[Marxism] ML International Newsletter: July-August 2006 (text)

["CPI \(ML\) Intl Liaison Office" <cpiml_elo@xxxxxxxxx>]

ML International Newsletter
July-August 2006

***********************************************************************

An update on news and ideas from the revolutionary
left in India.
Produced by: Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist) Liberation international team
***********************************************************************

Website: www.cpiml.org
Email: cpimllib@xxxxxxxxxx and cpiml_elo@xxxxxxxxx

Table of Contents

1)      Whither Nepal: Will the New Deal Bring a New Dawn?
2)      The Historic Agreement in Nepal and the Immediate
Challenge
3)      Disbanding of the Royal Nepal Army is Necessary for
a Lasting Democracy
4)      US Immigrant Workers: Invisible and Abused but
Making their Voices Heard
5)      US Immigrant Workers Movement: Birth of the New
Civil Rights Movement?
6)      Bangladesh Garment Workers? Struggle
7)      Indian Stock Market Crash
8)      Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny

Struggles in South Asia

Whither Nepal: Will the New Deal Bring a New Dawn?

- Editorial, Liberation, July, 2006.

Propelled by the enormous power of an awakened people,
events continue to move with stunning swiftness in
Nepal. The 237-year-old feudal monarchy, which seemed
to be in control of Nepal till the other day has
already been relegated to the background. It may now
even be consigned to the museum of history if the
people of Nepal can have their way and thwart the last
attempt to save the monarchy as a ceremonial
showpiece. If the reconvened Parliament had taken
everyone by surprise with its sudden proclamation
stripping the King of most of his royal powers and
privileges, the outcome of the hurriedly convened
meeting between Koirala and Prachanda has been no less
stunning. A committee has already been constituted to
draft an interim constitution within 15 days, which,
in turn, would pave the way for dissolution of the
existing Parliament within another 15 days. There
would now be an interim government with Maoists
participating, which would preside over elections to
the constituent assembly.

This spectacular pace of developments in Nepal must
not however blind us to the underlying elements of
friction and contention not all of which are quite
open yet. Having declared ceasefire, Maoists had been
constantly complaining of being bypassed by the
seven-party alliance. Just the other day when Koirala
came to New Delhi, Prachanda described it as a
conspiracy to deceive the people of Nepal and warned
of further bloodshed if the seven-party alliance
treated the parliament as all powerful and went ahead
with signing hasty deals with foreign countries
without first resolving the all important question of
holding elections to the constituent assembly.

Ironically, it was precisely after Koirala?s India
visit that talks with Maoists acquired extraordinary
momentum and the eight-point declaration of June 16
came just hours before Koirala was scheduled to leave
on a foreign trip for his treatment. The ailing
octogenarian Prime Minister however did not attend the
post-summit press conference in which Prachanda
described the eight-point agreement as a potential
instrument to free Nepal and its people of all kinds
of foreign interference.

Prachanda has also gone on record describing the
accord as a revolution made successful jointly by
rebels waging war and political parties involved in
parliamentary politics. A little rhetorical flourish
at such a juncture is only to be expected, but we
still need a proper analysis of the new juncture in
Nepal. The way the accord is implemented in the coming
months, especially the election to the new constituent
assembly, will of course enable us to have a better
and more realistic appraisal of the situation.
Commenting on the June 16 accord, the New York Times
has already raised the crucial issue as to ?how the
army high command will react ? and whether the interim
government will be able to keep the state security
forces under its command.?

Viewed in a strategic perspective, the best estimate
of the new alignment of class forces in Nepal will be
available only in the new constitution. So far, the
Maoists have come out clearly in favour of a
democratic republic while Koirala has made his
preference known for a ceremonial monarchy. Maoists
have also begun to talk about radical land reforms and
industrialisation and in his first public press
conference, Prachanda hinted at a drastic
restructuring of the Nepali army. The question of
recasting Nepal?s relations with foreign countries,
India in particular, should also be expected to come
up sooner rather than later. All these changes, if
effectively implemented, would surely have a
revolutionary bearing on the development of Nepal.

But will the restructuring of the state in Nepal take
the country along a people?s democratic direction, or
will we see a gradual consolidation of bourgeois rule
in Nepal? Will we now see a big unification of
communists in Nepal giving them a clear political edge
as the pre-eminent political force in the new
Himalayan Republic or will the faction-ridden Nepali
Congress come from behind to emerge as a powerful
bourgeois platform? What will be the role of the
proposed UN supervision in Nepal? The ongoing
transition in Nepal would keep throwing up many such
questions of strategic import, but it is early days
yet, and we will have to wait for definitive answers
to emerge.

Revolutionary communists and other progressive forces
in India will of course hope for a grand consolidation
of revolutionary democratic forces in Nepal. A great
possibility for a new social advance has certainly
opened up in Nepal and we wish the communists and
progressive forces of Nepal every success towards a
successful transition.
[Ed. ? Editorial written on June 23rd]

Struggles in South Asia

The Historic Agreement in Nepal and the Immediate
Challenge

- Pratyush Chandra.

Nepal continues to create history. If everything goes
well, we will soon see an interim government with the
Maoists' participation to pre-empt any further
betrayal to the basic immediate demands of the Nepali
people for a constituent assembly and for exercising
their right to decide the fate of the moribund
monarchy and its institutional shields. Definitely,
the political developments in Nepal after the April
mobilisation have approximated to what the
parliamentary parties agreed upon in their
understanding with the Maoists.

After the restoration of their parliamentary
privileges, the Nepali democrats have re-baptised the
established institutions with new names and cut the
wings of the royalty. Of course, all these do help in
building the atmosphere amenable for taking the first
step towards the resolution of the "Nepali crisis",
which is the formation of the Constituent Assembly as
the body that will have the capacity to establish the
basic rules, norms and 'institutions' necessary for,
what Chairman Prachanda calls, "political
competition".

The local elites and their global sponsors had thought
that the April radicalism on the urban streets of
Nepal would die down after the restoration of the old
parliament. But they were time and again rebuffed when
the vigilant Nepali people took to the streets to
check and decry every compromise and regression in the
air. The Maoist rejection of the April compromise did
not allow this radicalism to sleep. Deuba, Koirala and
others known for their moderate royalism and elitist
anti-Maoist stance in the past are constantly watched,
and any statement and action from them that reek of
the design to give space to decadent institutions and
their representatives are duly criticised by
spontaneous showdowns on the streets.

