India (or at least the Indian Parliament) will have a new President come Saturday. But everything did not go as smoothly as it usually does in a Presidential election. There were serious doubts raised about the credentials of both candidates. However, like most modern political controversies this matter has resolved itself without addressing the issues that it raise. This is probably because of the middle class ideal of an "educated President" with an "untarnished image". President Kalam was able to meet the expectations of this section of society. But, amidst the political campaigning focussed around the ignominous past of the candidates I feel that attention has been diverted away from three very important points that this election has demonstrated.
Firstly, this election has effectively politicised the post of President. It will undoubtedly set a precedent that political parties will follow in an attempt to secure their future (or the future of their leaders). The president had been conceptualised as a non political entity who wold impartially stabilise the political situation. In this election it was quite evident that the one thing that we could not expect the victorious candidate to be was impartial.
The second issue is specific to the Congress. The election of the esteemed Mrs. Pratibha Patil has been brought about solely throught the support of the Congress. A party the very purpose of which has become to pay homage to the "gods and godesses" of one family. I must congratulate the Congress on identifying this innovative form of narcissim as their national policy but I must respectfully decline to follow it. The idea of abject slavery and humiliation does not somehow appeal to me. At this juncture as a Communist I must briefly mention the "Left" (and I use the term advisedly). Somwhow the Parties of the "Left" seem to have deduced that electing an individual to what will be a purely ceremonial post (the only purpose of which will be to make "Prince Gandhi" our next PM in case of a hung Parliament) will advance the status of women's rights in India merely because that individual is a woman - Novel to say the least. My perspective on the "Left"? - the farce continues.
Finally, a point not disconnected from the "Left" has to be made. There has been limited concern with the election among the peasantry and the working class across the country. And in this context the preoccupation of the "Left" with this issue which is not even relevant to the proletariat shows where these parties are heading. They appear to be more preoccpied with winning political power and showing their loyalty to the Congress while the true Left toils away in the heartlands of the country. Even among the middle classes the reception has mostly been negative to both candidates. The election of Mrs. Patil shows that the present political system does not represent the people, but then again, thats an old story.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Female Foeticide - a question of balance
There has been a recent controversy arising over the PIL against the ban on attempts to determine the sex of a female foetus and the uproar against the observations of an honourable judge of the bombay high court on the issue. Two questions arise, why is the judge's observation on foeticide misguided (as I think it is) and why the demands made by the PIL should not be conceded
Dealing with the first question, the judge observed that there is nothing wrong with parents of two daughters wanting a male child. There are two essential falacies with this statement and its presentation. Firstly, it is seldom the case that "parents of two daughters want a male child" rather it is quite clear that a large majority of Indians would prefer to have a male child in the first place. Thus, the effect of removing this ban on determination of the sex of the baby before birth would be much greater than anticipated by his Lordship in that it would lead to a preferential elimination of female foetuses. There is a much more persuasive objection to this statement. While it may be conceded that it is upto an individual's personal preference whether he/she wants a male child termination of a pregnancy which would result in a female child is a necessary consequence of such a preference. This is unacceptable and undesirable in a society professing to have a modern value system and is open to all the arguments against female foeticide.
The broader question of the basis of justification for the PIL is the second issue at hand. The claimant's arguments centres around the submission that it is their fundamental right to find out the sex of the foetus. However, it must be pointed out that a right, however fundamental is not always absolute. This is quite apparent when one skims over any of the fundamental rights outlined between articles 14 and 32. Since all these rights may be qualified it is submitted that the "right" alleged in th PIL should also be qualified if it comes into conflict with important social policy objectives or the rights of others. The ban on determination of sex of the foetus acts as an essential safeguard against the social evil of female foeticide and it would thus be unwise to remove it. Further, it can be said that in most situations where induvuduals opt to determine the sex of the foetus it is likely to come into conflict with the foetus' right to life that would come into being in the future (though this latter proposition is arguable in the sense that can the foetus be considered to be "living" in the eyes of the law). The fundamentality of the fundamental right demands that it be given preference to other rights.
Therefore, the law needs to strike a preferable balance between granting an individual's right to know the sex of his/her baby and the social policy objective of guarding against female foeticide. As it is very likely that removal of this ban is likely to result in an outbreak of female foeticide's across the country it is perhaps preferable to strike this balance in favour of the latter.
