not specific to India have also found that the worlds’ 1% of population owns half of the world’s wealth as of 2010. The closest to a government report on Inequality in India we have is the ‘State of Inequality in India,’ released by the Economic Advisory Council (EAC) to the Prime Minister.[4] This report was later said to be prepared by a private firm without any aegis of the EAC or its members. The report took into consideration the Periodic Labour Force Survey’s (PLFS) to gain insight into the data. It stated that monthly salary of Rs. 25,000 is among the top 10% of the total wages earned as per PLFS 2019-20. It also stated that the top 1% earns more than thrice the bottom 10%.[5] So, essentially, even going by the most conservative arguments, inequality in India exists.

Now, onto understanding why inequality is an issue. The conventional philosophy used to be that the creation of wealth will end up removing the inequalities and in alleviation of poverty. This also resulted in emphasis on creation of wealth rather than creating frameworks to distribute it better.[6] More recent and developed wisdom holds that excessive inequality erodes social cohesion and political stability. High levels of income inequality are often related to high inflation and financial instability. Humongous amount of literature exists on that front to support that inequality which is bad for both societies and their sustenance.[7] To put it simply in an example, wealth in India buys a better health insurance plan and thus security or is useful even to fund treatment for an emergency health condition. Lack of the same wealth can result in loss of life and consequent problems for a family, the burden of having spent money of treatment that has gone in vain etc. This results with varied impacts effects different strata of society.

In summary, irrespective of whichever report highlights the inequality, it is a problem and would have to be dealt with if societies are to thrive and sustain.

Now, the last part of the understanding is about what ways inequality propagates itself in India today.

The Ways of Inequality

One of the most important ways in which money is distributed to people, in the current economic system, is the form of wage or salary. Most of population today does work to earn a living or is dependent on work, either done by them or by someone else. The work demands a salary and the salary is the framework in which a majority of income that is generated by the population gets distributed. This is determined by a wage market. This means, the market decides how much wage a person should get for the work they do, on the basis of simple supply and demand. Many studies point out that the inequal wage market where exploitation prevails is one of the most important causes of prevailing inequality.[8]

In India, there is a minimum wage law and minimum wage is usually decided by the state government and there is a floor wage, set by the central government below which no state can or shall set their minimum wage. The prevailing floor wage is Rs. 178 per day, in India. Even for this seemingly low rate of minimum wage, the implementation is abysmal, and the main challenge is to implement this policy strictly. Simply raising the minimum wage would have minimum to no impact since the complexities in implementation would still be prevalent. The government has not yet fully effectuated the already passed labour codes and it is yet to be seen if the labour codes will have any better.

Another important factor which promoted inequality is the lack of education. Since wages are essentially higher for those who are educated, lack of education also takes away the opportunity for the population to get into the salary ecosystem and receivers of some money. Efforts of successive government to prioritise education, earlier resulted in educated people without skill. Presently, there is an imparting of skills via various programmes in the hope that these skills will help people in getting jobs. However, this is being done now whereas the inequality has already made its way into the economic system on a large scale.

Another important factor is the already prevailing gender inequality in India that creeps into the economic system and results in inter-sectional discrimination and therefore different layers of inequality. For example, a woman who goes to work is paid far lesser than her male counterpart and this results in less participation of women in the workforce. This proportionately less participation has the effect of lesser wages for women in workforce. India has passed the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 –that is 46 years ago, and despite this, the gap between the male and female pay is 28% according to the NSSO report of 2019.

According to the World Inequality Report, Indian men earn 82% of the labour income whereas women earn 18% of labour income. Therefore, within this economic inequality, women suffer the extra poverty the gender-based discrimination imposes on them.[9]

Indian Constitution and Concentration of Wealth

The Indian Constitution was not merely a political document ensuring basic rights. It has the features of an economic document (document with a socio-economic vision) too, woven into various articles. Article 19 (d)-granting the right to move freely throughout India, Article 19 (e) – to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, Article 19 (g)- to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business- combinedly indicate that the Constitution, in itself, enshrines a framework where people had/have the freedom to trade, to engage in a business or to practice a profession, anywhere subject to reasonable restrictions.

Within the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs, Chapter IV), Article 39 states that the state should direct its policy towards securing the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.

The relevant portion of Article 39, for this article, is as follows:

39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. —The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing—

(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment

While the constitution was getting drafted, this article saw particular efforts from socialists like Prof. KT Shah, a member of Constituent Assembly elected from Bihar. These efforts were towards wording (defining) the article with specific definitions.[10] Shah moved an amendment to substitute the draft Article 31(iii)- the current 39(c) with the following:

“That there shall be no private monopolies in any form of production of material wealth, social service, or public utilities nor shall there be any concentration of means of production and distribution in private hands and the State shall adopt every means to prevent such concentration or accumulation.”

 He gave an explanation that if the original article remained as it was, it is liable to be interpreted in a way not at all intended perhaps by the draftsmen. On the contrary, another member Naziruddin Ahmad, elected from West Bengal, argued that the word concentration be substituted with the word ‘undue concentration’ since unless a communistic society was/is being established, a concentration of wealth was inevitable. He submitted that “earning of a good businessman, that of a lawyer of eminence, that of a minister of eminence and that of a common man in the street or a chaprasi[11], cannot be equal.”

Another socialist Professor Shibban Lal Saxena, a member elected from the United Provinces supported Prof. KT Shah’s amendment and urged Dr.BR. Ambedkar to at least to incorporate the spirit of those amendments somewhere within the Constitution.

Dr. BR. Ambedkar however stated that since the original article does not prevent the interpretation of Prof. KT Shah, there was no need for the amendment.

However, the Constituent Assembly debates show that there was apprehension about the (state not doing enough to avoid) the concentration of wealth and natural resources getting distributed in a manner that does not endorse community ownership. One might argue that the world has come a long way since the Constituent Assembly debates and the Constitution makers clearly left it for the population of the future to decide the economic system for themselves. Such argument holds its own strength. Economic systems are indeed dynamic, and they demand a constant evolution of legal frameworks. However, the important aim of economic system is not its own development and growth but the welfare of the people. The economic system cannot be for the detriment of the people in a country that is governed by a constitution with social and economic justice as its pillars.