Not a single day has passed since the April agitation
without meetings and gatherings where diverse sections
of the Nepali people discussed the future regime and
contents of the future constitution. Various sections
of the marginalized majority of the Nepali society
have been coming and demonstrating in Kathmandu for
ensuring their representation and the inclusion of
their demands and rights in the future political
system. This remarkable spirit of self-determination
rejects any compromise that is short of what the
Nepali people have promised themselves. It is this
spirit that destroyed the "Royal Regression" and
continues to eliminate any possibility of the
Parliamentary Regression, of making the old parliament
an end in itself. And the June 16 agreement between
the Maoists and the government is the definite result
of this popular defiance.

But the Nepali crisis was never just related to the
accommodation of the Maoists and establishing
institutions for such accommodation. It is most
importantly linked with the political economic
empowerment of the Nepali downtrodden. Until and
unless the radical needs of the Nepali labouring
classes - workers and peasantry - that have found
expression in the Maoist movement are not dealt with,
the crisis is not going to be resolved. And here lies
the tension that is clearly visible in the political
developments in Nepal.

Just before the recent June agreement the Prime
Minister arrived from a very "successful" trip to
India. And as expected the parameter of this success
in Nepal is how much monetary aid the leader is able
to raise. And India as the new recruit in the imperial
project struggling to obtain a definite share in the
continuous re-division of the world has recently been
too ready to fulfil such requests. Hence, the success
was unprecedented.

In return, Finance Minister Ram S. Mahat sold the
newfound peace and sovereignty, for which the Nepali
people have been fighting, to "captains of Indian
industry" at a function organised by the Confederation
of Indian Industries (CII): "This is a new era after
the establishment of the people's sovereignty in
Nepal. Peace has now been restored after the end of a
decade long conflict that had held back the country's
socio-economic advancement? It is in this context that
our attention is now focussed on increased investment,
public and private, domestic and foreign." An Indian
newspaper, The Hindu reports, "Referring to the fact
that India faced higher labour and operating costs of
production, Mr. Mahat said cheap and abundant labour,
educated technical workforce and other less expensive
inputs provide investors incentives for producing
intermediate products for Indian companies in Nepal."

This economic hyper-activism just before the
installation of the interim government is meant to
pre-empt any future attempt to radically transform the
economic path that the Nepali state and ruling classes
have pursued for the last five decades - of economic
clientilism and dependency. It seeks to depoliticise
the arena of economic policy by overburdening the
future political regime with all sorts of economic
arrangements that would maintain status quo in the
basic political economic structure. The Koirala
government has effectively utilised its time to ensure
that the basic economic framework is in place, which
would be difficult to change drastically under any
future political transformation. Only after this did
it become comfortable with the idea of the dissolution
of the parliament and the formation of the interim
government with the Maoists.

All this is very aptly complemented by the recent
attempt to reduce the "Nepali crisis" and the
democracy movement to the question of the position of
the Nepali royalty and the accommodation of the Maoist
"rebels" in the mainstream political system. Clearly,
the most formidable way to dilute any radical
resolution of this crisis is to simply ignore what it
is all about. The recent political discourse of
"People's Movement" and "People's Power" which sought
to de-"classify" the movement, ignore its class
constituents and their diverse aspirations, homogenise
it under an amorphous category of the "people" was the
first attempt in this regard. Moderate royalists,
corporate media (foreign and national), foreign funded
NGOs and "civil society" groups led this santisation
campaign. Foreign interests too found this discourse
worthwhile, as it minimises the damage, by eliminating
the clarity of the demands. It effectively evades the
Maoist element and puts the Nepali movement in line
with the "colour revolutions" of Eastern Europe,
colouring the corrupt elements of the old regime to
provide a "stable", yet "experienced", leadership to
the new.

Obviously on every front, the Nepali ruling classes
are trying hard to de-link the question of democracy
from the issue of building the essential institutions
for fulfilling the popular needs, giving "land to the
tillers", political and economic self-determination of
the diverse downtrodden sections of the Nepali
society. They seek to sweep aside the whole question
of endogenous development - of accounting the
endogenous resources, putting them under democratic
control for fulfilling the popular needs.

On the other hand, the popular classes of Nepal -
Nepali workers and peasantry - were for the first time
mobilised independently during the People's War,
undiluted by the opportunism of the disgruntled
sections of the landlord-merchant-moneylending classes
and the clientele petty bourgeoisie nurtured as local
"nodes" for implementing the social agenda of
imperialism. It was in the Maoist movement that for
the first time the Nepali landless and near landless,
involved in circular national and international
migration to meet their ends, found an organised
political expression. The rural roots of the Nepali
labouring classes even in the secondary and tertiary
sectors allowed the popular democratic aspirations
unleashed by the Maoist movement to integrate
virtually the whole Nepali society behind the New
Democracy Movement, despite the claims by other
political forces to have achieved democracy in 1990.

Obviously, Prachanda's concept of "political
competition", which the Maoists in Nepal have
developed in one or the other way right from the time
they put forward their 40-point demand in 1996, has to
be interpreted in this background. They seek an open
competition between the "democracy from above" that
the 1990 arrangement established and the aspirations
for the "democracy from below" that they have
inculcated in the daily lives and struggles of the
Nepali downtrodden. In standard terms, at the level of
economic policy, it is a competition between the
growth-oriented and need-oriented frameworks. With the
June 16 agreement, the possibility of such competition
as the new level of class struggle has become almost
certain. But it will be interesting to see how the
revolutionaries in the interim government, when
established, are able to undo what the Nepali ruling
classes have already achieved to make this competition
inherently lopsided in their own favour by imposing
the basic framework for pre-empting any conclusive
assault from below.

Struggles in South Asia

Disbanding of the Royal Nepal Army is Necessary for a
Lasting Democracy

- Daya Varma.

One of the key demands of the Communist Party of Nepal
(CPN)-Maoist was the replacement of the Hindu Kingdom
of Nepal with a secular democratic republic. All other
political formations in Nepal including the CPN
(United Marxist-Leninist) had conceded that Nepalese
people look upon the monarch in a special way and
would not want to completely do away with monarchy;
according to them, curtailing the power of the monarch
is sufficient, which is closer to the status of the
king before he usurped all powers on February 1, 2005.
 Many in the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), specially the
Nepalese Congress whose aging leader G.P. Koirala is
currently the Prime Minister still hopes that a
monarch with restricted powers is a preferred option.
India favours this solution. CPN (Maoist) alone among
the significant players consistently demanded the
abolition of the institution of monarchy and the
election of a Constituent Assembly to draft a new
constitution for Nepal.