Dealing with the first question, the judge observed that there is nothing wrong with parents of two daughters wanting a male child. There are two essential falacies with this statement and its presentation. Firstly, it is seldom the case that "parents of two daughters want a male child" rather it is quite clear that a large majority of Indians would prefer to have a male child in the first place. Thus, the effect of removing this ban on determination of the sex of the baby before birth would be much greater than anticipated by his Lordship in that it would lead to a preferential elimination of female foetuses. There is a much more persuasive objection to this statement. While it may be conceded that it is upto an individual's personal preference whether he/she wants a male child termination of a pregnancy which would result in a female child is a necessary consequence of such a preference. This is unacceptable and undesirable in a society professing to have a modern value system and is open to all the arguments against female foeticide.
The broader question of the basis of justification for the PIL is the second issue at hand. The claimant's arguments centres around the submission that it is their fundamental right to find out the sex of the foetus. However, it must be pointed out that a right, however fundamental is not always absolute. This is quite apparent when one skims over any of the fundamental rights outlined between articles 14 and 32. Since all these rights may be qualified it is submitted that the "right" alleged in th PIL should also be qualified if it comes into conflict with important social policy objectives or the rights of others. The ban on determination of sex of the foetus acts as an essential safeguard against the social evil of female foeticide and it would thus be unwise to remove it. Further, it can be said that in most situations where induvuduals opt to determine the sex of the foetus it is likely to come into conflict with the foetus' right to life that would come into being in the future (though this latter proposition is arguable in the sense that can the foetus be considered to be "living" in the eyes of the law). The fundamentality of the fundamental right demands that it be given preference to other rights.
Therefore, the law needs to strike a preferable balance between granting an individual's right to know the sex of his/her baby and the social policy objective of guarding against female foeticide. As it is very likely that removal of this ban is likely to result in an outbreak of female foeticide's across the country it is perhaps preferable to strike this balance in favour of the latter.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The question is rhetorical
The great game of engineering exams begins..............again. As I see everyone I know preoccupied with engineering exams a thought occurs to me. I cannot help but wonder, is this what breaks the spirit of the Indian youth and turns them from idealists to cynics. All I hear around me is talk of "what is the pattern this year?", "what's the cut-off going to be?", people who earlier used to talk about what the political situation of India is and how they were going to change it ( and they definitely were ggoin to change it!) think only of IIT, VIT and god knows what other sorts of "ITs". I saw before my very eyes how a person's resolve to change the future of the millions is weathered down by this systematic process of attrition to a desire to make his own future secure. I feel a sense of loss, maybe we lose thousands of nehrus and gandhis in the young people who go through this process every year. They used to say - "we will change society." Now they can only ask - "what can we do to change society?", the question is of course, rhetorical.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Globalisation
The socio – cultural indoctrination that has taken place across the world over the past twenty years has caused Global Economic Integration to be dogmatically accepted as the panacea for all the problems of modern society. It has received the official approval of the developing and under developed countries as a successful development strategy and that of the developed countries as a future priority. In the modern context global economic integration involves not only the traditional idea of “free trade” and specialization, but also freedom for firms to carry out operations across several countries and free movement of capital investment and labor internationally. These new developments make it necessary for us to interpret the traditional concepts of class and class polarization in a global context.
Inspite of the emphasis on globalization protectionist barriers still exist across the world. However, these barriers are gradually being removed as the trend of globalization continues. Countries are opening up their domestic markets to international avenues and competition. But since the level players in underdeveloped countries do not have the resources to export their goods to foreign markets the removal of protectionist barriers will have a greater effect on these countries. It will have a two – fold effect. Firstly, it will lead to the concentration of capital on an international scale as the larger firms push out or take over smaller and thus, weaker firms and the market is monopolized. The absence of regulatory authorities will mean that there is no limit to the market power of the large multinational corporations operating in the market. They will be able to squeeze out small competitors by virtue of the benefits accruing from their large size (economies of scale), availability of better technology and price-cutting. This will lead to the creation of giant conglomerates that will be capable of supplying to an international market. Secondly, the superior level of technology available to multinational firms will lead to overproduction of a good or service. The absence of protectionism will allow the firms to ‘dump’ their excess production in developing and underdeveloped countries after the high paying western markets have been saturated. Since these goods are sold at a price that is lower than the cost of production the domestic producers operating in the markets of these countries will be squeezed out and be forced to join the ranks of the proletariat. This process will not however affect the existing mass of labor that will only shift to working for international concerns instead of domestic entrepreneurs.
