Possible tomorrows
TABISH KHAIR
|
Let us celebrate the new year by being alive to alternative experiences and realities.
|
Unity in Diversity: Working together for a better future...
The future will be threatened by the contradiction of more possibilities and fewer options. This was stressed by the nature of two events in the last weeks of 2008: the student riots in Greece and inhuman terrorist strikes in Mumbai.
Both were events that had their roots in the past and their branches in the future. The Greek riots were a confused reaction to the neo-liberalist ethos that has been dominating the world in recent decades, particularly since the ascendancy of Thatcher and Reagan. Based on wild speculation and selfish consumerism, this has finally led to an economic crisis that the West seems to be ideologically incapable of tackling.
The brunt of these sins of parents will be borne by the sons and daughters who took to the streets in Greece — and have, less dramatically, taken to the streets in various Western cities over the last couple of years. It is this younger generation that will have to face the problems of unemployment, curtailed welfare, environmental devastation, unaffordable housing etc resulting, largely, from the exaggerated, one-sided and selfish lifestyles of their parents in the rich countries of the world.
Spectres from the past
The terrorists who struck Mumbai were also a spectre from this past. Terrorism as a political strategy remains indefensible, but it is not unrelated to the dominance of the neo-liberal “ethos” that has led to the current economic crisis — and that sent students protesting into the streets of Greece. Let alone cowboy politics, double standards and the “military-industrial” complex required to sustain this “ethos” globally, terrorism is partly an index of the shrinkage of real options under neo-liberalism. Convinced that rampant Capitalism is the only way of life, we have in recent years witnessed a throttling of economic and social alternatives. This has often led to the disappearance of political alternatives at national and international levels, leaving the blank space of necessary opposition to be filled by reactionary ideologies, such as those of Islamism.
Today, on the cusp of a year that will be haunted by the spectres of economic crises and terrorism, Western “experts” and governments can only mouth empty clichés most of the time. Rich governments are basically bankrolling their failed banks and businesses, thus proving once again the often-elided fact that “free” capital is only free when it is not threatened. Since the rise of Capitalism, barring one or two short periods, rich governments have always stepped in to protect their own capitalists while expecting weaker governments to offer them “open” markets. Even the European “welfare” system is hardly different from protectionism, as it has almost no internationalist face any more. Fortress Europe protects its own just as rich families protect their own members. It is a blunder to call this “welfare” socialist, for socialism — as a response to global Capitalism — has to be internationalist in its essence.
The current Western policy of throwing billions into the laps of failed millionaires confirms that it is better policy to pilfer millions than to pick a pocket. It is also likely, at best, to defer the crisis by a decade or so, after which it will return again, as old Marx had predicted about high capitalism in general: an endless series of “boom and bust”.
Much of the “international” solution to terrorism is similar. The bombing of places and people might quieten militants down for a while but it also prepares the ground for a bigger and more violent crop of militants in the future. Here, it is misleading to compare what happened in Mumbai in November to the 9/11 terror strikes in the U.S. That similar strikes did not take place in the U.S. again has little or nothing to do with Bush’s policies and the “war against terror”; it has to do with the greater geographical distance of the U.S. India is not in such a lucky situation, landlocked as it is into a world of devastation and disturbance. We have to think about solving our problems in a manner independent of the U.S. and Europe, while bearing in mind the experience of others.
And India does have at least one record of tackling terrorism that is worth looking at. The problem of “Sikh” terrorism in Punjab, like the problem of terrorism in Ireland, was significantly reduced not by bombing people but by revitalising the local economy and polity. A place like Afghanistan is a “headache” because it offers almost no economic opportunity to its people. Iraq, following the “liberating” influence of Bush, seems to be headed in that direction too, as does Pakistan.
The only serious solution to militancy — either of the democratic sort as on the streets of Greece or of the senseless sort as in the hotels of Mumbai — is social welfare, which is linked to economic prosperity. The main problem with neo-liberalism is not that it thinks of economic prosperity first, but that its version of prosperity is based on the overlooked or forced deprivation of so many.
Reduced options
While championing the consumerism of “possibilities”, neo-liberalism effectively reduces options, especially for the deprived. This is partly the danger of dominance.
Dominance, whether of capital or language, tends toward hegemony, which leads to deafness of sorts. The fact that I am writing this article for January 1 is an example. In India we know that January 1 is not the only “new year”: Kashmir has Navreh in the second week of March, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh begin their Ugadi in late March or early April, the Persian ‘Nav Roz’ falls on March 21, and so on.
Even the “Western” New Year we celebrate now was originally observed in March and came to be moved to January 1 in 153 BC (in ancient Rome) for political and military reasons. It was adopted as the “Christian” New Year but other dates continued to be used in Europe until modern times.
That today we celebrate January 1 as the New Year is a mark of hegemony, no doubt, but its own genesis, as indicated above, was multi-cultural and complex. Moreover, in a globalising world, a “shared” sign like this also enables us to consider that which unites us: problems like the economic crisis or terrorism, possibilities like a more equitable and just world. What it should not do is make us deaf to other options and possibilities. Just as, in many parts of India, we continue to celebrate various other “new years” along with January 1, in our imagining of the future we need to offer our own solutions along with those of the “West”.
Faced with the failure of the West to tackle the global economic crisis and the problem of terrorism, we need to learn not only from Western experiences but also from our own. Let us celebrate this New Year with the knowledge and possibility of the various other new years that have been and can be. For, finally, it is only by opening up to other realities, Western and Eastern, ours and theirs, that we can shape a future that will not be haunted by the nightmare of shrinking options.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