How could King Gyanendra by a brief pronouncement at
10 A.M. of February 1, 2005 usurp all powers, dismiss
the existing elected parliament and unleash a war of
terror against the people of Nepal making CPN (Maoist)
the preferred target? The source of his strength lay
in the Nepalese Army. What actually happened on
February 1, 2005 was that the Royal Nepal Army headed
by General Pyar Jung Thapa felt confident of  routing
the CPN (Maoist). In short, it was not the King but
the Royal Nepal Army which staged the coup and it was
not the King but the General who decided that the King
should make a retreat.

What followed the coup of February 1, 2005 was way
beyond the expectations of the King as well as of the
democratic forces in South Asia and the world. The
protests throughout Nepal and specially in the capital
Kathmandu demanding democracy were so massive,
prolonged and defiant that King Gyanendra and his
Chief of Army had no choice but to surrender hoping to
salvage something for themselves ? perhaps until
people calm down and the organs of repression are able
to regroup. Every one recognized  CPN (Maoist) to be
the moving force of democracy and all parties in Nepal
requested them for a ceasefire, and the CPN (Maoist)
complied. Most of the communist parties, with the
exception of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
who have long felt that armed struggle is a matter of
the past began to address Nepal Maoists as comrades.

Every one recognizes that the mass upsurge in Nepal
was possible because of the confidence the Nepalese
people had in the strength of CPN (Maoist), which
exhibited utmost flexibility, political maturity and
vision in forging a united front with the SPA while
staying steadfastly with their principal demand.  The
massive demonstration, a call by the CPN Maoists, of
more than 200,000 people in Kathmandu on June 2
clearly indicates who is in command. Yet there are
still many players in Nepal besides the CPN (Maoist) -
the King and his Royal Nepal Army (RNA) and the seven
parliamentary parties including the Nepalese Congress
and CPN (UML) who had the support of the Maoist in
launching the democracy movement.  Of these the future
of democracy in Nepal will be determined by what
happens to the Royal Nepal Army and the People?s Army
under the political command of CPN (Maoist).

A demand that CPN (Maoist) should disarm is in essence
a call that the forces who compelled the King and his
army to concede to the popular demand should cease to
exist. CPN-Maoist?s People?s Army is not an  army in
the usual sense ? technically, organizationally and
functionally. Neither does the Maoist army possess the
armaments, tanks, helicopters and ammunition nor does
it receive training from the US, British or Indian
army; it does not hunt but is hunted. The Maoist army
has no history of serving as a coercive  organ of
state; in contrast it has been the backbone of the
democratic popular upsurge just witnessed in Nepal.
The overwhelming majority of Maoist Army comprises of
young Dalit women, who have shared and witnessed the
feudal oppression of their folks from childhood. In
this sense it is part of the solution, which has
evaded many countries of South Asia, notably India.
The Maoist army has been the backbone of immensely
popular people?s courts, which has imparted justice to
the victims; this has been possible because in South
Asia and perhaps everywhere, people except the courts
know the truth behind every crime. If the Maoist army
has children, they enjoy an alternative to being
street urchins. In short, the Maoist army is ordinary
citizens of Nepal with arms; it is not an army.
Indeed CPN (Maoist) could be treated as a split from
CPN (UML) very similar to the split of CPI (ML) from
CPI (M); CPN (Maoist) grew into a force because (1)
they combined three organizational features, the
underground party, an army and an open front just as
CPI (ML) had in the early days of Indian People?s
Front (IPF) and (2) followed a correct political
program in the given conditions of Nepal.

In contrast, the Royal Nepal Army, likely to be named
Nepal Army has been the backbone of general oppression
not only since Gyanendra usurped power but throughout
the history from the days of the Ranas to the present.
There is nothing good that can be said about its role
in Nepal. It will be closer to truth to say that King
Gyanendra was merely the formal expression of the
power of the army. South Asia has a notorious history
of the army. With the exception of India, it has
yielded power ? rather absolute power ? from time to
time in all other countries. The Nepal army is more
likely to follow the footsteps of the Pakistan army
than that of the Indian army. Even in India, steps
were taken soon after the independence to ensure
against military takeover; the most important of which
was establishment of regional commands.  In Nepal,
fourteen peaceful demonstrators were killed during the
recent movement by the army. So as long as this army
remains intact under whatever name and under
whomever?s command, democracy in Nepal cannot be
assured. The Koirala government would have done better
to imprison heads of the Royal Nepal Army than
ministers appointed by the King.

Nepal?s economy is primarily feudal with significant
Indian control. Neither of these two features are
conducive to democracy. The only factor favoring
democracy in Nepal is the consciousness of its masses,
especially its youth. This awakening can sustain only
if there exists a political formation like CPN
(Maoist) desirably in alliance with CPN (UML) with a
policing force committed to democracy; the existing
People?s Army under the CPN (Maoist) can be
transformed into such a force under state control. In
any case the existing Nepalese Army must be disbanded
to ensure a lasting democracy in Nepal; transferring
the command of the Nepalese army from the King to the
Parliament is not enough.

International Workers? Struggle

US Immigrant Workers: Invisible and Abused but Making
their Voices Heard

- Padma.

The number of undocumented (?illegal?) immigrants in
the United States (US) is about 12 million and
according to a new estimate they account for 1 in
every 20 workers. There are an estimated 7.2 million
undocumented workers. Women represent about 35% of the
undocumented immigrant population and an estimated 54%
are in the workforce. Undocumented immigrant workers
are an integral part of the U.S. economy and account
for nearly 1 in 4 farm workers, 1 in 6 maids and
housekeepers, 1 in 7 construction and 1 in 8 food
preparation workers. 27% of butchers and food
processing workers are undocumented.

In contrast to the anti immigrant rhetoric in the US,
less than 2% of the world?s immigration ends in the
U.S. Migration by people within the ?Third World? is
more common than the movement of the ?Third World?
citizens to the ?First World?. This article will
outline some aspects of immigration largely from Latin
America to the US and spotlight on ?illegal? and
?legal? immigrant women workers. As workers, they are
most vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and human
rights violations. But both the ?legal? and ?illegal?
immigrant women are moving from exploitation to
militant struggles for justice and dignity.