Economic integration aims at the establishment of an international economy free from regulation and control. In the modern context the ultimate objective of an economy is to be efficient which becomes synonymous with the lowest cost of production. Production of quality goods is a requirement only at the stage of take – over of the market by the corporations and disappears once monopolization has been achieved. Economic efficiency in an international economy requires two conditions. Firstly, there is the process of trade and specialization across countries, which is based on the principal of that each country should specialize in the production of a good or service. Though this seems somewhat unrealistic at present, with the removal of “barriers to trade” this will become the future mode of production and it has already taken place to some extent. It has been observed that the western, developed countries tend to specialize in the production of services and income elastic goods that are much more profitable as compared to the manufacturing industries that are taken up by underdeveloped countries. The high rate of profits for the firms based in the western countries would enable them to pay higher wages to their employees and thus, buy – off this section of the proletariat. It would be more accurate to classify this section as middle – class rather than proletariat, in absolute as well as relative terms. However, the firms operating in the comparatively much less profitable manufacturing sector, which would shift more and more to the third world, would have to push wages lower in order to earn profits. Further, international conglomerates that operate across these industries would depress wages in the manufacturing industries in underdeveloped countries in order to make up for loss of potential profits in the service sector industries. Thus, class polarization would be much more direct and higher in the underdeveloped countries that in effect subsidize the higher wages in the developed countries. Thus, the hierarchy of production segments generates a hierarchical global system with the developed countries at the apex and the underdeveloped Afro – Asian nations at the bottom.
Secondly, due to the removal of regulatory barriers the large international conglomerates would gain access to an almost unlimited source of labor. The firms would thus have almost absolute market power by virtue of being a “monopsony” i.e. in this case the sole buyer of the labor of international proletariat. The ultimate objective of a private firm being efficiency and thus, the minimization of cost, the conglomerates would locate production only in the countries with minimum wages and no wage control measures. The objective of economic efficiency being achieved by the conglomerate we must turn to the nature of goods being produced. Ultimately being a private firm the conglomerate would produce only those goods that are profitable to produce, in other words, the goods for which they receive the highest price. Thus, they would inevitably gravitate towards the production of luxuries and goods and services of elite and conspicuous consumption. These goods yield the maximum profit as they cater to the needs of the bourgeoisie and middle classes and it is these two classes that possess the greatest purchasing power. Thus, the proletariat and the peasantry will be deprived from the perspective of income as well as consumption.
The low profitability and high level of uncertainty associated with the agricultural sector will mean that international conglomerates will inevitably ignore it. Thus, private individuals on a small scale will take up agriculture. The agricultural sector will always be subject to fluctuations due to the influence of uncertain natural factors and inelastic supply and demand. As the developed countries lay more and more stress on industrialization and shifting resources from agriculture to more productive and profitable manufacturing and service sectors, agriculture will shift to the less developed countries and employ an ever increasing proportion of the people. Subdivision, fragmentation and low level of return from agriculture will leave two options open before the peasantry. They must either cross over to the proletariat in the cities and agree to work for a subsistence wage or carry on agricultural production on the small and uneconomical piece of land. Both these situations will breed social discontent. Further, the possibility of international trade would be eliminated, as food production is one area that every country would prefer to remain in some control of (which has been internationally accepted). Also agricultural goods will not be considered to have the same value as manufactured goods and services. Additionally, the small marginal farmers would not be able to sustain the costs involved in international trade.
The change in the nature of production has led to the emergence of systemic and structural contradictions in the very core of the system i.e. capital itself. The modern method of raising funds for production internationally is through bonds and shares i.e. what is called the “capital market”. One of the proposals of the World Bank to countries for collecting international capital investment is the removal of controls on the capital market. The volatility of these short-term investments has been historically proven (the national economic crisis in Argentina in the 1990s where foreign investors pulled out there investments into the country’s firms). This volatility along with strong links established between nations through the free capital markets will thus compound the cyclical processes of booms and depressions of the system and turn them into international crises. A crisis in one country will be transmitted through these new mechanisms across several countries. We can already find examples of such phenomenon in the East Asian financial crisis of the 1998. The international economy as a whole will go through these cyclical processes, which will be triggered off by the volatile movements of short – term capital from and to the free capital markets.