Judiciary’s role

A critique of the Supreme Court has always existed within academic discourse that have concluded that, while the judgements from the apex court are appreciably progressive when it comes to the protection of property rights of people against state intervention, same sort of progressive trends were not present when it came to protection of the civil and economic and social liberties of all the Indian people.[12]

For example, in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. Union of India(AIR 1973 SC 1461) which dealt with the constitutional challenges to 25^th amendment to the Constitution, the court held that the part of newly inserted Article 31C which stated that no law made to give effect to Article 39 (b) and 39 (c) can be challenged in court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy, to be unconstitutional.

To give some context, the Indira Gandhi government nationalised 14 banks and a shareholder, RC Cooper, of one of the banks approached the supreme court on the grounds that he was not paid enough compensation and therefore his right under Article 31 and Article 19 (1)(f) were violated. Article 31, which now stands omitted, stated that when land is compulsorily acquired, the compensation shall be paid. In the case of RC Cooper vs. Union of India (1970 SCR (3) 530), the Supreme Court held that compensation is something that is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and therefore, the court can go into the question of whether the compensation was reasonably adequate.

Essentially, Article 31 stated that government cannot take away the lands of people whereas the Supreme Court held that since adequate compensation is guaranteed by the constitutional scheme, the court can question such inadequacy of compensation. The court also said that, any compensation determining law also should not be violative of Article 19 (1) (f).

The same Indira Gandhi government, to go around this judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of RC Cooper, brought in the 25^th constitutional amendment. One of the changes the amendment brought in was that the word ‘compensation’ was substituted with the word ‘amount’ in Article 31, indicating that the government now can just give a nominal sum for the land taken rather than compensating. Another change was the insertion of Article 31C. Article 31 stated that no law, that works towards securing the goals specified in Articles 39 (b) and 39 (c), can be challenged in court on the ground that such law truly does no effectuate the goal.

The Kesawananda Bharti judgement went on to declare that the part which negates the judicial review is constitutional. In Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789) too, the court declares Section 4 of the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment as unconstitutional. The 42^nd amendment substituted the shield of Article 39(b) and 39(c) with all of Directive Principles of State Policy and this was declared unconstitutional in the case of Minerva Mills.

While these judgements are important, they cannot be the sole indicators of how the jurisprudence has evolved about concentration of wealth. There are other cases from both High Courts and the Supreme Court that present a progressive trend of interpreting Article 39 (b) and (c). In Group Industries vs. State of Uttar Pradeshv (AIR 1975 All 434), the Allahabad High Court had to deal with challenges to the UP Ceiling on Property (Temporary Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 and the court justified the urban property rate ceiling and stated as follows:

“The object of the Ceiling Bill was furtherance of the directive principles of the State policy as set out in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution and consequently to secure that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good and further to secure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. Placing restrictions on the valuation of urban property which one could legally hold is one of the methods by which concentration of wealth and means of production in private hands can be curtailed and avoided. By providing for a ceiling on the ownership of “urban property”‘ and for acquisition by the State of “surplus land” with power to redistribute such land, the legislature sought to secure that the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.”

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar (1952 1 SCR 889), dealt with the acts of abolition of Zamindaris in the states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court, stated as follows with respect to the state’s obligation and the reason why laws that are infringing on the private property are valid:

“Surely, it is to subserve the common good by bringing the land, which feeds and sustains the community and also produces wealth by its forest, mineral and other resources, under State ownership or control. This State ownership or control over land is a necessary preliminary step towards the implementation of the directive principles of State policy and it cannot but be a public purpose. It cannot be overlooked that the directive principles set forth in Part IV of Constitution are not merely the policy of any particular political party but are intended to be principles fixed by the Constitution for directing the State policy whatever party may come into power.” 

In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Nawab Khan Gulab Khan – (1997) 11 SCC 123) Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Nawab Khan Gulab Khan – (1997) 11 SCC 123) , the Supreme Court used the Article 39 to read right to shelter into Article 21.The case involved the encroaching settlements on the pavement of a road being removed by the local municipality and the residents of those settlements approaching the judicial forums. While keeping in view the financial capacity of the municipality, the Supreme Court ordered for evolution of schemes that can help the residents of the settlements resettle since the municipality had the constitutional obligations under the directive principles of state policy. The court stated as follows:

“The right to life enshrined under Article 21 has been interpreted by this Court to include meaningful right to life and not merely animal existence as elaborated in several judgments of this Court including Hawkers case, Olga Tellies case and the latest Chameli Singh’s case and host of other decisions which need no reiteration. Suffice it to state that right to life would include right to live with human dignity. As held earlier, right to residence is one of the minimal human rights as fundamental right. Due to want of facilities and opportunities, the right to residence and settlement is an illusion to the rural and urban poor. Article 38,39 and 46 mandate the State, as its minimise inequalities in income and in opportunities and status. It positively charges the State to distribute its largess to the weaker sections of the society envisaged in Article 46 to make socio-economic justice a reality, meaningful and fruitful so as to make the life worth living with dignity of person and equality of status and to constantly improve excellence.”

Therefore, while the apex court has given rich jurisprudence on protection of property, the also has been equally rich jurisprudence against the concentration of wealth.

Conclusion

While it is important to urge the government to take note of the DPSPs and take active steps to further the goals enshrined in them, it is equally important to take note of the international situation in which globalisation and the free movement of capital has become a dominant phenomenon. Therefore, any analysis of the inequality question and any effort to answer the inequality question will be haphazard without the consideration of international conditions. Having said that, the emphasis on a different international order or any such thing can be discussed if the national efforts reach their pinnacle. With the lack of effective implementation of labour codes and the spending on education etc not reaching their optimum standards, much has to be done on home front.

The post Undesirable but prevalent inequalities in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 The actions include submission of letters to government representatives — MLA, MP, counsellors (political leadership), DC or DM (with a copy to PM) in support of action against inequality, tweets to the PM with a common hashtag #Smashinequality requesting action on inequality, mobile action by SMSing SMASH [ART1] to 56263 to help fight inequality.