Why do People Immigrate to the US?
About 12% of the population in the U.S. is foreign
born, more than half of this population is from Latin
America. Mexicans constitute the majority of the
immigrants from Latin America. The National Network
for Immigrant and Refugee Rights outlines in its 1994
report that First World imperialism and development
policy in the Third World has resulted in resource
depletion, debt and poverty from many people in these
nations. The extraction of resources by the U.S and
other First World nations forces many people in the
Third World to migrate to follow their countries?
wealth.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was
implemented on January 1, 1994. This agreement removed
most barriers to trade and investment among the United
States, Canada, and Mexico. Public Citizen, the US
advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader, reported that
independent farmers were hit particularly hard by
NAFTA, with thousands wiped out and farmland shifting
into the hands of huge agribusiness corporations such
as Tyson and Cargill. Mexico?s agricultural sector was
hit the hardest with cheap imports of corn and beans
from the U.S. and Canada flooding the Mexican markets.
1.3 million agriculture jobs were lost- 1 million men
and 300,000 women were affected. Immigration increased
from Mexico from approximately 350,000 per year in
1992 to approximately 500,000 per year in 2002 ? 60
percent of these immigrants are undocumented.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA)
was signed in August 2005 to extend the policies of
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to
include 5 Central American nations and the Dominican
Republic. Public Citizen says DR-CAFTA is based on the
same "failed neoliberal model" as NAFTA and serves to
"push ahead the corporate globalization model that has
caused the 'race to the bottom' in labor and
environmental standards and promotes privatization and
deregulation of key public services."  This free trade
policy will increase the already desperate conditions
faced by the poor and heighten immigration the U.S.

The US hegemony over Latin America dates back to the
19th century. In the 1840s the US government annexed
one third of Mexico. It is no coincidence that the
states in the US with the highest number of immigrants
from Mexico like California, Texas, and Arizona
formerly belonged to Mexico! In Central American
countries like El Salvador and Guatemala, the US
supported military regimes that brutalized the poor
and indigenous communities. Large numbers from these
countries migrated to the US in the 1980s to escape
poverty and war.

Draconian Immigration Laws
The U.S policies have always been for the free flow of
profits to corporations. The free flow of people has,
however, been restricted by several draconian laws. In
the early 20th century laws set immigration quotas
favouring Anglo Saxons and excluding people of colour.
It limited entry to Latins, Slavs and Jews.

The Bracero programme- 1942-1964 enabled 4.5 million
Mexican peasants to migrate to the US during that
period to work in farmlands as contract labour. They
were paid lower wages than the American workers and
worked in highly exploitative conditions. This
contract labour did not prevent ?illegal? immigration
from Mexico. Large landlords and agricultural
businesses profited from pitting documented workers
against undocumented workers ? Mexican workers against
American workers ? and driving down the wages for all.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of
1996 endorsed by President Clinton a democrat
represented the harshest attack on immigrant workers.
It mandated an increase in police apparatus and U.S.
patrol to terrorize undocumented workers and deport
them without due legal process.

The Sensenbrenner bill, known as HR 4437 passed by the
Lower House in December 2005 criminalizes undocumented
workers and anyone who will assist them. This bill has
sparked a nation wide movement by the immigrants and
the organizations who support them.

Women Immigrant Workers Fight-back
The destabilizing effects of the U.S. policy in Mexico
and other countries in Central America has not only
devastated agriculture but destroyed indigenous
manufacturing and more than 28,000 small businesses in
Mexico by allowing retail giants like Wal-Mart to
enter the market. Since the NAFTA was instituted in
1994 there has been large scale migration of women
from the poverty stricken rural areas to the US-
Mexico borders to work in maquiladoras (export
processing plants) which are largely sub contactors or
subsidiaries of transnational corporations. From the
maquiladoras, many Mexican women have migrated to the
U.S and have found employment as janitors, as maids in
private houses, in the service sector, in the apparel,
electronic and health care industries and in farms.

Agricultural/Farm workers: There are over 2 million
farm workers in the U.S. 80% of these workers are
foreign born and largely from Mexico. Women comprise
only 20% of these workers and more than half are
undocumented. Julia Gabriel of Coalition of Immokalee
Workers says, ?As women and workers we have to fight
for our rights and against violence both in the fields
and in our homes?. Julia Gabriel came to the U.S from
Guatemala to work in the farms. She was enslaved in a
farm labor camp in South Carolina (a southern state).
She was forced to work 12-hour days along with other
workers- seven days a week for little pay. According
to reports, men were beaten and women were sexually
abused. Julia and six co-workers escaped and reported
what had happened. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers
(CIW), a farm worker organizing group based in
Immokalee, Florida, took up their case. CIW members
worked with Julia and other slave victims to expose
this slavery operation. CIW has aided in the
prosecution of five slavery operations by the
Department of Justice and the liberation of over 1,000
workers. In March 2005, in a precedent-setting move,
fast-food industry leader Taco Bell Corp., a division
of Yum! Brands (NYSE: YUM), agreed to work with the
CIW to address the wages and working conditions of
farm workers in the Florida tomato industry.

Hotel workers: There are about 90,000 unionized hotel
workers in the U.S. represented by UNITE HERE (Union
of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees and
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees). There are,
however, more than a million non union hotel workers.
The majority of these workers are women and
immigrants. A study that covered 7 years called
?Creating Luxury and Enduring Pain? describes the hard
working conditions of hotel house keepers and the
injuries sustained during work. In January 2005 hotel
workers in Washington, DC threatened to strike during
the inaugural of Bush?s second term Presidency. The
hotel management dropped their demand for a two tiered
health care benefits system which would have pitted
new employees against the old ones. It also gave a
wage increase and increase in pensions.

Laundry workers: UNITE HERE represents 40,000
industrial laundry workers in the U.S. Industrial
laundry workers who are largely immigrant women handle
soiled linen from hospitals and hotels. It is among
the most unpleasant and dangerous jobs in the U.S.
Mariana Alberti, an immigrant from Central America and
a laundry worker in Sterling Laundry, a large
industrial laundry company in the capital, Washington,
DC tried to unionize workers. She was terminated but
was reinstated when the supervisors changed. Working
conditions were appalling with workers being exposed
to scorching temperatures, feces and blood soiled
linen. In August of 2003 the workers (more than 2000
mostly immigrant and female) voted to unionize. The
employer went on record referring to the women workers
as ?cows? and said he would rather burn down his
company than have a union. In September of 2003 the
brave workers went on strike which ended in a victory
in April 2004 after 7 months of arduous struggle.
UNITE negotiated a three-year labor agreement with
Sterling, providing workers with a pension plan, free
individual and family health coverage, and the largest
wage increase in company history.

Other workers: Large numbers of immigrant women from
Latin America and the Philippines work as domestics in
private households, janitors in companies and high
rise buildings and in the health care industry
underpaid and invisible. In the late 1980s, Service
Employees International Union (SEIU)  spearheaded a
campaign to unionize janitors in Los Angeles a major
city in the West coast of the U.S. Tens of thousands
of lowly paid janitors (largely immigrant women)
demonstrated across the country on International
Women?s Day in 1995 to protest low wages and the lack
of health benefits. Due to the successful ?Justice for
Janitors? campaign over 100,000 janitors across the
U.S. were able to get increased wages, expanded health
care benefits and full-time jobs. On May Day this year
450 low paid janitors mostly immigrants at the
University of Miami won the right to form a union
after a 2 month strike with an outpouring of support
from students and faculty across the country.