The global economy of the future will be subject to conflicts between developed and underdeveloped countries and contradictions within underdeveloped countries in the global system. The majority of the population in underdeveloped countries would come to consist of the proletariat and peasantry, which survive at subsistence level, whereas in developed countries the people would move to the high paying service sector and bourgeoisie and the middle class would form the greater part of the population. This would in effect imply the exploitation of the underdeveloped countries by the developed world leading to economic conflict. Thus, class differentiation would take place on an international scale with the developed countries occupying the same position as the bourgeoisie and middle class and the underdeveloped nations representing the proletariat and the peasantry. Socio – political conflict within the underdeveloped countries would also arise as the state would come to represent the ideas and interests of a continually decreasing bourgeoisie as reflected through western ideas and principles that are opposed to the existing social reality of the underdeveloped countries. The state would choose to follow the “progressive” example of the developed world whereas the people would have to face and struggle against completely different situations. Thus, the ultimate conflict will emerge on the Afro – Asian soils of underdeveloped countries. These economic phenomenons will manifest themselves in the form of religious, regional and nationalist uprisings and disturbances against the control of the developed countries and exploitation by the same or revolutions of a socialist and communist nature against the exploitation of the international proletariat and peasantry by the large multinational conglomerates.
Inspite of the emphasis on globalization protectionist barriers still exist across the world. However, these barriers are gradually being removed as the trend of globalization continues. Countries are opening up their domestic markets to international avenues and competition. But since the level players in underdeveloped countries do not have the resources to export their goods to foreign markets the removal of protectionist barriers will have a greater effect on these countries. It will have a two – fold effect. Firstly, it will lead to the concentration of capital on an international scale as the larger firms push out or take over smaller and thus, weaker firms and the market is monopolized. The absence of regulatory authorities will mean that there is no limit to the market power of the large multinational corporations operating in the market. They will be able to squeeze out small competitors by virtue of the benefits accruing from their large size (economies of scale), availability of better technology and price-cutting. This will lead to the creation of giant conglomerates that will be capable of supplying to an international market. Secondly, the superior level of technology available to multinational firms will lead to overproduction of a good or service. The absence of protectionism will allow the firms to ‘dump’ their excess production in developing and underdeveloped countries after the high paying western markets have been saturated. Since these goods are sold at a price that is lower than the cost of production the domestic producers operating in the markets of these countries will be squeezed out and be forced to join the ranks of the proletariat. This process will not however affect the existing mass of labor that will only shift to working for international concerns instead of domestic entrepreneurs.
Economic integration aims at the establishment of an international economy free from regulation and control. In the modern context the ultimate objective of an economy is to be efficient which becomes synonymous with the lowest cost of production. Production of quality goods is a requirement only at the stage of take – over of the market by the corporations and disappears once monopolization has been achieved. Economic efficiency in an international economy requires two conditions. Firstly, there is the process of trade and specialization across countries, which is based on the principal of that each country should specialize in the production of a good or service. Though this seems somewhat unrealistic at present, with the removal of “barriers to trade” this will become the future mode of production and it has already taken place to some extent. It has been observed that the western, developed countries tend to specialize in the production of services and income elastic goods that are much more profitable as compared to the manufacturing industries that are taken up by underdeveloped countries. The high rate of profits for the firms based in the western countries would enable them to pay higher wages to their employees and thus, buy – off this section of the proletariat. It would be more accurate to classify this section as middle – class rather than proletariat, in absolute as well as relative terms. However, the firms operating in the comparatively much less profitable manufacturing sector, which would shift more and more to the third world, would have to push wages lower in order to earn profits. Further, international conglomerates that operate across these industries would depress wages in the manufacturing industries in underdeveloped countries in order to make up for loss of potential profits in the service sector industries. Thus, class polarization would be much more direct and higher in the underdeveloped countries that in effect subsidize the higher wages in the developed countries. Thus, the hierarchy of production segments generates a hierarchical global system with the developed countries at the apex and the underdeveloped Afro – Asian nations at the bottom.