Actions planned include launch of the International Inequality report by Oxfam International, discussions on inequality as the World Economic Forum begins in Davos, followed by International Day on Education/National Girl Child Day on January 24.
WNTA concept note ahead of the campaign:

While India’s constitution commits to the principle of equality, some citizens of India are more equal than others. There are inequalities between the rich and the poor, between the genders, between the various social groups, between those with and without disabilities, between rural and urban areas and between the lived realities of those living in different states in India. This is manifested in a number of ways including access and relative quality of essential services like health and education, access and control over natural resources, taxation and banking systems, access to government planning spaces and justice among others.

Since we have grown in this unequal society, many accept inequality as inevitable. It is not. Inequality is a policy choice that governments make. A different, fairer and more equal India is possible.

Call for Action against Inequality: India 2019
We believe that a political approach is needed to fight inequality by making it a mass issue and a popular campaign, addressing the core perceptions that sustain inequality and building a culture of equality.  It involves challenging the policy choices that India has made in the previous years that privileges the rich over the poor and the fundamental economic model that sustains inequality and addressing the rising phenomena of crony capitalism and privatization. At the same time, this would entail recognizing that progress has been made in the preceding decades, but the reduction in poverty and growth of the national economy should not create a sense of complacency.

What it is
At this stage the actions and the specific messaging is to a large extent decentralized recognizing that the manifestations and face of inequality is different across the country. A central design and structure cannot be done at this time and it will also allow people across India to push their own issues in their own way. Consequently, the current convergence is around a call for action, not a campaign, alliance of network. Those that are part of the process would determine the shape it would eventually take.

The mobilization, if sustained over time, could grow into a national alliance with a federal character or a movement to change the system or a campaign or something else.

This call coincides with the Global Week of Action against Inequality that provides a hook to initiate coordinated action.  This is an effort to explore possibilities of synergized engagement on this issue across networks and alliances. A conscious effort will be made to bring young people and existing unions, networks and alliances into the process.

Irrespective, the intention would be to sustain the mobilization beyond the week of action. The effort would be to influence both the discourse and spaces where policy decisions are taken with equality as a focus. Three strands of work have been identified in the first few meetings of the process: addressing structural issues, immediate actionable issues/manifestations and building the public narrative (both building our own and countering the narrative that legitimizes inequality). In so doing, it is important to combine intellectual articulation with an actionable agenda.

For the time being this work will be largely informal. Oxfam India is only initiating the discussion/offering its Campaign Manager Inequality as a secretariat.

The 2019 Mobilization
The present mobilization has been timed to coincide with the Global Week of Action against inequality timed to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos. Action is anticipated in around 20 states including Delhi, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, West Bengal, TN, Kerala, Manipur, Maharashtra, Arunachal Pradesh, Telangana and UP – based on a common list of possible actions.

This includes common actions across the various states including:

• Offline: Submission of letters to government representatives- MLA, MP, Counsellors (political leadership), DC or DM (with copy to PM) in support of action against inequality
• Online: Tweet to the PM on the 19th with a common hashtag requesting action on inequality. The hastag for the event is #Smashinequality
• Mobile Action: SMS SMASH [ART1] to 56263 to help fight inequality. This will form a pool of supporters for the issue of inequality. This will then be shared with the government in support of action on the issue.

This is intended to be a decentralized mobilization and this is accompanied by an indicative menu of options for action. However, it would help if the Secretariat for the process (anjela@oxfamindia) is informed about the actions being planned.

Globally, the objective of the week are to disrupt the global conversations around Davos challenging corporate influence, elite capture and build the global movement against inequality. The focus of the 2019 mobilization is to help connect movement-building moments across the world in the excluded parts of cities such as Manilla, Jakarta, Delhi, Joburg, Nairobi, Tunis, Dakar, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, London and Washington DC, where urban communities hit by obscene inequality are organising to build their power and take it on – as powerful a visible demonstration of people’s collective mobilisation and organising to resist the unjust distribution of wealth and power.

Courtesy: https://counterview.org/
 

The post Call for action against inequality and poverty ahead of World Trade Forum annual meet in Davos appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Amir Rizvi
 
How can this freedom of choice be reconciled with the aspect of necessity that is central to all scientific analysis?
 
In the context of social change, necessity has two different aspects, two different meanings. There is the realm of the subjective, the desirable, necessity as human need, and there is the realm of the objective, the inevitable, what necessarily must happen, what is compelled by underlying circumstances. Marx’s brilliant “Theses on Feuerbach” shows how both the subjective and the objective aspects of necessity can be encompassed into a single, integral, comprehensive and consistent world view.
 
In the very first thesis, Marx makes a number of assertions about science (rational materialism). In science, theory and practice are inseparable. Though science is objective, and conscious human activity subjective, it is incorrect to pose ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ as mutually exclusive opposites.  In scientific practice, the two aspects are merged.
 
“The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.”
 
Feurbach‘does not grasp the significance of “revolutionary”, of “practical-critical”, activity.’
 
“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power… of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.”
 
All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.
 
Rational practice is simultaneously subjective and objective. Rational practice (science) , ispractical-critical activity. It is revolutionary.
 
Marx asserts that revolutionary activity is not an external add-on to science- but a necessary consequence.  Scientific practice, if it remains critical, realistic, consistent and true to the values of science necessarily becomes revolutionary.
 
Many years later, Engels expressed it thus: “… the more ruthlessly and disinterestedly science proceeds the more it finds itself in harmony with the interest and aspirations of the workers.”
 
With his ‘materialist conception of history’, Marx achieved what Democritus had asserted two thousand three hundred years earlier.  Marx’s 1845 breakthrough, opened the path, for the first time in human history, for all of reality, both natural and social, to become a subject of rigorous scientific inquiry.
 
Lenin summarizes the two intertwined aspects of social necessity in a single sentence:
 
 “Man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world but creates it “
 
With all of reality becoming the subject of science, science itself ceases to be a subject, and instead becomes a powerful and distinct method for understanding and engaging with reality. Kosambi’s great achievement was to give a definition of science which can properly encompass this new comprehensive, universal role.
 
 
POLITICS
 
The strength of scientific theory lies in its predictive power. Within twenty five years of the Manifesto, the Paris Commune of 1871 in many ways appeared to be a confirmation of its predictions. Marx and Engels considered the Paris commune to be the realization of the first ‘worker’s state’ in human history. They studied it closely to discover in its practice, general principles for the worker’s movement. In the words of Marx:
 
 “It was essentially a working class government, the product of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of man.”
 