Immigrants on the Rise ? Recent Protests
Across 153 cities in the U.S millions of people
marched on May Day this year in support of the
estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants. The
spark that ignited a powerful movement leading to huge
demonstrations across the country was the
Sensenbrenner bill passed in the House in December
2005.This bill criminalizes undocumented immigrants
and those who help them. The demand of the grass roots
immigrants? movement is amnesty for all immigrant
workers, fully and immediately. On May 25, a
comprehensive immigration reform bill was passed in
the Senate. This ?compromise? bill is again a betrayal
of the immigrants. Under this bill only an estimated
4-5 million of the 12 million undocumented immigrants
will be granted citizenship and the rest will be
deported. In addition it supports massive
militarization of the US Mexico border.

Bernadette Ellorin with the Justice for
Immigrants/Filipin@ Coalition stated, ?There are more
than 4 million Filipin@s in the U.S. and we have one
of the largest undocumented populations. Migration was
never a choice for us. We were forced to leave our
loved ones back home because our home countries can?t
sustain us?.. We can?t carry out self-determination
due to the racist, anti-foreign, anti-immigrant U.S.
policies. The struggle of immigrant workers is one
with all working people. Immigrant rights are workers?
rights?.

The time is ripe for the progressive and socialist
forces in the US to forge unity between the super
exploited immigrant workers and the domestic-local
workers and expose the tyrannical nature of capitalism
which pits workers against each other. Migration from
exploitation to emancipation can then become a reality
for all.

International Workers? Struggle

US Immigrant Workers Movement: Birth of the New Civil
Rights Movement?

- PB.

"There are economic interests who want to perpetuate a
global low-wage work force and maintain the pool of
exploitable labor of Mexicans in the United States and
Mexico."
-- BALDEMAR VELASQUEZ, FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

May 1, 2006 made history. It was the day when the
traditional May Day was resurrected by the new
immigrant workers in the US. Despite the US origins of
May Day, it has been wiped out from peoples?
consciousness. The new immigrant rights movement
changed all of that. A multitude of organizations
?immigrant rights organizations, progressive sections
of the labour movement and unions, left political
parties and religious organizations ? and
multinational workers resolved to organize a national
?day without immigrants.? May 1st was chosen for its
special symbolism as an international workers? day. It
was no ordinary day of protest but a national day of
boycott with the key slogans of ?no work?, ?no
school?, and ?no selling, no buying?.

New Draconian Anti-Immigrant Bill
The momentum for the May 1 boycott built after
millions of the people marched in all the large urban
centres including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago,
New York, and Boston during March and April. These
marches were to protest the passage of the HR 4437
(The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005) in the United States
House of Representatives on December 16, 2005. It is
also called the Sensenbrenner bill after its sponsor
the Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner.

The draconian Sensenbrenner bill further criminalises
the super-exploited undocumented immigrants. Some of
the provisions are: 1) Requires up to 700 miles (1120
km) of fence along the US-Mexican border at points
with the highest number of ?illegal? immigrant
crossings. 2) Requires custody of undocumented
immigrants detained by local authorities. 3) Mandates
employers should verify workers' legal status through
electronic means. 4) Criminalises, with a prison term,
the ?assisting? of undocumented immigrants. As written
it includes any charity, church or neighbour, who aids
the undocumented immigrant to remain in the U.S., for
example by providing food, clothing or shelter. In
case mass deportation results in labour shortage one
congressperson suggested "? let the prisoners pick the
fruits."

Shaken by the building immigrant workers movement,
McCain-Kennedy bill and other alternative bills are
being proposed. The alternative bills largely retain a
lot of the provisions of the HR 4437 and has a ?guest
worker? program which sends the workers home after a
few years. The two labour federations American
Federation of Labor -Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO) and Change to Win, although
oppose the HR 4437 in principle, support some sort of
legalization and guest worker program. This is a grave
mistake. The Braceros program, a type of guest worker
program from the 1940s to 1960s, was employed to lower
wages and break strikes. In a national speech on May
16 Bush announced that he is sending 6000 National
Guard troops to increase border patrol along the
US-Mexico border and supported the establishment of a
guest worker program and the denial of citizenship to
millions of immigrants. The Democratic leadership
mostly agreed.

Imperialism, Free Trade, and Labour
US is a country built not only from the sweat of
immigrants but also the slavery of Africans and the
genocide of Native Americans. In 2003, 11.7% of the
population, about 33.5 million, were foreign born
residents and approximately half arrived after 1990
(8).  It is estimated that about 11-12 million are
undocumented immigrants of which 7.2 million are
undocumented workers. Undocumented immigrants from
Mexico are 56 %, other Latin American countries are 22
%, Asia are 13%, and Europe and Canada about 6%. Most
of these new immigrants have less formal education,
lower wages and higher unemployment and clustered in
the jobs with dangerous and abominable conditions (4).
For example, in New York City?s Chinatown the
restaurant and garment sweatshop workers work about
100 hours a week ? compared to a standard work week of
40 hours per week ? and were paid as low as $ 2 an
hour ? compared to a minimum wage of $ 5.15 an hour
(8).

The immigrants provide food to the US population by
working in the low paid and dangerous jobs in farming
and meat processing. The 2 million year-round and
seasonal migrant farmworkers, includes 100,000
children. Approximately two thirds of farmworkers are
immigrants, with 80 % from Mexico. Agricultural work
injuries and illnesses disable farmworkers at thrice
the rate of the general population (3) and 60% of
these families live below US poverty line (1, 7). In
the meat processing industry, ?exhausted employees
slice into carcasses at a frenzied pace hour after
hour, often suffering injuries from a slip of the
knife or from repeating the same motion more than
10,000 times a day.? The workers are asphyxiated by
fumes, have their legs cut off and hands crushed doing
the most dangerous job in the US (2).

Why do the undocumented workers risk their lives to
work in these horrendous conditions? The two parties
of the ruling class, the Democratic and Republican,
have been pursuing the imperial economic policies with
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Mexico?s
pursuit of these economic liberalization policies has
transformed rural Mexico, forcing 1.7 million
subsistence farmers to migrate to the cities,
maquiladoras (export factories) or the U.S. It is
estimated that 15 million more Mexican farmers, nearly
one in six, could soon be displaced with a projected 5
million of those attempting to migrate to the U.S.
Since NAFTA, 80 percent of rural Mexicans live in
poverty, with 60 percent living in extreme poverty (5,
6). Besides the economic migration millions have run
from Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras
to escape the US financed militias and state terror.
Additionally, in the 19th century, US annexed large
parts of Mexico, comprising the large states of
California, Texas, Arizona. Thus, the Chicana/o
leaders ?Chican@s did not cross the border the US
crossed the border.? No wonder the immigrants rights
organizations are on the streets fighting back the
latest round of assault on their rights.