Secondly, due to the removal of regulatory barriers the large international conglomerates would gain access to an almost unlimited source of labor. The firms would thus have almost absolute market power by virtue of being a “monopsony” i.e. in this case the sole buyer of the labor of international proletariat. The ultimate objective of a private firm being efficiency and thus, the minimization of cost, the conglomerates would locate production only in the countries with minimum wages and no wage control measures. The objective of economic efficiency being achieved by the conglomerate we must turn to the nature of goods being produced. Ultimately being a private firm the conglomerate would produce only those goods that are profitable to produce, in other words, the goods for which they receive the highest price. Thus, they would inevitably gravitate towards the production of luxuries and goods and services of elite and conspicuous consumption. These goods yield the maximum profit as they cater to the needs of the bourgeoisie and middle classes and it is these two classes that possess the greatest purchasing power. Thus, the proletariat and the peasantry will be deprived from the perspective of income as well as consumption.
The low profitability and high level of uncertainty associated with the agricultural sector will mean that international conglomerates will inevitably ignore it. Thus, private individuals on a small scale will take up agriculture. The agricultural sector will always be subject to fluctuations due to the influence of uncertain natural factors and inelastic supply and demand. As the developed countries lay more and more stress on industrialization and shifting resources from agriculture to more productive and profitable manufacturing and service sectors, agriculture will shift to the less developed countries and employ an ever increasing proportion of the people. Subdivision, fragmentation and low level of return from agriculture will leave two options open before the peasantry. They must either cross over to the proletariat in the cities and agree to work for a subsistence wage or carry on agricultural production on the small and uneconomical piece of land. Both these situations will breed social discontent. Further, the possibility of international trade would be eliminated, as food production is one area that every country would prefer to remain in some control of (which has been internationally accepted). Also agricultural goods will not be considered to have the same value as manufactured goods and services. Additionally, the small marginal farmers would not be able to sustain the costs involved in international trade.
The change in the nature of production has led to the emergence of systemic and structural contradictions in the very core of the system i.e. capital itself. The modern method of raising funds for production internationally is through bonds and shares i.e. what is called the “capital market”. One of the proposals of the World Bank to countries for collecting international capital investment is the removal of controls on the capital market. The volatility of these short-term investments has been historically proven (the national economic crisis in Argentina in the 1990s where foreign investors pulled out there investments into the country’s firms). This volatility along with strong links established between nations through the free capital markets will thus compound the cyclical processes of booms and depressions of the system and turn them into international crises. A crisis in one country will be transmitted through these new mechanisms across several countries. We can already find examples of such phenomenon in the East Asian financial crisis of the 1998. The international economy as a whole will go through these cyclical processes, which will be triggered off by the volatile movements of short – term capital from and to the free capital markets.
The global economy of the future will be subject to conflicts between developed and underdeveloped countries and contradictions within underdeveloped countries in the global system. The majority of the population in underdeveloped countries would come to consist of the proletariat and peasantry, which survive at subsistence level, whereas in developed countries the people would move to the high paying service sector and bourgeoisie and the middle class would form the greater part of the population. This would in effect imply the exploitation of the underdeveloped countries by the developed world leading to economic conflict. Thus, class differentiation would take place on an international scale with the developed countries occupying the same position as the bourgeoisie and middle class and the underdeveloped nations representing the proletariat and the peasantry. Socio – political conflict within the underdeveloped countries would also arise as the state would come to represent the ideas and interests of a continually decreasing bourgeoisie as reflected through western ideas and principles that are opposed to the existing social reality of the underdeveloped countries. The state would choose to follow the “progressive” example of the developed world whereas the people would have to face and struggle against completely different situations. Thus, the ultimate conflict will emerge on the Afro – Asian soils of underdeveloped countries. These economic phenomenons will manifest themselves in the form of religious, regional and nationalist uprisings and disturbances against the control of the developed countries and exploitation by the same or revolutions of a socialist and communist nature against the exploitation of the international proletariat and peasantry by the large multinational conglomerates.