The writer C.L.R. Jamesdescribed the commune thus: “The Paris Commune was first and foremost a democracy”. It was governed by a body elected by universal suffrage. It was concerned with worker’s rights. Night shift work was banned in bakeries. None of the government functionaries was paid a wage more than that of a skilled worker. Women played an active role in its defence. The Commune lasted for 72 days after which it was suppressed by a bloodbath in which tens of thousands of workers were killed.
Perhaps for the first time in history, the democratic demand for “Universal suffrage” had been realized in practice, if only for two months.
 
Only a year after the Commune, in his speech at the congress of the International Working Men’s Association at the Hague in 1872, Marx had this to say:
 
“The congress at The Hague has brought to maturity three important points:
It has proclaimed the necessity for the working class to fight the old, disintegrating society on political as well as social grounds; and we congratulate ourselves that this resolution of the London Conference will henceforth be in our Statutes.
In our midst there has been formed a group advocating the workers’ abstention from political action. We have considered it our duty to declare how dangerous and fatal for our cause such principles appear to be.
Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
 
But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.
You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries — such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland — where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor.”
 
Tactics may change according to time and place, but certain general principles do not change- the working class must be politically active, and not restrict itself to non-political organizations. It must have its own party. It will prefer peaceful means, wherever these are available, but when suppressed by force, it will defend itself, with force, if necessary.
 
At the same time when Marx and Engels were becoming active in Europe, important changes were taking place in India. In the second half of the 19^th century, modern capitalist production was just commencing in India. A modern industrial working class beginning to be formed. In 1853 the first railway connected Thane and Mumbai. The first textile mill started functioning at Tardeo the next year, in 1854. However, when the country erupted in the revolt against the British rule in 1857, this industrial working class could not play a significant role because it had hardly come into existence.
 
 
EQUALITY
 
At this time, in India, yet another stream of political change was being born – a struggle for equality, for social change to abolish inequality and discrimination.  In 1848, Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule started their first school for lower caste women. In the next two decades of the eighteen fifties and sixties, the struggle against caste inequality and for social equality grew steadily in strength.
 
On the other side of the world, the abolition of slavery in 1865 following the victory of the anti-slavery Union army, under the political leadership of Abraham Lincoln, in the bloody American Civil War, was hailed by democratic forces all over the world.  Both Marx and Phule were deeply impressed by Abraham Lincoln.
 
In a letter written by Marx to Lincoln in January 1865, Marx articulates that as long as white workers tolerate racism in their midst, they cannot emancipate themselves from their own exploitation.
 
“While the workingmen, the true political power of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic… they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American anti-slavery war will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead the country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
 
Phule dedicated his book ‘Gulamgiri’ “To The good people of the United StatesAs a token of admiration for their
 
SUBLIME DISINTERESTED AND SELF-SACRIFICING
DEVOTION in the cause of Negro slavery; and with an earnest desire that my countrymen will take their noble example as their guide in the emancipation of their Sudra Brethren from the trammels of of Brahmin thraldom.”
 
In 1873, Phule formed the Satyashodhak Samaj to work in an organized manner for the emancipation from caste domination. One of Phule’s disciples, Narayan Meghaji Lokhande was among the first to organize the modern industrial working class in India .Lokhande was a mass leader and labour organizer.  Along with the struggles against caste domination and for equality, the fight for labour rights was among the early struggles for democratic rights in India.
 
It is pointed out that the “Bombay Millhands Association” started by Lokhande was not a trade union. While this may be true, there is no doubt that what Lokhande initiated was a workers movement for basic labour rights concerning working hours, rest periods, leave etc. which later  became rights under legislation like the Factories Acts .Lokhande also worked actively for worker’s unity and communal harmony during the communal riots of 1893. He ultimately fell victim to plague in 1896, while working selflessly in plague relief activities.
 
By contrast the role of LokmanyaTilak in the labour movement is not without contradictions. Tilak opposed the first Factories Act, on the grounds that it was an instrument of the British industrialists to burden Indian manufacturers and render them uncompetitive. At the same time, he worked actively among the workers to organise nationalist resistance against the British, using the popular Ganpati festival and giving it a ‘sarvajanik’ form, for this purpose. Tilak was much revered by the workers for his militant and uncompromising anti-British speeches and writings.
 
In 1908, we witness the first mass political uprising of the Indian working class in the form of a six day strike by the Mumbai workers cutting across all industries, to protest the sentence of six years transportation against Tilak. Lakhs of workers came out on the streets in July 1908 and fought pitched battles with bricks and stones against British bullets. More than 200 were killed.
 
Lenin wrote about this uprising in the following words:
 
 “But in India the street is beginning to stand up for its writers and political leaders. The infamous sentence pronounced by the British jackals on the Indian democrat Tilak—he was sentenced to a long term of exile, —this revenge against a democrat by the lackeys of the money-bag evoked street demonstrations and a strike in Bombay. In India, too, the proletariat has already developed to conscious political mass struggle—and, that being the case, the Russian-style British regime in India is doomed!
 
Much has been written about Tilak’s social conservatism. But what must be understood is that his mind was not closed. His views were not static, and were evolving due to his close involvement with the masses, in particular with the labour movement. It has been pointed out that during the 1893 Hindu –Muslim riots in Bombay, whereas Lokhande held both communities responsible, and worked for communal harmony, Tilak in a meeting at Pune, held the Muslims as responsible, though encouraged by the British, and asked Hindus to retaliate. But after he returned to India in 1914 from 6 year prison sentence in Mandalay, Tilak became a votary of Hindu-Muslim unity. His bail application in Mumbai High Court in 1916 was argued by young barrister Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Both Hindus and Muslims crowded to hear him speak at mass meetings. On 1916, he addressed a meeting at Bhiwandi, before a mainly Muslim crowd, in which he was presented with a purse for Rs 5001. The Lucknow Pact between the Muslim League and the Congress in December 1916, was only possible because of the joint efforts of Tilak and Jinnah. Almost 100 years ago, at a mass meeting held in Godhra on 4^th November 1917, Gandhi, Tilak and Jinnah shared a common platform as the star speakers.
 