The May 1 Boycott
May 1 could be a watershed in the workers? movement in
the US. After massive demonstrations on March 25 and
April 10, on May 1 millions joined in massive marches
and workers strikes. This was not a simple march. This
was ?a day without immigrants,? the historic May 1
boycott. The reasoning was expressed succinctly by
Juan Jose Gutierrez, national coordinator for Latino
Movement USA "You can only march for so long to make
your point ? You have to think of other creative ways
to make it clear to Congress and the Bush
administration that we expect them to behave
responsibly." He added that it was inspired by the
International Workers? day. Nevertheless, several
organizations who are supporting the immigrant rights,
such as the Catholic church, opposed the boycott. The
central slogans were ?Amnesty for All?, ?Immigrant
rights are workers rights?, ?No human being is
illegal?, ?We are not criminals?.

May 1 witnessed one of the largest demonstrations in
US history. More than 153 cities in 39 states in US
and in Mexico and other Latin American countries
millions of people protested. The numbers were mind
blowing: 1 million in Los Angeles, more than half a
million in New York City, 700,000 in Chicago, 100,000
in Atlanta, and 100,000 in San Francisco. In addition
tens of thousands participated from Boston to Houston.
People had signs of ?Bush, listen! We?re fighting
back!? ?We?re here and we?re not going anywhere,? and
?There are no borders in the workers? struggle.? 90%
of port truckers in Los Angeles and Long Beach did not
work. US?s biggest beef processor was forced to give
workers the day off in seven plants in Colorado,
Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Texas and Nebraska. Food giant
General Mills was unexpectedly forced to stop
production at two of its plants in the Boston area.
Immigrants from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and
Eastern Europe participated in large numbers.

As the US Senate was deliberating provisions of the
immigration bill on May 17 immigrant rights activists
protested outside. As a result of all these protests,
the Senate decided to tone down some provisions of the
House bill but still most of the provisions were
intact. The negotiations to agree on a compromise law
have been put off for now. Nevertheless, these laws
ultimately criminalise immigrants, fuel racism and
increase the super-exploited workforce. The immigrant
rights movement is polarising further into the
centrists and the progressives. Militant trade union
activists, in the spirit of oppressed peoples?
struggle, have called for Brown-Black (and White
workers) unity. The progressive forces in the
immigrant rights movement will have to continue to
organise and build the movement in the spirit of the
popular slogan ?Si Se Puede? (Yes We Can!).

References
1. Anh, C., Migrant Farmworkers: America's New
Plantation Workers, Institute for Food and Development
Policy, Spring 2004.
2. Human Rights Watch, Blood, Sweat, and Fear:
Workers? Rights in US Meat and Poultry Plants, 2005.
3. Oxfam America, Like Machines in the Fields: Workers
Without Rights in American Agriculture, 2004.
4. Pew Hispanic Center, Immigration Statistics, 2006.
5. Public Citizen, Down on the Farm: NAFTA'S
Seven-Years War on Farmers and Ranchers in the U.S.,
Canada and Mexico, 2001.
6. Public Citizen and GRACE, Unfair Trade: Mexico's
Agriculture Crisis: How Free Trade, the United States
and Transnational Corporations Made It Happen,
November 2003.
7. United States Department of Labor, National
Agricultural Workers Survey, 2000.
8. Yates, M., Capitalism is Rotten to the Core,
Monthly Review, May 2006.
Note: May 1 boycott reports from workers.org,
socialistworker.org, and themilitant.com.

South Asian Struggles

Bangladesh Garment Workers? Struggle

- Anu Muhammed and Soumitra Bose.

Exactly a month earlier the informal labour of
Bangladesh erupted in an unprecedented and un-planned
upsurge in almost all cities of that country. Today
they have again surfaced through another spurt.
Garment industry is now the only viable industry of
Bangladesh, which earns enough for the factory owners
and earns less than daily living cost for the workers
who create the surplus. Out of 3000 Taka per chemise
(75 Taka = 1$ when you consider the ultimate incidence
price on any citizen with taxes, duties and other
secondary levies), the worker gets less than 1 Taka,
whereas the recipient government keeps 35% in terms of
VAT, the importer keeps 50%, the Bangladeshi exporter
keeps around 12%, the Bangladesh government keeps
nearly around 3% and simply 1 TAKA is earned by the
worker, that too divided among all who need to work to
stitch up one chemise. What do you call this? Profit?
Super Profit? Or simply Rent from the same producer
who makes it happen.

The cost of livelihood in Bangladesh is simply double
than that in the Bengal Province of India, in the poor
bracket [it is more in the other class brackets]. Thus
a worker in Bangladesh has to work more than 16 hours
a day, 7 days a week, and 12 months a year to earn a
little more to feed his/her family. No holidays, no
benefits, no insurance, no reprieve, no proper working
condition in the smouldering heat of Bangladesh, no
sanitation, no time to eat, no time to have a decent
sleep and, of course, no time for leisure. Bangladesh
is a grand labour concentration camp where bonded
labour is the order of the day, supported and
encouraged by the government. The workers do not have
any rights, no claims, no dignity, no say and no
registration. Routinely, the workers are literally
toasted alive to show the authorities that an accident
was genuine and thus claim the insurance money and
re-organize an ailing unit. The workers jam up the
city streets during the morning hours when they join
the mill, they come in millions, about 2.2 million
workers work simply in greater Dhaka region [75%],
Chittagong [15%] and Rajshahi [rest], and 80% of them
are women. They walk for miles as they do not have
enough to spend for transportation [the cost again is
one of the highest in the South Asian region]. The
owners however drive in the latest foreign cars
without any apparent shame. The workers are paid on
piece-rate basis, hourly rate is a joke as no
overtimes wages are given. A figure is written on the
registers where the workers are forced to sign, and
yet they are paid half the amount. The owner is the
payer and the snatcher, marauder as well. The women
are forced to satisfy the sexual lust of the owners.
Every garment worker has to go through this gruelling
experience not only during the first ?interview? but
also almost at any time at the beck and call of the
owner. 89% of the women workers have undergone either
rape or non-consensual sexual repression during their
tenure of work in Bangladesh and this is not an issue
to the law and order authority. The police officials
and the entire middle class considers these women as
an easy source sexual of exploits and this has become
a normal favour in the country.