Legalizing euthanasia - (example of LNAT essay)
The debate over the topic of legalizing Euthanasia was recently brought into focus over a case in America. The Florida high court judged that the mercy killing of an American woman Terri Schiavo, suffering from a chronic disease, should be allowed as advocated by her husband as opposed to her parents views who felt that she should be allowed to live. However, widespread opposition to this judgment suggests that the issue needs to be examined much more carefully before legalizing Euthanasia. Euthanasia literally means mercy killing. It refers to cases where a patient suffering from an irrecoverable disease is given the alternative of an easy death. This may refer to people suffering from permanent paralysis or people in comas.
A fundamental argument against Euthanasia can be found in Thomas Jefferson’s declaration of human rights. It states – “We hold these truths to be self evident ….. that they [all men] are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” This document has formed the basis of human and fundamental rights throughout the world. Euthanasia violates the basic right of a person to live which is identified as inalienable and even divine in the sense that it is granted by God. No government, no individual and no authority has the right to take away what it cannot give, that is life. Therefore, Euthanasia is thus approximated more closely with murder rather than mercy. Even if the medical authorities undertake this practice with the consent of the patient it amounts to abetment in suicide.
Further, euthanasia is carried out mostly when there is no possibility of recovery. This gives rise to the question that which medical authority decides whether there is a chance of recuperation or not? Even the most skilled doctors may be wrong in certain cases, which in turn would lead to the death of an innocent person.
However, there is a practical argument supporting euthanasia. Medical resources which are used up in the treatment of patients who will not recover would be better utilized in cases where the possibility of successful recuperation is greater, especially in a country where demand for medical facilities outstrips supply leading to a shortage. On a more humanitarian note a person with no chance of recovery is in a state between life and death. Such persons merely exist and it may be argued that it would in fact be merciful to offer them death. Perhaps, taking such factors into account the Netherlands has accepted euthanasia.
Legalizing euthanasia does give rise to several difficulties. A necessary assumption of euthanasia is that the patient has a means of communicating his desire to live or die. If this is not the case then who should have the discretion to decide which cases are eligible for euthanasia. Should doctors decide on the basis of the nature of the disease, in which case they could be wrong or should the family decide? If family members are given this authority then they could have a misconception about the desire of the patient. On the other hand if the judiciary and the state is given such authority this gives rise to arguments against paternalism and the regulation of the state. Therefore, considering all these arguments it would be advisable to take a cautious view of euthanasia and not to legalize it.
A fundamental argument against Euthanasia can be found in Thomas Jefferson’s declaration of human rights. It states – “We hold these truths to be self evident ….. that they [all men] are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” This document has formed the basis of human and fundamental rights throughout the world. Euthanasia violates the basic right of a person to live which is identified as inalienable and even divine in the sense that it is granted by God. No government, no individual and no authority has the right to take away what it cannot give, that is life. Therefore, Euthanasia is thus approximated more closely with murder rather than mercy. Even if the medical authorities undertake this practice with the consent of the patient it amounts to abetment in suicide.
Further, euthanasia is carried out mostly when there is no possibility of recovery. This gives rise to the question that which medical authority decides whether there is a chance of recuperation or not? Even the most skilled doctors may be wrong in certain cases, which in turn would lead to the death of an innocent person.
However, there is a practical argument supporting euthanasia. Medical resources which are used up in the treatment of patients who will not recover would be better utilized in cases where the possibility of successful recuperation is greater, especially in a country where demand for medical facilities outstrips supply leading to a shortage. On a more humanitarian note a person with no chance of recovery is in a state between life and death. Such persons merely exist and it may be argued that it would in fact be merciful to offer them death. Perhaps, taking such factors into account the Netherlands has accepted euthanasia.
Legalizing euthanasia does give rise to several difficulties. A necessary assumption of euthanasia is that the patient has a means of communicating his desire to live or die. If this is not the case then who should have the discretion to decide which cases are eligible for euthanasia. Should doctors decide on the basis of the nature of the disease, in which case they could be wrong or should the family decide? If family members are given this authority then they could have a misconception about the desire of the patient. On the other hand if the judiciary and the state is given such authority this gives rise to arguments against paternalism and the regulation of the state. Therefore, considering all these arguments it would be advisable to take a cautious view of euthanasia and not to legalize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