The epoch making event of the 20^th century is undoubtedly the October revolution in Russia of November 7^th 1917, and the establishment of a socialist worker’s state thereafter in the USSR. Lokmanya Tilak was deeply impressed by the 1917 Russian revolution. In 1918, he spent a year in Britain while conducting a defamation case against Chirol. According to reports of the British intelligence, Tilak was not interested in sightseeing at London, but spent most of his time in the office of the militant left wing paper “Daily Herald”, in discussions with leftist leaders like Lansbury, Williams, Hyndman and Saklatwala. The intelligence reports record that in his speeches in England Tilak repeatedly made laudatory references to the policies of the Bolshevik party in Russia, and particularly to their international policy.
 
This year we are observing the 100^th anniversary of the historic October revolution. During our commemorations, it would be important to revisit the Tilak archives to study more closely his writings and speeches in the final chapter of his life.

Also Read
— Can the working class shape politics?

The post Human Activity and Social History: Understanding Politics and the Concept of Equality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: UN.org

Guterres went on to outline seven key threats facing the world, and the major challenges to resolving them: the risk of nuclear conflict, international terrorism, unresolved conflicts and violations of international humanitarian law, climate change, rising inequality, cybersecurity, and the refugee crisis. He concluded with an appeal, “my message to world leaders today: only together, as truly United Nations, can we build a peaceful world and advance human dignity for all.”

The words of the UN Chief which revolved around peace and human dignity, could not have come at a more appropriate time- when several so-called “world leaders” are spewing the venom of hate, violence, war and even indulging in it.The world observes yet another International Day of Peace (“Peace Day”) on September 21^st . The day is to “commemorate and strengthen the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples.”  It is therefore necessary to remind ourselves that each one of us is called to be a channel of peace and that we need to have the courage to hold our leaders accountable in ensuring peace for all.

Very significantly, the theme for this year’s ‘Peace Day’ is “Together for Peace: Respect, Safety and Dignity for All” This theme is based on the TOGETHER global campaign that promotes respect, safety and dignity for everyone forced to flee their homes in search of a better life. TOGETHER brings together the organizations of the United Nations System, the 193 member countries of the United Nations, the private sector, civil society, academic institutions and individual citizens in a global partnership in support of diversity, non-discrimination and acceptance of refugees and migrants.

Many will certainly doubt whether some key leaders will take this timely theme seriously.

Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar’s military junta continue with the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in their country. More than 400,000 Rohingyas have fled to neighbouring Bangla Desh in just about a month. Appeals from all over the world to stop this genocide have been ignored. In total violation of the past track record, India has closed the doors to the persecuted and helpless refugees.

The war in Syria is in its seventh year. Violence continues in South Sudan, Somalia, Central African Republic, Congo and other parts of Africa. The hopes for lasting peace in Colombia, Venezuela and elsewhere in South America remains an illusion. Trump continues to breathe war on several nations across the globe. Duterte in the Philippines has no qualms of conscience in legitimatising violence and murder of his people.

Modi and his henchmen in India seem to be proving that hate, violence and discrimination bring them ‘power’. The brutal murder recently, of well-known journalist Gauri Lankesh is a case in point. In the not too distant past, the country has also witnessed the gruesome killings of rationalists and intellectuals like Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi and of several other journalists, human rights and RTI activists. It is said that on November 17^th (Modi’s birthday)‘the Sardar Sarovar dam in Gujarat was lit up and 2,00,000 people (comprising farmers, fishers, potters, pastoralists, tribals, Dalits and small enterprise holders) had to be submerged for the ‘Narmada Mahotsav’ to be a success’. The violence against minorities in India continues unabated. 

Pope Francis has consistently and unequivocally asserted the need for peace. In a letter to the International Meeting “Paths of Peace” held in Germany from September 10^th to 12^th he wrote, “what we may not and must not do is remain indifferent, allowing tragedies of hatred to pass unnoticed, and men and women to be cast aside for the sake of power and profit.  Your meeting in these days, and your desire to blaze new paths of peace and for peace, can be seen as a response to the call to overcome indifference in the face of human suffering. I thank you for this, and for the fact that you have gathered, despite your differences, to seek processes of liberation from the evils of war and hatred. For this to happen, the first step is to feel the pain of others, to make it our own, neither overlooking it nor becoming inured to it. We must never grow accustomed or indifferent to evil”.

Some leaders however, obviously do not care with being “Together for Peace” and ensuring “Respect, Safety and Dignity for all.” Many people across the globe lack the respect, safety and dignity and the peace, which they rightly deserve. It is therefore incumbent on each one of us to make real once again the immortal lyrics of John Lennon, who in 1969, in the wake of the anti-Vietnam war protests sang,

“All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance”
 
(The author is a human rights activist)
 

The post Give Peace A Chance! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A top international report has said that India fares “very badly, ranking 132 out of 152 countries in its commitment to reducing inequality – a very worrying situation given that the country is home to 1.2 billion people, many of whom live in extreme poverty.”
Compared to India, among the neighbours, Nepal ranks 81, Sri Lanka 138, Pakistan 139, and Bangladesh 141. Sweden ranks No 1, followed by Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Finland, Austria and France. United Kingdom ranks 17, South Africa 21, United States 23, Russia 85, and China 87.

Insisting that “unless they take concerted action now”, India and other countries ranking equally badly “will fail to end poverty and fail to make sustainable economic progress that benefits everyone in society”, the report, prepared by well-known UK-based NGO Oxfam in collaboration with the US-based Development Finance International, says that if India were to reduce inequality by a third, more than 170 million people would no longer be poor.

Called Commitment to Reducing Inequality (CRI) report, it says, the Government of India spending on “health, education and social protection is woefully low”, adding, “The tax structure looks reasonably progressive on paper, but in practice much of the progressive tax is not collected.”

It further says, “On labour rights and respect for women in the workplace, India also fares poorly, reflecting that the majority of the labour force is employed in the agricultural and informal sectors, which lack union organization.”

Thus, among 152 countries, India ranks 149 in spending on health, education and social protection; 91 in progressive structure and incidence of tax; and 86 in labour market policies to address inequality 86, with the overall CRI ranking averaging at 132.
 

The post India ‘s Model of ‘Development’ : 132nd among 152 countries because of “woefully low” health, education spending appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Building a great big wall will not close the gap. Jorge Duenes/Reuters

In France, far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen launched her campaign by saying, “The divide is no longer between the left and the right, but between the patriots and the globalists.”

Enthusiasm for inward-looking, protectionist economic agendas is sweeping across Europe, leaving xenophobic hatred in its wake.

Clearly, the experience of the past three decades of globalisation has produced massive dissatisfaction: so much that naïve, misplaced and often frightening measures are seen as genuine solutions by large parts of the electorate in the richest nations of the world.

Rising inequality, which has accompanied globalisation, has sprung to the fore as a key concern among economists, politicians and the public. The latest report by Oxfam documented this rise, and the figures were shocking, even to those of us who might already be convinced about the gravity of the problem: just eight men hold as much wealth as the bottom half of the world population.
 

What needs to be asked is the following: why is the world economy at this pass? Is it a labour-versus-labour problem? Would shutting borders lead to greater equality of incomes within countries? Would the poor and working class in developed countries, who are feeling the heat of unemployment, depressed wages and insecure futures, regain their (mostly imagined) former glory if their countries shut down their borders?
Or is it the case that gains from globalisation, instead of trickling down, have been sucked upwards towards a tiny elite, making an already rich minority even richer? And that this elite resides within, not outside, their countries?
 

Labour vs capital

In September 2016, I was part of a group of 13 economists, along with Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and three other chief economists of the World Bank, who met in Saltsjobaden, near Stockholm, to deliberate on the main challenges facing the global economy, and draft a short document highlighting some key issues.

This consensus document, the Stockholm Statement, was issued after intensive discussions within this small group. Our idea was to keep the statement short and focused on the most important issues.
One of our main concerns was the phenomenon of rising inequality over the past three decades. The advent of advanced technology has meant that jobs can be outsourced, a point also highlighted by Donald Trump.

While this has meant an expansion of opportunities for workers overall, the workers in developed countries often view this, or are made to view this, as being against their interest. They are made to feel that jobs that were rightfully theirs were taken away by workers in other countries, or by immigrants who are willing to work for low wages.

This is a labour-versus-capital, or labour-versus-technology, problem. Automation has meant that even periods of high economic growth have not been periods of high growth of jobs. In periods of low growth or recession, such as we have seen in the US and Europe since the 2008 financial crisis, the already gloomy picture becomes even bleaker.
 

While job and wages have grown slower compared to national incomes, salaries at the top have not only kept pace, but their rate of growth might even be higher. Thus, the gap between salaries of CEOs and top ranking managers and workers within firms has been increasing. The Oxfam report quotes from Thomas Piketty’s new research showing that in the US, in the past 30 years, the growth in the incomes of the bottom 50% has been zero, whereas the growth in the incomes of the top 1% has been 300%.

Thus, the real reason for depressed incomes and unemployment of the working classes in developed countries is not that workers from other countries are taking jobs.

The two main culprits are the slow rate of creation of new jobs, and the increasing inequality in the share of labour (wages) and capital (profits) within their own countries.
 

What we can do

Based on this analysis, we suggested three major policy responses.

First, we should invest in human capital, increasing skills alongside developing new technology. This would boost labour income as technology improves.

Second, governments have to legislate to transfer income within countries. This means new taxes, and sharing profits. The rise of technology does not have to mean the end of workers’ rights; specific labour legislation should be put in place to ensure this.

Finally, we must promote policies that cross borders. This means international organisation such as the UN and the World Bank should encourage policy harmonisation between nations. These policies must not just favour rich, industrialised nations, they should also allow emerging economies a voice in the debate.
 

A new social contract

The fact that the deliberations for the Stockholm Statement took place in Saltsjobaden is significant. It was here in 1938 that the social contract between labour and capital in Sweden, which was later expanded to include government, was sealed.

The contract specified the process of collective bargaining and management, and the focus was on negotiation and consultation, rather than hostility. Both the process and content of the historical Saltsjobaden Agreement hold lessons for management of our troubled times.

Our optimism for the future might seem like a mirage in light of recent political events.

But just as the collective voice of the majority today seems to favour a quick-fix, non-solution to rising inequality, our hope is that an articulation of the actual reasons behind rising inequality and insistence on a reasoned, balanced policy response could provide the real solutions needed to address the widening gap between rich and poor.

Ashwini Deshpande is Professor, Department of Economics,, University of Delhi

This article was first published on The Conversation

The post Leading economists agree: closing borders is not the answer to inequality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With 54 per cent of the country’s wealth owned by millionaires, India is the second most “unequal” country in the world after Russia, according the latest report of the Johannesburg-based wealth research firm New World Wealth.

India is among the 10 richest countries in the world with a total individual wealth of $5,600 billion, the average Indian is quite poor, the report said. "The higher the proportion the more unequal the country is. For instance, if millionaires control over 50 per cent of a country's wealth, then there is very little space for a meaningful middle class," the report added.

Globally, Russia is the most unequal country where millionaires control over 62 per cent of the nation's total wealth.

In what might come as a surprise to many, Japan ranks as the most equal country, with millionaires controlling only 22 per cent of total wealth and even the US is "surprisingly" equal, with millionaires controlling around 32 per cent of the nation's total wealth. "This is surprising low considering all the negative press that the US gets in terms of income inequality," the report observed. Britain is just a bit less equal than the US; its millionaires control around 35 per cent of the total wealth there.

Russia also tops the list of a country's wealth held by billionaires (with net assets of $1 billion or more) with 26 per cent of the total Russian wealth held by this category of high net worth individuals. Once again, Japan is the most equal in this group, with billionaires controlling only three per cent of the total wealth of the country.

The post India is the Second Most “Unequal” Country in the World, after Russia appeared first on SabrangIndia.

From left to right: Manu who inspired Friedrich Nietzsche who inspired Adolf Hitler

In his writings, Dr BR Ambekar unraveled the unholy ideological link between Manu who inspired Nietzsche, who in turn inspired Hitler, who in turn (along with Mussolini) inspired the most revered Manuwadis of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS: Balakrishna Shivram Moonje, Keshav Baliram Hedgewar and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar.   

The foregoing analysis of the religious revolution showed that religious ideas as forms of divine governance for human society fall into two classes, one in which society is the cent
and the other in which the individual is the centre. The same analysis showed that for the former the appropriate test of what is good and what is right, i.e., the test of the moral order is utility while for the latter the test is justice. 

Now the reason why the philosophy of Hinduism does not answer the test of utility or of justice is because the religious ideal of Hinduism for divine governance of human society is an ideal which falls into a separate class by itself. It is an ideal in which the individual is not the centre. The centre of the ideal is neither individual nor society. It is a class — the class of Supermen called Brahmins. 

Those who will bear the dominant and devastating fact in mind will understand why the philosophy of Hinduism is not founded on individual justice or social utility. The philosophy of Hinduism is founded on a totally different principle. To the question what is right and what is good the answer which the philosophy of Hinduism gives is remarkable. It holds that to be right and good the act must serve the interests of this class of Supermen, namely, the Brahmins. 

Oscar Wilde said that to be intelligible is to be found out. Indeed Manu does not leave it to be found out. He expresses his view in resonant and majestic notes as who are the Supermen and anything which serves the interest of the Supermen is alone entitled to be called right and good. Let me quote Manu.

Manu’s is a degraded and degenerate philosophy of Superman as compared with that of Nietzsche [Hitler’s guru] and therefore far more odious and loathsome than the philosophy of Nietzsche – Dr. BR Ambedkar

X. 3. “On account of his pre-eminence, on account of the superiority of his origin, on account of his observance of (particular) restrictive rules, and on account of his particular sanctification the Brahman is the Lord of (all) Varnas.”
He proceeds to amplify his reasons and does so in the following characteristic manner —

I. 93. “As the Brahmana sprang from (Prajapati’s, i.e. God’s) mouth, as he was first–born and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the Lord of this whole creation.”

I. 94. For the self–existent (Svayambhu, i.e., God), having performed austerities, produced him first from his own mouth, in order that offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and Manes and that this universe might be preserved.”

I. 95. “What created being can surpass him, through whose mouth the Gods continually consume the sacrificial viands and the manes the offerings to the dead?”

I. 96. “Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which are animated; of the animated, those who subsist by intelligence; of the intelligent, mankind; and of the men, the Brahmanas.”

Besides the reason given by Manu the Brahmin is first in rank because he was produced by God from his mouth, in order that the offerings might be conveyed to the Gods and manes. Manu gives another reason for the supremacy of the Brahmins. He says —

I. 98. “The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the sacred Law (Veda); for he is born to (fulfill) the sacred law, and becomes one with Brahman (God).”

I. 99. “A Brahmana, coming into existence, is born as the highest on earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of the treasury of the Law.”

Manu concludes by saying that —

I. 101. “The Brahman eats but his own food, wears but his own apparel, bestows but his own in alms; other mortals subsist through the benevolence of the Brahmana.”

Because according to Manu —

II. 100. “Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Brahmana; on account of the excellence of his origin the Brahmana is, indeed, entitled to it all.”
Manu directs —

VII. 36. “Let the King, after rising early in the morning, worship Brahmans who are well versed in the three-fold sacred science and learned (in polity), and follow their advice.”

VII. 38. “Let him daily worship aged Brahmans who know the Veda and are pure…”

VII. 37. “Let the king, having risen at early dawn, respectfully attend to Brahman, learned in the three Vedas and in the science of ethics and by their decision let him abide.”

VII. 38. “Constantly must he show respect to Brahmans, who have grown old, both in years and in piety, who know the scriptures, who in body and mind are pure; for he, who honours the aged, will perpetually be honoured even by cruel demons.”

IX. 313. “Let him not, although in the greatest distress for money, provoke Brahmans to anger by taking their property; for they, once enraged, could immediately by sacrifices and imprecations destroy him with his troops, elephants, horses and cars.”

Finally Manu says —

XI. 35. “The Brahman is (hereby) declared (to be) the creator (of the world), the punisher, the teacher, (and hence) a benefactor (of all created beings); to him let no man say anything unpropitious; nor use any harsh words.”

To conclude and complete the theory of supermen and of what is right and good let me reproduce the following two texts from Manu —

X. 122. “But let a Shudra serve Brahmans, either for the sake of heaven or with a view of both this life and the next, for he who is called the servant of a Brahman thereby gains all his ends.

X. 123. The service of the Brahmana alone is declared to be as excellent occupation for a Shudra; for whatever else besides this he may perform will bear no fruit.

And Manu adds —

X. 129. No collection of wealth must be made by a Shudra, even though he be able to do it; for a Shudra who has acquired wealth gives pain to Brahman.

Nietzsche’s supermen were supermen by reason of their worth. Manu’s supermen were supermen by reason of their birth. Nietzsche was a genuine disinterested philosopher. Manu on the contrary was a hireling engaged to propound a philosophy which served the interests of a class born in a group and whose title to being supermen was not to be lost even if they lost their virtue.

The above texts from Manu disclose the core and the heart of the philosophy of Hinduism. Hinduism is the gospel of the Superman and it teaches that what is right for the Superman is the only thing which is called morally right and morally good.

Is there any parallel to this philosophy? I hate to suggest it. But is so obvious. The parallel to this philosophy of Hinduism is to be found in Nietzsche. The Hindus will be angry at this suggestion.

It is quite natural. For the philosophy of Nietzsche stands in great odium. It never took roots. In his own words he was “sometimes deified as the philosopher of the aristocracy and squirearchy, sometimes hooted as, sometimes pitied and sometimes boycotted as an inhuman being.” 

Nietzsche’s philosophy had become identified with will to power, violence, denial of spiritual values, Superman and the sacrifice, servility and debasement of the common man. His philosophy with these high spots had created a certain loathsomeness and horror in the minds of the people of his own generation. He was utterly neglected if not shunned and Nietzsche himself took comfort by placing himself among the “posthumous men”.

He foresaw for himself a remote public, centuries after his own time to appreciate him. Here too Nietzsche was destined to be disappointed. Instead of there being any appreciation of his philosophy, the lapse of time has only augmented the horror and loathing which people of his generation felt for Nietzsche. This is principally due to the revelation that the philosophy of Nietzsche is capable of producing Nazism. His friends have vehemently protested against such a construction (M. P. Nicolas, “From Nietzsche Down to Hitler” 1938). But it is not difficult to see that his philosophy can be as easily applied to evolve a super state as to Superman. This is what the Nazis have done. 

MS Golwalkar (left) and KB Hedgewar: Inspired equally by Manu and Hitler

At any rate the Nazis trace their ancestry from Nietzsche and regard him as their spiritual parent. Hitler has himself photographed beside a bust of Nietzsche; he takes the manuscripts of the master under his own special guardianship; extracts are chosen from Nietzsche’s writings and loudly proclaimed at the ceremonies of Nazism, as the New German Faith.

Nor is the claim by the Nazis of spiritual ancestry with Nietzsche denied by his near relations. Nietzsche’s own cousin Richard Ochler approvingly says that Nietzsche’s thought is Hitler in action and that Nietzsche was the foremost pioneer of the Nazi accession to power. Nietzsche’s own sister, few months before her death, thanks the Fuehrer for the honour he graciously bestows on her brother declaring that she sees in him that incarnation of the “Superman” foretold by Zarathustra.

To identify Nietzsche, whose name and whose philosophy excites so much horror and so much loathing, with Manu is sure to cause astonishment and resentment in the mind of the Hindus. But of the fact itself there can be no doubt. Nietzsche himself has openly declared that in his philosophy he only following the scheme of Manu. In his Anti-Christ this is what Nietzsche says —
“After all, the question is, to what end are falsehoods perpetrated? The fact that, in Christianity, ‘holy’ ends are entirely absent, constitutes my objection to the means it employs. Its ends are only bad ends; the poisoning, the calumniation and the denial of life, the contempt of the body, the degradation and self-pollution of man by virtue of the concept of sin, — consequently its means are bad as well. My feelings are quite the reverse. 

“When I read the law book of Manu, an incomparably intellectual and superior work, it would be a sin against the spirit even to mention in the same breath with the Bible. You will guess immediately why; it has a genuine philosophy behind it, in it, not merely an evil-smelling Jewish distillation of Rabbinism and superstition — it gives something to chew even to the most fastidious psychologist.

“And, not to forget the most important point of all, it is fundamentally different from every kind of Bible: by means of it the noble classes, the philosophers and the warriors guard and guide the masses; it is replete with noble values, it is filled with a feeling of perfection, with saying yea to life, and triumphant sense of well–being in regard to itself and to life — the Sun shines upon the whole book. 

“All those things which Christianity smothers with its bottomless vulgarity, procreation, woman, marriage, are here treated with earnestness, with reverence, with love and confidence. How can one possibly place in the hands of children and women, a book that contains those vile words: ‘to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband… it is better to marry than to burn.’ And is it decent to be a Christian so long as the very origin of man is Christianised, that is to say, befouled, by the idea of the immaculate conception?… 

“I know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said to woman, as in the Law Book of Manu; these old grey–beards and saints have a manner of being gallant to woman which, perhaps, cannot be surpassed. ‘The mouth of a woman,’ says Manu on one occasion, ‘the breast of a maiden, the prayer of a child, and the smoke of the sacrifice, are always pure’. And finally perhaps this is also a holy lie — ‘all the openings of the body above the navel are pure, all those below the navel are impure. Only in a maiden is the whole body pure.’”

This leaves no doubt that Zarathustra is a new name for Manu and that Thus Spake Zarathustra is a new edition of Manu Smriti.

If there is any difference between Manu and Nietzsche it lies in this. Nietzsche was genuinely interested in creating a new race of men which will be a race of supermen as compared with the existing race of men. Manu on the other hand was interested in maintaining the privileges of a class who had come to arrogate to itself the claim of being supermen.

Nietzsche’s supermen were supermen by reason of their worth. Manu’s supermen were supermen by reason of their birth. Nietzsche was a genuine disinterested philosopher. Manu on the contrary was a hireling engaged to propound a philosophy which served the interests of a class born in a group and whose title to being supermen was not to be lost even if they lost their virtue.

Compare the following texts from Manu.

X. 81. “Yet a Brahman, unable to subsist by his duties just mentioned, may live by the duty of a soldier; for that is the next rank.”

X.82. “If it be asked, how he must live, should he be unable to get a subsistence by either of those employments; the answer is, he may subsist as a mercantile man, applying himself into tillage and attendance on cattle”.
Manu adds:

IX. 317. “A Brahmana, be he ignorant or learned, is a great divinity, just as the fire, whether carried forth (for the performance of a burnt oblation) or not carried forth, is a great divinity.”

IX. 323. “Thus, though the Brahmans employ themselves in all (sorts) of mean occupation, they must be honoured in every way; (for each of) them is a very great deity.”

Thus Manu’s is a degraded and degenerate philosophy of Superman as compared with that of Nietzsche and therefore far more odious and loathsome than the philosophy of Nietzsche.

This explains why the philosophy of Hinduism does not satisfy the test of justice or of utility. Hinduism is not interested in the common man. Hinduism is not interested in society as a whole. The centre of its interest lies in a class and its philosophy is concerned in sustaining and supporting the rights of that class. That is why in the philosophy of Hinduism the interests of the common man as well as of society are denied, suppressed and sacrificed to the interest of this class of Superman… 

It is therefore incontrovertible that notwithstanding the Hindu Code of Ethics, notwithstanding the philosophy of the Upanishads not a little, not a jot, did abate from the philosophy of Hinduism as propounded by Manu. They were ineffective and powerless to erase the infamy preached by Manu in the name of religion. Notwithstanding their existence one can still say, “Hinduism! They name is inequality!” 

(This article has been archived from the May 2000 issue of Communalism Combat. The cover story, “India’s Shame” traced how even 50 years after the Constitution proclaimed equality for all, over 160 million Dalits continue to be victims of a ‘hidden apartheid’, treated as untouchables and worse)

The post From Manu’s Brahminism, to Nietzsche, to Hitler: Dr. BR Ambedkar appeared first on SabrangIndia.