The lifespan of these workers have gone down below 35
years, the children die young in enteric ailments and
tuberculosis. Family life is totally shattered, they
do not see each other often enough and live not even
in shanties but in temporary shelters without any
sanitation or running water. In every flood or natural
disaster they are routinely washed out.

Over the years the livelihood of these workers has
gone down to an irreducible minimum. They could not
bear it and they incinerated their work place ? the
first Luddite expression of working class, though
informal, of any kind in Bangladesh. These workplaces
are hell-holes to them, these do not give them any
point of interest to keep them alive. They do not have
any sense of belonging with the workplace. This is a
purely nihilist expression, yet expressed collectively
and just like the organized working class. They are a
pessimist lot and a cynical human group. With full
justification they have seen the political leaders
through and through. They have seen how the same
owners who take all out of the workers are funding
leaders of all hues. The revolutionary democracy is
week but steady and has plunged in the movement whole
hog, and yet they are just dismally inadequate. Some
day, some way these are the forces who would gain the
trust of this informal working class.

Bangladesh has a long tradition of upsurges.
Bangladesh had always come out with moments of massive
upsurges as precursors of long drawn political
struggles. We are keenly watching this phenomenon
erupting in the biggest volcanic upsurge of the
working class community. Across the border we would
definitely warm ourselves up in organizing the
informal workers community.

South Asian Economy

Indian Stock Market Crash

- Girish Gildiyal.
        
Since 11th May stock markets world over have fallen
sharply and are still on shaky grounds. The correction
in the markets was overdue as the markets had reached
dizzying heights in last 1 year. Still it was shocking
that investor wealth of Rs. 250, 000 crore (1 crore =
10 million) was wiped out in 2 days of trading
sessions alone and, on the morning of 22nd May, market
fell by more than 10% within an hour of opening
leading to suspension of trading. Even though the
adverse effects of such precipitous fall, e.g., like
payment crisis, have largely been contained by timely
action, issue of dominance of hot money in our stock
market has yet again come to prominence. According to
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) data,
since the market peak of May 11, 2006, Foreign
Institutional Investors (FIIs) have pulled out some $
2.5 billion from the Indian equity market, which is
almost half of what they brought in the first five
months of this year. Such flows do raise worries about
destabilizing effect on the economy.

The worry was evident in the Government went on to
manage the stock market with finance minister (FM)
advising retail investors to stay put in the market
since India had good fundamentals. All this while
FIIs, whose every dollar inflow was cheered by pink
papers as a sign of confidence in Indian economy, were
exiting after making a neat pile of cash. Not content
with mere advice, government directed fund managers in
public sector to make purchases in a crashing market
resulting in severe losses.

The hold of FIIs in the Indian stock market is
striking - a look at the figures is revealing, between
May 11 and 31, FIIs sold equities worth Rs 11, 953
crore while mutual funds invested Rs 6, 677 crore,
during this period Sensex tanked from 12671 to 10398,
a fall of 18% in 20 days. Whereas in the month of June
(till June 19), FIIs have brought in Rs 2, 140 crore,
while domestic funds have been net sellers to the tune
of Rs 2, 178 crore, during the period, share market is
at 9800. It is clear from the figures that mutual
funds were purchasing while the market was in free
fall and started selling at bottom.

Unfolding of events in the past month revealed how
Indian government has bent over backwards to woo the
FIIs and then enabled them to get away with huge
speculative profits without even taxing them. The
period also saw Finance Minister of India publicly
assuage FII sentiments by reassuring them that they
would not be taxed on their ill gotten gains.

The crash, which was triggered by a meltdown in
commodity prices in London, where copper and aluminium
prices fell sharply in mid May and the expectation of
increasing interest rates in US, had ensnared all of
Asia including India. India bore the brunt. Around
this time, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT),
which is India's apex body charged with the
administration of direct taxes, had put up a revised
draft of its 1989 guidelines on distinction between
trader and an investor in shares on its website
inviting public comments. New proposals would have
codified principles laid down by the judiciary in
recent years on the subject. An entity pays only 10
per cent tax on short-term capital gains, instead of
41 per cent tax, if it is treated as a trader. FII
claim to be traders on the dubious ground that they
have no permanent residence in India. So even while
FIIs derive huge gains through trading in the Indian
stock markets they are not be subjected to tax even to
limited extent as per CBDT guidelines. These
guidelines were largely seen by FIIs as a step to plug
tax avoidance by them. This aggravated the exodus of
FII money and resultant crash in the market.

The artificially high share prices were a result of
favourable tax regime of the current government. There
is no tax on long term capital gains or even
dividends. Most of the FIIs do not pay tax on the
hefty profits they earn in stock trading. Most of
these FIIs are registered in Mauritius, with whom
India has a Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). In
fact the Parliament, under Section 90 of Income Tax
Act, has delegated its powers to the executive.

Even though no apparent scam or manipulation of prices
has been detected as of now, except for a small
initial public offering (IPO) scam, the greedy
promoters had devised ways to cash in on the euphoria
generated by the high stock exchange index. The retail
investors have received the short end of the stick. A
slew of IPOs were offered (e.g. DLF and Deccan
Airways) to the public at a high premium. A host of
mutual funds had also started new schemes and
collected money from the public by offering units at
net asset value (NAV). This created an illusion that
their offering was cheaper compared to existing mutual
funds. A soaring stock market had a similar effect on
real estate market where property rates went so high
that they were out of reach of genuine investors. Real
estate and construction companies planned to raise
funds on the basis of absurd valuations. But the
pattern of fluctuations over a few days clearly
indicates that an organised lobby of speculators is
taking the small-scale investors for a ride. The small
investors sell at lower prices and the speculators
buy. The FIIs withdraw and then again buy at lower
prices. This is a manufactured crisis indeed.

Book Review

Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny

- Sundaram.

Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny
Amartya Sen, Allen Lane, 2006, 215 pg.

At a time when the US-led so-called ?War on Terror? is
terrorizing thousands of innocent people around the
world just because they happen to be or look like
Arabs or Muslims comes a book by well known Indian
economist Amartya Sen on ?Identity and Violence?.

The book, essentially a collection of a series of
lectures delivered by Sen on the subject at various
venues around the world since 2000, looks at the link
between popular perceptions of who represents what and
violence of different kinds.

Sen?s central thesis in his book is that ?the same
person can be, without any contradiction, an American
citizen, of Caribbean origin, a Christian, a liberal,
a woman, a vegetarian, a long-distance runner, a
historian, a feminist, a heterosexual??

In other words, everyone on this planet has multiple
identities and prioritising one identity e.g.. ?Indian
or Pakistani or Muslim or Christian? over the others
can result in a very simplistic understanding of the
person and what he/she really represents. Sen argues
that reductionist, one-dimensional notions of X or Y
religion being a promoter of ?terrorism?, certain
communities being made up of ? usurious money lenders?
or yet again people from certain countries being ?
rabid communists? often lie at the heart of sectarian
violence.

Sen touchingly tells the story of how as a child he
was witness to the mindless killings that accompanied
the Hindu-Muslim riots in the run up to the Partition
of India. One incident in particular, the murder of
Kader Mia, a day labourer, just outside his home in
pre-Partition Dhaka made a deep and lasting impact on
Sen, who was just eleven years old then.

Sen passionately rails against what he calls the
?solitarist? approach, under which people are neatly
but very wrongly partitioned into Western or Eastern,
Muslim or Christian or Hutu and Tutsi and even as
being Pro-Globalisation and Anti-Globalisation ? with
no space for the assumption and exercise of other
identities. ?The hope of harmony in the contemporary
world lies to a great extent in a clearer
understanding of the pluralities of human identity,
and in the appreciation that they cut across each
other and work against a sharp separation along one
single hardened line of impenetrable division? he
writes.

At the level of popular discourse there is no doubt at
all that Sen?s plea for the recognition of multiple
identities and diversity of differences as a way of
increasing tolerance between people is very appealing.
This especially at a time when George Bush Jr., the
leader of the world?s only superpower constantly talks
in the dumb rhetoric of ?good versus evil? or ?if you
are not with us you are against us? with obviously
horrific consequences. Just in the past couple of
years or so, the US war on Afghanistan and Iraq has
resulted in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of
innocent civilians whose multiple identities were
first unfairly conflated into the category ?terrorist?
and then their persona blown to pieces by the blind
rage of some so called smart bomb.

But is it really possible to pin the blame for all
sectarian, communal and nationalist violence the globe
witnesses today on the inability of people to perceive
the multiple identities of others? Would that not be
as simplistic and reductionist an approach to take
towards the phenomenon of violence as the perpetrators
of violence take towards identity? How are identities
really formed and very crucially how are they linked
to more tangible, real-life processes that go on in
the world? Again, while it is true that everyone has
multiple identities what else, apart from sheer mental
laziness, compels one person to prioritise one of
these many identities over all others?

Unfortunately for the reader Sen refuses to engage his
brilliant mind to these important questions, leaving a
feeling that the subject has been dealt with much
passion but insufficient depth. For the Indian reader
in particular a glaring omission in the book is the
lack of analysis of the country?s caste system ?
arguably the world?s most horrendous example of how
identity and socially engineered labels are linked to
violence. The caste system by associating certain
identities ? upper caste denominations like Brahmin
and Kshatriya with power and privilege while
disempowering others  ? ?untouchables? and ?shudras? ?
has in fact institutionalised violence on a daily
basis in Indian society.

But to blame the caste system on ?perceptions? of
individuals alone or promote the recognition of
?multiple identities? as a solution would be highly
misleading too. For while it is easy to argue, as Sen
proposes in his book, that a Dalit is also a human
being, a father, a neighbour and a wonderful singer,
the fact is that to accept him as equal in society has
implications in terms of sharing of wealth and power.
After all, at the root of this reified hierarchy of
identities in the Indian caste system is really the
quest for hegemony over resources in the real world.

The upper castes of India possess not just abstract
?prestige? but also very tangible assets, wealth,
weapons and control over political power ? all of this
won over the centuries with a mix of raw violence,
religious and cultural sophistry. Identity in this
case is the culmination of a long process of violent
struggle, even before it acquires a power of its own
and becomes the cause of new bouts of violence.

The brutal wars and conflicts that mark the birth or
partition of nation states is another example of how
identities are by-products in the more fundamental
battles over geographical and other strategic assets.
It is not a coincidence at all that in many struggles
for national independence even today natural resources
like oil, gas, minerals, water and forests play such a
crucial role in the very construction of identity.

All this leads to the intriguing possibility that
identity and the way it is used in the real world may
in many cases be merely an expression of property and
power relations in any society ? an idea that somebody
of Sen?s calibre could have easily elaborated to great
effect.

For example, while the popular media is agog
everywhere with stories of the Clash between
Civilisations ? interpreted purely in religious terms
? the real ongoing war in the world may be in terms of
lifestyles and use (or misuse) of resources. In a
world of limited resources, the drive for consumption
by some can very well be the death knell for others
who happen to be merely sitting on top of valuable
resources. A prime example of this is the US war on
Iraq prompted to a large extent by the unquenchable
thirst for oil of the American public.

In one of the chapters of ?Identity and Violence? Sen
? taking on for once the mantle of an economist ?
dwells at length on the issue of how the labels of
globalisation and anti-globalisation are fraught with
gross simplifications of positions and perceptions.
Some aspects of globalisation, he argues, can actually
result in benefits for the underdog and need not be
imperialist while the anti-globalisation movement is
in fact fighting for a better ?global? order and can
thus be seen as a part of globalisation itself.

Without commenting on the merits or demerits of Sen?s
position on globalisation, I would like to point out
that the way he approaches the discussion ? merely
analysing the semantics of the term ?globalisation? ?
is not in keeping with the rest of the book?s focus on
identity and violence. What would have been far more
fruitful, for example, is the exploration of violence
engendered by seemingly innocuous economic identities
such as ?developed? and ?underdeveloped? or
?market-friendly? and ?pro-reform? in the perpetuation
of certain kinds of violence in the world.

In fact, it can easily be argued that the greatest
violence in modern history ? as evidenced by all of
Western colonialism ? has been perpetrated by the so
called ?civilised? preying upon the resources of the
?primitive? and ?barbaric? using the latter terms as
excuses for such looting.

Identities such as ?developed?, ?developing?,
?progressive? and ?backward? have played a key role in
the shaping of economic and social policies in country
after country with all the negative consequences of
such policies being brushed aside as a ?trade off? for
achieving ?prosperity?.

For example, most middle class urban dwellers in much
of India cannot understand why the ?backward? and
?underdeveloped? populations of the Narmada Valley in
central India or the jungles of Orissa do not want to
make way for large dam and mining projects that will
result in ?national development?. Here, of course,
using the apartheid logic of the caste system, most of
them identify the interests of the ?nation? with their
own ?development?.

The alleged ?backwardness? of the Dalits and Adivasis,
on the other hand, becomes a justification for the use
of force by the state machinery to oust them from
their traditional lands on which they have lived for
centuries but do not possess ?identity? (read
?ownership) papers for. Here it is not the absence of
multiple identities but the absence of any identity at
all that facilitates the most barbaric acts of
violence against people ?invisible? to the eye of
elites with overgrown identities.




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism