|
Third Critical Studies Conference on Empires, States, and Migration in
Kolkata, 11-12 September 2009)
for
Schedule and Details
Click Here
1. The Theme
In much of the era of twentieth century industrialism and capitalism the
phenomenon of migration seemed as an exception to human societies and
development. Societies and states, particularly after the Second World War,
seemed to have taken on the shape of stable nation states with their defined
citizenries, territories, laws, economies, and geographies. While
multinational corporations (MNCs) worked in a frame of global operations,
yet the structure of these operations were mostly territorially bound, and
encouraging trans-national migration was not a complaint lodged against them
by powers of global governance. Even if peasants were migrating, or various
migrant populations were very much present on earth shaping all through the
century as earlier the pattern of human settlements, yet history appeared as
one of the sacred territories of the national societies. Partitions appeared
as exceptions, and the reproduction of the method of partition as a way of
stabilising societies and forming states notwithstanding provoking
population flows and creating unclean futures was ignored. As if the sacred
history of settled societies had little to do with these messy presents and
pasts.
Of course migration is not something new; it is as old as human history.
Indeed, a whole science had meanwhile grown up around the phenomenon of
migration – geography and economics being the two most pursued disciplines
of knowledge in the task of understanding migration. Settlements, wages,
remittances, and several other issues have crowded the field of migration
studies. Ethnography, in general anthropology and later on cultural studies
have also made their distinctive marks. Of more contemporary interest
however is the phenomenon of forced migration. The attention on forced
migration in recent time is due to the surge in human rights movements, and
thus the awareness of the need to protect the victims of forced migration.
This has resulted in theories, laws, policies, and practices relating to
vulnerability, care, protection, boundary making exercises, citizenship, and
most importantly displacement. A great number of institutions of human
rights and humanitarian work now mark the field. National, regional, and
international regimes of protection have emerged. Yet this begs the
question, how far can we differentiate between voluntary migration and
forced migration particularly in the light of recent massive and mixed
population flows?
Labour has remained through all these debates and discussions the silent
other name of the figure of the migrant. When mostly this migrant labour
appears as illegal, what sense shall we make of the issue of trafficked
labour, who should have died with the emergence of free contract-bound
labour appearing often in the juridical figure of the citizen? This
complicates the scenario even more, and makes the world of settled
production even more contingent on several factors including labour flows.
In today’s world of globalisation, many may ask, are we really far away from
the nineteenth century world of indentured labour that marked entire world
of production? Also, with migrant labour marking the capitalist production
system what will happen to settled forms of democracy, according to some,
bourgeois democracy? Should we not study older histories of empires, which
were characterised by mobility in more pronounced ways?
Empires bring the issues of globalisation of various kinds and centuries.
Migrations connote borders, mobilities, and their governing. Empires govern
migrations, states govern migrations. Is there any common ground between the
two ways of governing? And once again significantly, do all these mean that
we take border as a method of study?
The Third Critical Studies Conference proposes to discuss all these
questions we have sought to assemble under the title, Empires, States,
and Migration. Scientific disciplines will help us to understand some of
the questions raised, inter-disciplinary approaches will help even more.
Critical ways of interrogating and analysing will enable us to go further
and allow us to raise new questions while making sense of the earlier ones.
About five years ago the Calcutta Research Group (CRG) started hosting
meetings to link with various strands of critical thinking on issues of our
time and having great stakes in our lives. The First Critical Studies
Conference (29 –30 July 2005) deliberated on What is Autonomy? The
Second Critical Studies Conference (20-22 September 2007) focused on
Spheres of Justice. Research papers, discussion notes, commentaries, and
volumes came out of these meets. More important, scholars and thinkers from
various countries including large numbers from within India cutting across
the post-colonial divides attended the two deliberations, and were able to
forge links and exchanged ideas. The Second Conference had an additional
programme. It was a one day workshop with Etienne Balibar – a day long
exchange of ideas between a select group of conference participants and
Kolkata scholars and the philosopher. For reports of these two conferences,
and the workshop interested people may visit the CRG website:
http://www.mcrg.ac.in/dg.htm
http://mcrg.ac.in/CS.htm
http://www.mcrg.ac.in/Grappi.htm
http://www.mcrg.ac.in/Report_Etienne.htm
2. Necessary details of the Third
Conference
The Third Critical Studies Conference will be
held in Kolkata on 11-12 September 2009. CRG invites individual proposals
for papers and desirably panels. Each panel will consist of three papers and
a moderator. There will be special lectures as part of the conference.
The Conference will not be able to offer any
travel assistance; there will be modest accommodation arrangements for three
nights for outstation participants. Registration fee for Indian participants
will be Rs. 300/ (Three hundred only) and for participants outside India the
fee will be USD 100 (USD one hundred only).
Below is an indicative list of sub-themes and
issues to be covered at the Conference. CRG welcomes other suggestions as
well.
The last date for submitting proposals for
panels and papers will be 15 April 2009, submitting abstracts 15 May 2009,
and for full papers 10 August 2009. Inquiries about themes and panels are
welcome. All inquiries may be addressed (with copies) to: -
Sanam Roohi:sanam.roohi@gmail.com
Geetisha Dasgupta:geetisha@mcrg.ac.in
Ishita Dey:ishita@mcrg.ac.in
3. Some of the probable themes and Issues
-
Imperial formations
and Migration (migrations in and under empires, modern empires and new
slavery, plantation economies, neo-imperial formations and flows of
labour, Diasporas, etc.)
-
States, Nations,
Migration, and Citizenship (violence, displacement, and citizenship, the
right to return, sacred space of the nation, citizenship laws,
autonomous flows of migration, globalisation and forced migration,
trafficking, possibilities of a differently structured world factoring
in mobility, etc.)
-
Economies and the
government of Population Flows (discussion on governmental technologies
to make migration a part of the market, migration markets, migration in
a police planet)
-
Beyond Economics and
Anthropology? Narratives of Forced Migration (gendered narratives, the
multi-layered messages, partition narratives, camp lives and
experiences, narrative as a method to understand forced migration and
its trauma, etc.)
-
The World of
Humanitarianism - Institutions of Care and Protection (institutional
studies, critiques of humanitarian ideologies, case studies)
-
Gender and Forced
Migration.
Migrant as
the abnormal (settled formations as the normal and the figure of the migrant
as the abnormal – historical overviews)
Dialogue on Protection Strategies for People in Situations of
Forced Migration
in Collaboration with UNHCR
Kolkata, 14-15 December 2008
For the report on the dialogue
click here
The history of forced migration has presently been recognized as a history
of mixed and massive flows of people, which have rendered, to a considerable
extent, the older forms of protection inadequate. These early signs of new
kinds of flows on the map of forced migration have led governments and
humanitarian agencies to adopt newer strategies to cope with massive
displacements and unrest. In this context - of massive and mixed flows of
forced migration and the need for newer strategies to handle such migrations
- Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group (CRG) proposed to UNHCR to hold a
dialogue that would focus on the relevant experiences of South Asia. The
UNHCR graciously accepted this proposal in the spirit of collegiality and
the idea emerged that the Sixth Annual Winter Course on Forced Migration
could have a special segment on protection strategies in the wake of the
emerging situation of forced migration in form of mixed and massive flows,
where experts from all over South Asia along with key UNHCR personnel,
engaged with the South Asian situation, could participate and deliberate on
possibilities of new protection strategies.
Recommendations
1.
Stressing the importance of sustained dialogue on emerging trends in the
realm of prevention, protection and reintegration of refugees and internally
displaced persons (IDPs) and the need for identifying sustainable solutions,
the group of South Asian experts gathered in the Conference titled
“Protection Strategies for People in Situations of Forced Migration”
(thereafter the Conference) proposes to transform itself into a Working
Group on Challenges of Displacement in South Asia (thereafter the Working
Group). The Working Group, with the assistance of a Secretariat to be
established at the Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group, will (a) serve as an
open forum for discussion and debate across countries and regions,
(b) convene in regular intervals and (c) help translate research findings of
displacement in South Asia into region-specific laws and policies. Such an
initiative would aim at establishing a broad-based dialogue on the existing
and emerging protection needs of people affected by displacement, including
as a result of conflict, development and environmental degradation, with a
view to informing policy-making.
2. Being
aware of the historical and geographical limitations of the term ‘refugee’
as framed in the Refugee Convention (1951) and stressing the need of
capturing new social phenomena in the realm of protecting vulnerable
populations, in particular with respect to climate change, the Conference
invites a dialogue, inspired by South Asian experiences, among State
governments, international organisations and civil society that looks beyond
the refugee definition contained in the Refugee Convention.
3.
Recognising that non-refoulement is one of the principal pillars of
any comprehensive protection strategy, the Conference encourages the States
in the South Asian sub-continent to consider signing and ratifying the
Refugee Convention as well as the Optional Protocol (1967) and to put in
place national legislation to enforce the principles enshrined in these two
instruments, inspired by the model law on refugees (2007) initiated by the
Eminent Persons Group. The Conference further invites the governments of the
States of South Asia to work towards a regional framework for protection
under the auspices of the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).
4.
Emphasising the importance of durable solutions in the face of new
displacement paradigms and upholding the fundamental right to freedom of
movement, the Conference calls on the States in the South Asian
sub-continent to ensure that conditions are established for refugees and
IDPs to make informed choices from a range of options, including voluntary
return in safety and dignity, local integration and relocation to a third
place.
5. In
light of a significant increase of IDPs in the world and South Asia, the
Conference invites a dialogue, in close coordination with people affected by
displacement and with the active involvement of the epistemic community,
among stakeholders in South Asia on the effective implementation of the “UN
Guiding Principles on Displacement” (1998) by way of adopting national
legislation, or addressing the protection needs of IDPs by other
comprehensive measures ensuring clear benchmarks and minimum standards.
6. Mindful
of the need to sensitise all segments of society on protection needs of
displaced populations as well as the linkages of marginalisation and forced
migration, the Conference calls on the electronic and print media to assume
its responsibility for (a) clarifying in the discourse the definition of
refugees, IDPs as well as migrants, (b) providing independently researched,
comprehensive and balanced information on displacement situations, and
(c) refraining from all reporting potentially jeopardising displaced
persons, their families or the population hosting them.
7. In this
context, the Conference (a) emphasises the potentially beneficial role of
local language media to advocate protection strategies, (b) encourages
reporting from a distinctively South Asian perspective, tapping into
existing regional media outlets and possibly creating new media structures
for that purpose, and (c) notes the increasing influence of the new media in
shaping public opinion.
8. Taking
note of the UNHCR Ten Point Plan of Action titled “Refugee Protection and
Mixed Migration” (2007), the Conference proposes to identify suitable topics
for consideration in upcoming meetings and conferences of the Working
Group-to-be. One set of issues that emerged from discussion as a pertinent
theme for further deliberation would be the fencing of borders, its impact
on displacement and possible solutions. Other themes include the prospects
and limitations of State institutions, including Human Rights Commissions,
and the involvement of civil society in devising new policies and
strategies.
9. In
recognition of the fact that the majority of refugees, IDPs and trafficked
persons are women and children, the Conference highlighted the need for
gender and age sensitive assistance, protection and capacity-building
policies and programmes and will feed its findings into the activities of
the Working Group.
In light of the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their likely implications for
migration and internal displacement, the Conference underlined the need for
a South Asian dialogue and a regional Action Plan on Climate Change based on
the principles of human security as well as justice and equity on issues of
environmental concern. The Conference also stressed the importance of
devising a framework for redressing issues pertaining to the impact of
growth-oriented development on sections of society vulnerable to
displacement.
Inaugural Session
Paula Banerjee (Calcutta Research Group, India and University of
Calcutta, India) chaired the Inaugural session.
Ranabir Samaddar (Director, Calcutta Research Group, India)
introduced the Concept and need for the Dialogue on Protection Strategies
for People in Situations of Forced Migration.
Rajeev Dhavan
Protecting Refugees – Entitlement or Welfare?
Pascale Moreau (Bureau of Asia & Pacific, UNHCR, Geneva)
Durable solutions through dialogue and cooperation in countries
Session I
Parthasarathi Ghosh (Jawaharlal Nehru University, India)
Mapping the Mixed and Massive Nature of Population Flows in South
Asia: With special reference to increasing statelessness and its impact on
women and other disadvantaged groups in the region
Uttam Kumar Das (International Organization for Migration, Bangladesh) / K.M.
Parivelan (TNTRC/DMRC, India)
Protection Needs, Current Legal Avenues, and New Legal Strategies – A South
Asian Perspective
Session II
Working Group 1
Samir Kumar Das (Calcutta Research Group, India, and University of Calcutta,
India) / Shahid Fiaz (The Asia Foundation,
Pakistan)
Developmental Projects, Internal Displacement, and the Need for New Policies
and Practices for Protection of Victims
Working Group 2
Mario Gomez (International Commission of Jurists, Law Commission of Sri
Lanka) / Shiva K. Dhungana (Friends For Peace, Nepal)
The Role of the National Human Rights Institutions in Protecting the Victims
of Forced Migration
Working Group 3
Paula Banerjee (Calcutta Research Group, India and University of Calcutta) /
Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal (The Kashmir Times, India)
Victims of Violence on the Borders and the Humanitarian
Tasks
Session III
Kanak Mani Dixit (Himal South Asian Regional Magazine, Nepal)
Media and Displacement
Pamela Philipose (Women’s Feature Service, India)
Protection Strategies for People In Situations of Forced
Migration Media and Displacement
Sanjoy Hazarika (Eminent Journalist, Film Maker and Policy Analyst,
India)
Media and Displacement
Session IV
Subir Bhaumik (BBC World, India)
Resource Crisis, Environmental Disasters, and Climate Change in South Asia:
Policy Implications for Humanitarian and Human Rights Obligations for the
Protection of the Victims of Forced Migration
Jeevan Thiagarajah (Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies [GTE]
Ltd, Sri Lanka)
Protracted Displacements in South Asia and the Need for Concerted Action
Bhavani Fonseka (Centre for Policy Alternatives, Sri Lanka)
Do the Displaced have a Right to Return? A Close Look at South Asian
Experiences
Session V
Paikiasothy Sarvanamuttu (Centre for Policy Alternatives
[Guarantee] Limited, Sri Lanka)
Presentation of Working Group Reports
Session VI
Samir Kumar Das (Calcutta Research Group, India)
Presentation of Summary of the Discussions and Draft Recommendations.
Valedictory Session
Special lecture by Mireille Fanon-mendes France, eminent human rights
activist, Paris:
“Racism, Immigration, and Xenophobia in World Today”
Guest-in-Chief: Shri Gopal Krishna Gandhi, Governor of West Bengal; Guest of
Honour: Mr. Asko Numinen, Ambassador of Finland to India, Special Guest,
Montserrat Feixas Vihe, Chief of Mission, UNHCR, Delhi;
Two-Day Consultative Meeting on Development, Democracy, and Governance:
Broad
Lessons from Post-Colonial Experiences of India Bhubaneswar, 24-26 May 2008 for
a brief summary Click
Here
A. Perspective
1. In 2003 the Calcutta Research Group (CRG) with assistance of
the Ford Foundation embarked on a research programme on some of the critical
questions facing post-colonial democracies, such as India. Since then CRG
has conducted collective research into issues of autonomy and social
justice. The research and the dialogues on the theme of autonomy, and the
significant case studies it undertook led to further work – this time on
the theme of justice, in particular on social justice. Researchers and
members who participated in the numerous dialogues on autonomy repeatedly
came up with the issue of governmentalised forms of autonomy as against the
demands and ideas of autonomies that sought to address the incipient demands
for justice. The constitutional, legal, financial, resource-centred,
administrative, gender-just – various forms of autonomies were
investigated and discussed, in as much were discussed the
philosophical-political-historical issues related to the issue of autonomy.
There were public lectures on “autonomous voices”. Several research
reports were published, and three volumes came out of the programme, namely,
The Politics of Autonomy, Indian Autonomy – Keywords and Key
Texts, and Autonomy – Beyond Kant and Hermeneutics. The CRG
website and its small archive contain resources on this theme and related
issues for the benefit of further research in this area.
2. The fundamental point that emerged out of this research and
related dialogues was that while democracies treat autonomy as an
exceptional principle (mostly for ethnic minorities), which otherwise should
not be at conflict with the supreme principle of republican people-hood,
autonomy has to be seen as an essential democratic principle. It implies
thus not one overarching model of autonomy, or autonomy of one people
constituting the nation, but re-imagining the democratic space as the
intersecting field of autonomies (hence, dialogic relation between
autonomies), as a fundamental conflict resolution mechanism of the political
society, as the field of accommodation.
3. The method of combining collective research and dialogues
continued with the following research programme on the theme of social
justice. While we have already noted that the second programme followed from
the preceding one, this programme was designed in a specific way. It was not
meant as a philosophical inquiry or pure political research, the emphasis
was to combine critical legal inquiries with detailed ethnographic studies
intended to find out popular notions of justice and their interface with the
dominant legal forms. Of course appropriate theoretical conclusions have
been drawn in due course, and these conclusions reflect on relevant
philosophical issues as well. Once again the emphasis in both research and
dialogues has been on investigating the critical role that notions of
justice play in post-colonial democracies such as India. In these
ethnographic and critical legal studies the historical orientation has been
pronounced.
4. In this second research programme various forms and notions of
justice came up for study, such as revenge, instant, restorative, gender
justice, legal, moral, transitional, minimal, allocative, justice as
constitutive of rights, justice in form of the right to claim making,
justice as response to marginal situations, and finally justice as the
supplement of rights. Research papers as case studies or short status
reports are being brought out, and the programme soon to end will hopefully
culminate in a four volume series on social justice in India. The proposed
four volumes are: (a) Enlightenment and Social Justice – What is
happening in West Bengal Today? (b) Law and Justice: Limits to the
Deliverables of Law, (c) Marginalities and Justice, and (d) Key
Texts on Social Justice – A Compendium. In this research and dialogue
programme nearly one hundred and fifty people participated, and shared their
views and knowledge with the researchers. They also took part in framing the
research questions and discussing the conclusions. The reports carry the
details of the way research was conducted. On the CRG website there are
online versions of the reports, and soon there will be an online compendium
of Keywords on Social Justice.
5. Both studies gained from the deliberations of the two
conferences that were by design and declaration critically oriented. We can
here refer to the second deliberation wherefrom several points seemed to
emerge: (a) what constitutes the social of social justice; (b) what
constitutes the relation between marginalities and social justice; (c) what
determines the field of the interaction of command, order, law, and
determination of the just; (d) and the five dominant forms – justice as
the supplement of law, justice as the protection offered by the mighty,
justice as order, justice as the end of exploitation; and justice as that
which begins as response to injustice.
B. Current Research Concerns Flowing from CRG’s Past Work
1. Now the question in terms of CRG’s research agenda is, if we
have argued through our last five years’ work that autonomy and justice
form two of the critical questions facing post-colonial democracy such as
India (and perhaps all modern democracies), where do we proceed from this
formulation? In view of the fact that both autonomy and social justice can
be practised and are realised mainly in governmental ways and forms (indeed
this is happening in a situation where democracy is governmentalised), is it
not necessary to bring this research programme to some sort of over all
argumentation by focusing this time on the relations between democracy,
development, and governance in post-colonial democracy, once again Indian
being a typical instance of these three factors and their interrelations? In
the last two researches we focused on two ways in which popular aspirations
have formed significant aspects of democracy. However, in the wake of
globalisation and globalisation-induced development we cannot forget that
the relations between governance and democracy have become critical more
than ever.
2. What sort of study of democratic governance are we proposing?
This proposal aims to conduct a three year long study of India caught in the
whirlpool of globalisation, and globalisation-induced development, trying to
reorient her democracy to suit the world of globalisation, and refashion her
politics to promote development. In this sense we are proposing a study of
governing a transitional phase – governance of transition. The
country has changed from a poor, semi-colonial economy to a developed market
economy with stable and largely secular politics, and a developed
constitutional culture. The Indian constitution is remarkable for its merits
and limits. Similarly there is an ongoing shift from the dynamics of a
welfare state to those of a market state. Above all, the country is big in
size, rich in resources, remarkable for her internal variety, and can claim
natural leadership of the developing countries in the global world of
politics, economics, reconstruction, and development. Indeed it is said that
India is an instance of successful developmental democracy. We can ask then:
(a)
If governance is
to help this transition, what sort of governing practices do we have?
(b)
How does it look
at the question of developmental democracy?
(c)
How have people
responded to this situation?
(d)
Or, how has the
process of governing treated the people in this developmental conundrum?
(e)
In other words, if
development has required an appropriate administration, has it in the same
measure responded to the requirements of democracy?
3. Let us look little more clearly at this situation, which is
marked by fragility in face of globalisation, the particularly structured
developmental processes, and the new claim makings provoked by these
processes. Looking at India, we can say that a distinct regime type is
emerging. It can be named as the regime of “developmental democracy”.
Its features prima facie seem to be: (a) new emphasis on development in
place of welfare and citizens’ participation as the “theology of
politics”, (b) the capacity of the states in these polities are
diminishing in terms of assuring basic economic, social, and civil rights;
(c) because of the developmental contradictions, issues of politics are
increasingly becoming the ones with stakes in life, and thus politics is
increasingly becoming bio-political; (d) globalisation is increasing
conflicts within these societies and polities, and disparities between
sections of population are increasing; (e) the legislation and deliberation
process is shrinking in developmental democracies, while the executive is on
the ascendancy; (f) the principle of autonomy in this background has
appeared as the route for the people to claim agency for political
participation; (g) and finally the landscape of social justice is marked by
a varying combination of legalities and illegalities and fresh debates about
the role of law in redistributing and reconfiguring power and to guarantee
delivery mechanisms of justice.
4. In another age of such epoch-making changes, the years after
the First World War, in The Concept of the Political Carl Schmitt
raised the point, “The acute question to pose is upon whom will fall the
frightening power implied in a world-embracing economic and technical
organisation. This question can by no means be dismissed in the belief that
everything would then function automatically, that things would administer
themselves, and that a government by people over people would be superfluous
because human beings would then be absolutely free. For what would they be
free? This can be answered by optimistic or pessimistic conjectures, all of
which finally lead to an anthropological profession of faith.” However as
we know Schmitt did not stop at that. At that hour of crisis – of the
state system, nation system, constitutionalism, liberty, of the earlier
designated systems of friendship and enmities, and several other
politico-social sub-systems – Schmitt not only brought down the question
of the crisis to the issue of an anthropological resolution, that is to say,
how we look at man and how we should look at man, and on that would depend
how we want to resolve the matter of unprecedented power organised at an
international level, but he also indicated that this anthropological
resolution involved the entire concept of the political, and how we intended
to save and revive the concept of the political, by which Schmitt meant
primarily the issue of state, legality, and sovereignty, also the capacity
to make friend/enemy distinction that would enable politics to serve the
interests of the state which was public politics at its purest, that is the
nation.
5. Schmitt as we know chose the fascist option. And he is rightly
condemned for that. But the fact that we may be at times in an era of hard
choices is not wrong, and we are now in a similar way in such a time.
Globalisation has made the emergence of new global constellations of
territory and authority possible, implying obligatory searches by these
solidarities for new friends and new enemies. Constitution, legality,
juridical principles and arguments over the threshold of tolerance of
illegalities and semi-legalities – all are under review in this situation.
All states look like the Weimar State; therefore the phenomenon of every
political party, every social group, or solidarity vying for governmental
power or at least a share therein, is viewed with alertness by all sections
of society. With the expansion of the area of claim making, the regime of
developmental democracy considers that conceding the claims for justice is a
sign of the weakness of the State. Naturally, representation and
governmental power – these two have become the hottest property towards
the resolution of claims. This fact more than any other has reshaped the
relation between government and the people, to the extent that more than
ever in the eyes of the government people have turned into population groups
to be ‘developed” with bureaucratic-rational means. The question is:
what is the impact of this phenomenon on democracy?
C. Framing a Research Agenda and the Possible Research
Questions
1. From this discussion we can visualise a research agenda and
the possible research questions. The agenda will revolve around the
central question of the relation between government and the people in a
regime of developmental democracy. As soon as we turn our attention to
this question, several features immediately come to our attention. They
require investigation as to their origin and their current state. We cannot
of course take up all here; but we can refer to some.
2. The first question that comes to mind is the massive
“securitisation” of governance in the wake of developmental tasks. From
taking over land to building oil and gas pipelines, constructing airports to
guarding railway tracks, cleaning cities of lumpen elements, professional
rioters, vagrants, suspected terrorists, militants, and urban refugees –
the developmental discourse is now mixed with the security discourse. The
aim of security administration is to provide cover for the developmental
activities (Gandhamardan, Singur, pipelines, etc.), but more important, the
developmental agenda has to be governed in a military model – regimented,
disciplined, command structured, hierarchised, carefully budgeted in terms
of provisions – both hardware and software, and finally recreating the
difference between the military and the civilian now in form of developed
areas (IT cities for instance) and the back of beyond…Guarding,
maintaining, and protecting the circulation of life in form of commodities,
finance, information, and skill is the most significant task of governance.
Was it always so? Did the origin of modern governance in colonial India
similarly lie in the model of a militarised administration? This requires
inquiry. But were it to be so, it is a strange paradox we are facing: Modern
governance has the aim of stabilising peace in society, so that development
can ensue, whereas it is modelled along military lines, with the effect that
it can speak only in the voice of a war command, and therefore can only
bring back war in society. It should reflect the discourse and the
institutions of order, but it produces conflict and anarchy. Anyway, we need
research on the Indian origins of this trait that is marked by emphasis on
logistics, discipline, and control in terms of developing the society.
Governance is producing illiberalism, what should be the democratic
response?
3. Governing in democracy, or governing a democracy - here we are
speaking of the regime of developmental democracy - has a fundamental
tendency of dividing up, rearranging, and reconfiguring the social and
geographical space it is governing. This has profound impact on the liberal
traditions of freedom – freedom to reside, move, visit, work in a
particular area, etc. Developmental agenda on one hand increases the
governmental power to reconfigure the space continually, and on the other
hand it decreases the liberal space of freedom. Again we need to know how
this began in independent India, its specific impact on the pattern of
conflicts in society, and how it impacts on the relation between those who
govern and those who are governed. The more we study conflicts around the
issue of displacement of massive groups of population in the wake of riots,
development, construction, militarisation etc., and consequent loss of
substantive citizenship, the more important it becomes to study the relation
between governance and space. One interesting aspect to investigate would be
the way administrative services and institutions are spatially organised,
and the Indian way in which federalism has been practised with all its
implications for the relations between the government and the people. The
challenge in terms of inquiry would be: Can the two principles of autonomy
and justice help democracy escape the imperium of governed spaces?
4. The reaction or the response to these two trends in the
process of governing is to be found in what one philosopher has termed the
“revolt of the conduct”, which increasingly marks democracies, and
certainly Indian democracy. It too became evident in the colonial age, when
in response to British administrative measures for public health, social
reforms, westernised education, railway construction, setting up of
plantation industry, and to establish in general what can be termed as the
rule of law, revolts of conduct occurred on a wide scale. Those who have
studied the early phase of establishment of rule of law in India
(establishment of modern penal and jail system, the Law Commissions, and the
promulgation of three important measures – The Evidence Act, the Indian
Penal Code, the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, and the Police Act – of
course followed by other developments in administration, would vouchsafe for
the fact that these legal-administrative developments were marked by
protests and revolts which we can term as revolts of the conduct. This
conflict between governance and the revolts of the conduct has only
exacerbated in the post-colonial time with development now catching the
imagination of the nation. This sort of nationalist imagination appearing in
suitable governing mode is seen as a threat and is countered by asceticism,
denial of the world of law, intoxication, and equally emphatic street
politics. The second way in which the revolt of the conduct becomes evident
is by being footloose, defying spatial regulations. Finally, since these
revolts occur “on the margin of the political”, they take the
governmental posture of war making seriously. In other words, these revolts
start at the level of conduct, but soon become belligerent in response to
government’s own bellicosity. Dissidence spreads in society, from which
governance cannot free itself. Because these insurrections are not strictly
political, the usual bureaucratic-legal medicines fail. Government can only
look at this development as anarchy. For democracy, again the issue will be:
are there ways in which development can be freed at least substantially from
the discourse of order, which is bound to set off the revolts of conduct?
These are all possible research questions making an intense research agenda.
5. Yet in discussing these, we cannot forget also that the
legitimacy of the government, more specifically government of people’s
conduct and lives, stems also from the fact that this government claims that
it is the prime agency of people’s lives. The institutionalisation of a
strong patriarchal benevolent image is from the colonial time, which one
feminist historian has termed as not only the huzur sarkar, but also mai
bap raj; this image is now stronger with the assumption of the
“historically given task” of national development and of catching up
with other countries and time. Therefore one imaginative research would be
to look into the series of the Administrative Commission Reports to find out
the image/s in which the institution of government has sought to see itself.
We have to find out how the dualities of service/servitude,
development/control, order/democracy, and regulation/freedom have played
themselves out; also how governments have projected (themselves as) a
continuous order (and here we have to take into account the necessity of
legal continuity), which cannot allow any discontinuity and break. Thus
ministers can come and go, but government remains…
6. All these investigations into characteristics of government,
that is to say, the institutions of governing in India, we must remember
while summing up, have a strong political side, which must be taken into
account in the same measure, if we are to have even a minimum sense of the
relation between governance and the people in a regime of developmental
democracy. Development
has made the questions more urgent: How should we be ruled? How should we be
governed? Will development increase our freedom? Or, will development turn
out to be freedom, as the ethical economist of our time claims? Who should
control our conduct? How should we conduct ourselves in our public life
(which constitutes the core ethical issue in a democracy)? These questions
mean that governments may want the people to be transformed into governable
population groups, but population groups have their subjectivity; and these
questions only point if only the faintest way the turmoil, incessant
disputes, and the vitality of popular life, and in short to those two
principles of popular life, namely autonomy and social justice.
7. We can now summarise. In the light of the features of the
present condition of governing in a regime of developmental democracy the
following ten questions can be taken into account:
·
The impact of the
shift from the dynamics of a welfare state to that of a market state on the
ways of governing;
·
The new ways in
which the political, social, and resource space of the country are being
reorganised, and are making values of governance hierarchical;
·
The impact of the
special policies of the government for acceleration of development (such as
Special Economic Zones) on the concept of democratic equality, and
citizenship;
·
The securitisation
of conditions of governing, resulting in making logistical considerations as
the dominant priority for the government, with several other social
considerations now turning into minor matters, and related population groups
as minor peoples;
·
The policy
explosion as a feature of modern governance;
·
The ways in which
different popular organisations are emerging today to negotiate the changing
relation between the government and the people;
·
The ways in which
these organisations are breaking the old distinction between the civil
and the political;
·
The ways in which
these organisations are claiming autonomy by breaking the old distinction
between movement and structure, and by taking the place of the
political parties in terms of their classic function of representing the
people as these parties become more and more governmentalised (indeed their
essential difference with interest groups is long over);
·
The ways in which
these organisations create new trust networks and revive collective
politics;
·
And finally, the
ways in which popular politics creates social majorities, which are
distinct from representational majorities, with massive and deep
implications for a theory and practice of democracy; indeed how these social
majorities rekindle political will said to be in decline in modern
representative democracy, such as India, where development seems to exhaust
all avenues of disputation.
D. Organisation of the Agenda
1. Some of the
questions will demand historical-genealogical inquiry; some will be
analytical of the present; and some will have to be ethnographic in order to
study the actual relations and processes we have referred to.
2. The programme will have a large share of attention on study of
institutions. But these institutions will have to be carefully chosen so
that they can point to larger truths.
3. The dialogues will have to be similarly focused, so that they
can be focused group meetings on select themes of social relations throwing
light on the process of governing.
4. Research meetings will be rigorous and will involve members of
peer community (CRG organised its researches on autonomy and justice in this
way). These research and dialogue-based findings will have to be conveyed to
the larger “epistemic communities” through an appropriate orientation
programme (or three orientation courses/workshops in three parts of the
country) towards the end of the programme.
5. A series of publications in various journals, apart from book
publications, will also help disseminate the significance of the research
work.
6. This will be a three-year programme. Like the above-mentioned
two programmes of CRG, the time schedule of this proposed programme also
should be carefully worked out and followed.
7. Finally there will be an international research advisory
group, based on CRG’s past work and associations, which helped CRG’s
work immensely in the past, to enrich the proposed research work. CRG’s
Peace Studies Series was also helped in similar manner.
Two-Day National Conference on the Resettlement &
Rehabilitation of the Displaced Persons organized by the National Human
Rights Commission in Delhi on 24 and 25 March 2008
Prof. Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chowdhury participated in the Two-Day National
Conference on the Resettlement And Rehabilitation of the Displaced Persons
organised by the National Human Rights Commission in Delhi on 24 and 25
March 2008 on behalf of Calcutta Research Group. CRG’s participation has
been quite useful in the proceedings of the conference. It is to CRG’s
credit that few of its recommendations have been duly incorporated in the
draft recommendations meant for the Parliamentary Standing Committee dealing
with the Land Acquisition Bill 2007, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill
2007 and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy 2007. The role of CRG in
this field has also been appreciated by the Chairman and other representatives of NHRC during formal and informal
discussions. On belaf of CRG, Prof. Basu Ray Chowdhury extended an
invitation to Justice S. Rajendra Babu, Chairman, NHRC for his presence in
the forthcoming Sixth Winter Course on Forced Migration.
Two-Day
Indo-French Seminar on ‘State Formation, Citizenship and Gender’
Organized
by Calcutta Research Group in collaboration with Indian Council of Social
Science Research (Eastern Regional Centre) and University of Calcutta, 13-14
March 2008
for
Report and Schedule Click
Here
The end of the cold war as we all know is
marked by a plethora of new identity conflicts. The collapse of the old
frameworks has necessitated the reconfiguration, reassertion and
redefinition of meanings of nation-state on multiple levels. The idea of the
nation-state is supported by the principle of sovereignty, people’s
sovereignty first, then nation’s. Many critics, such as Hannah Arendt and
others have pointed to the contradictions between sovereignty and individual
freedom. Gender lies at the center of these contradictions.
The connections between reassertions of the principle of sovereignty
by the nation-state dyad and the increase in the level of violence against
marginal groups, among whom we find many women, are startling. From East
Africa to South Asia the centrality of gender in reassertions of national
identity and conflicts over such reassertions is overwhelming.
These events have prompted extensive conversations among scholars on
the reinterpretation of questions of state formation, citizenship and agency
in the context of gender.
Within the rubric
of post-colonialism women’s citizenship is often a contentious issue.
Women are both citizens and the other of the state.
In the process of democratic state formation in the West women were
for a long time kept out of the body politic. The British Nationality and
the Status of Aliens Act of 1914, one of the first of its kind, portrayed
that rights of nationality could be transferred only through the male line.
Women were considered as subjects or aliens primarily through their
association with men. Thus the
cases of Fasbender vs. Attorney-General in 1922 showed that a female British
subject could contract a marriage in good faith during war and lose her
British nationality. Thus women
were neither full subjects nor foreigners.
Even when they were subjects they could lose their nationality
through marriage to an alien. Such attitudes would be inherited by the
postcolonial state among other things.
However, the cases of India and Algeria portray notwithstanding
post-colonial impulse the project for national independence gave women
certain political space.
The question of
‘Justice’ has been a nebulous construct in terms of democracy and
popular politics, in a post-colonial world, its exact meaning – tenuous;
one of the reasons being the fact that justice in reality is a meeting
ground of many ideas, situations, concepts, expectations, mechanisms, and
practices. Positions of marginality are important locations and grounds to
understand how marginalities produce ideas of denial of justice. These
marginal situations have one thing in common – they speak of power matrix.
Lack of access to means of representation/resources/ survival means such as
education, health, etc. creates such marginalities and gender is one such
important location of means of denial. State formation, in India as
elsewhere rabidly ignored the voices of the marginal showing how a
democratic set up empowering the national collective also produces deficits
and marginality for those who refuse to belong to it or are left out of it.
It was a playground of the dominant – certainly male, definitely
majoritarian. The thing to note here is that while constitution has
provisions of justice in its various articles and clauses, unlike in the
case of rights, justice does not have a compact formulation, even though the
Preamble and earlier the Objectives Resolutions of the Constituent Assembly
had justice as one of the founding provisions. The constitution, therefore,
needs a responsive and sensitive revision of the concepts of citizenship
that is inclusive of all these marginal categories, including gender.
According to
feminist writers such as Kumari Jayawardena in the post-colonial developing
world for a time feminism and nationalism were compatible and allied and
shared similar objectives. During
the period of decolonisation, political rights including the right to vote
were given to men and women alike. Yet
during the process of state formation male-female differences were
reinforced. The new states
formulated rights and obligations in ways that strengthened the masculinity
of the public sphere and the femininity of the private sphere.
The male centrism of the Indian state was revealed over the question
of abducted women. The partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947
witnessed probably the largest refugee movement in modern history.
About 8 million Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan to resettle in India
while about 6-7 million Muslims went to Pakistan.
Such transfer of population was accompanied by horrific violence.
Some 50,000 Muslim women in India and 33,000 non-Muslim women in
Pakistan were abducted abandoned or separated from their families.[1]
Women’s experiences of migration, abduction and destitution during
partition and State’s responses to it is a pointer to the relationship
between women’s position as marginal participants in state politics and
gender subordination as perpetrated by the State.
In this context the experiences of abducted women and their
often-forcible repatriation by the State assumes enormous importance today.
The two states of India and Pakistan embarked on a massive Central Recovery
Project during which some 30,000 women were recovered by their respective
states. Some incidents relating
to these abducted women exemplify the politics of gender during partition.
The Abducted Person’s Bill that legalised the forcible repatriation of
women entailed that these women themselves lost agency over their own
person. Their voices were often not heard and when heard then not
taken into cognisance. This is
typical of state attitude to women. This was further reflected in the Indian
Citizenship Act of 1955 where registration was largely transferred through
the male line.
The male centrism
of Indian project of state formation was dramatically reiterated by the
Citizenship Act of 1955. As its
title suggests the Act dealt with modes of acquiring, renunciation,
termination and deprivation of citizenship.
Although the Act was meant to give rise to the category of universal
citizen in actuality it did not. It
continued the gender dichotomy evolved by the colonial state. The section on citizenship by registration stated that
“women who are, or have been, married to citizens of India;” were to
given citizenship if they applied for it.
No such stipulations were made for men marrying women who were Indian
citizens. Thus citizenship by registration was largely transferred through
the male line. In the section
on the termination of citizenship it was stated that where a male person
“ceases to be a citizen of India under sub-section (1), every minor child
of that person shall thereupon cease to be a citizen of India.”[2]
This portrayed once again that citizenship was transferable largely
through the male line giving women a second class citizenship.
Although in later Acts women could transfer citizenship rights to
their spouses and to their children it did not alter the maleness of Indian
State as conceived in the formative years. This Act too entrenched women’s
location within essentially patriarchal sites such as the family or the
community. The one thing that the state consistently refused to consider was
a Uniform Civil Code that could have challenged women’s location within a
kin and a community.
Women’s demands for citizenship and other rights and autonomies have
taken different forms from the colonial period onwards. It had different
focal points at different times. At times it centred on questions of
education and at other times on legislative reforms.
With every achievement it was revealed that something yet was left to
be done. The Indo-French-Algerian discourse on state-formation, gender and
citizenship will not stop with the narration of this past history.
It will analyse how women negotiated with such apporias and closures
that were there in this history and how they created their spaces of
empowerment. Women from the
three countries will deliberate women’s relationship to questions of
citizenship, autonomy and justice. This
will be the second phase of a dialogue that began in Algeria in 2008.
It is hoped that this dialogue will continue for years to come.
Responsibility
to Protect'(R2P)
Conference
at Bangkok, 20-21 February 2008
Subir Bhaumik,
member of CRG, attended the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) Conference
at Bangkok, 20-21 February 2008. Subir Bhaumik presented his views on behalf
of CRG, the details of which are given below:
“ My organization, the
Calcutta Research Group, is aware of the R2P resolution adopted at the 2005
World Summit and values its worth as a human security instrument for
prevention and tackling situation of genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes
against humanity. But it is the considered opinion of the CRG that the R2P
regime should be extended to address issues of mass displacement created by
both ethnic and class conflict and by the forces of economic liberalization
and globalization. Large scale displacement, as evidenced from our studies
in various parts of South Asia, creates situations of immense conflict that
could lead to bloodshed. Since this conference has discussed in some detail
the need for "early warning systems" about possible genocides and
crimes against humanity, the CRG feels that the R2P regime will be effective
only if it is redesigned to address issues of mass displacement caused both
by conflict or by economic forces.
I
also asked the funding organizations like Austcare and R2P Secretariat for
Asia (newly formed during the Conference) to consider studies on ethnic
conflicts creating situations of ethnic cleansing (which is in the core
agenda of the R2P) in northeastern India, Kashmir and elsewhere in the
sub-continent noting that CRG has already carried out studies in these
areas. “
Second Critical Studies Conference on "Spheres of Justice",
Kolkata ,20-22 September 2007
&
One Day Workshop with Etienne Balibar, Kolkata, 24 September 2007
for
Report on Second Critical Studies Conference Click
Here
for Report on Workshop with Etienne
Balibar Click
Here
for Distinguished Lecture Series-1 by Etienne
Balibar Click
Here
for
Schedule and Details Click
Here (A
Preparatory Note)
1. The Calcutta Research Group
plans to hold each alternate year a conference on critical thinking. The
First Critical Studies Conference was held on July 2005 in Kolkata on the
theme, “What is Autonomy?” The first conference was for 2 days.
In all 18 papers were discussed and participants were from different
parts of the country with five scholars from abroad (Nepal, Hong Kong,
United States, Italy and France). One from St. Petersburg was refused visa
by the Indian Embassy. The conference produced some exciting papers.
There is a proposal to bring out a publication on the basis of the
demand that this be turned into a series on critical thinking. Paula
Banerjee, Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, and Samir Das are in charge of this
publication. Details of the conference can be found on CRG website -
http://mcrg.ac.in/CS.htm
2. The second conference will be
held on 20-22 September 2007. It will be held on the theme of
justice. The provisional title of the Conference is “Spheres of
Justice” or “Justice: The Other Faces”.
The philosopher Etienne Balibar will deliver a public lecture as a
keynote address. The public
lecture will be held in Rotary Sadan Auditorium, Kolkata
3.Though
the theme of justice has occupied a high ground in philosophical discussions
since the beginning of political philosophy, yet in terms of democracy and
popular politics its exact meaning and implications have been nebulous, one
of the reasons being the fact that justice in reality is a meeting ground of
many ideas, situations, concepts, expectations, mechanisms, and practices.
Many things intersect to form the context of social justice – ethical
ideas of the people, laws, the evolving nature of claims, and the pattern of
collective claim making politics, institutional issues relating to the
delivery mechanisms of justice, ideas about rights and entitlements, ideas
among the citizens about responsibility of the rulers towards them, plus
many situations generating many conditions of justice. All these contribute
in making the social context of justice, also the social form and social
site of justice. Situations of marginality produce ideas of justice. Lack of
access to means of representation / resources / means of survival such as
education, health, etc. produces marginality. Similarly displacement creates
marginal situations. Likewise minority status engenders marginal existence.
Hereditary discriminations have the same effect. Gender has the same role.
These marginal situations have one thing in common – they speak of power
matrix. And they produce specific calls for justice. Different marginalities
generate different expectations and forms of justice – thus gender
justice, justice for the indigenous people, justice for those denied of
dignity for long, justice in the form of certain socio-economic rights,
justice for people starving to death or for people living below poverty line
– all of which mean justice for those who cannot access the mechanisms for
justice. Justice also means doing away with what is perceived as injustice,
removing our blindness to injustice. The thing to note here is that while
constitutions have provisions of justice in their articles and clauses,
unlike in the case of rights justice does not have a compact formulation,
even though justice is at times considered as one of the founding
provisions. Given the significance of the notion of justice in various
anti-colonial movements and in its associated ideas and thoughts, and the
wide demand for justice from each of the underprivileged sections of the
post-colonial societies today, and the recurring incidents of communities
assuming the responsibility of delivering direct justice in the background
of perceived delays and determining their own norms of justice, the proposed
deliberation in the conference assumes significance. Apart from
intellectual, theoretical, and literary exercises, other discursive and
institutional exercises have been marked by popular thoughts and ideas.
Various manifestos, leaflets, pamphlets, popular writings, sketches, songs,
newspaper articles, speeches, films, theatres, etc. have been the other
sites where ideas of justice at the popular level have been articulated. We
have to further note that justice, particularly social justice is an arena
only partly covered by law; rest is covered by social and political ideas
and practices. Ethical ideas about honour, right, respect, autonomy, claim,
share, revenge, and shame also play significant role in determining mores of
justice. A sense of entitlements also has a role to play. Justice thus
propels variety of forms – from social-economic rights, to forms of
justiciability, forms of redistribution of wealth, the form of due process,
subjective experiences of justice, and as distinct from these experiences
the objective tests of justice. In this context one has to note the parts
played by social movements and social mobilisations in determining the
popular concepts of justice.
4.
There are several routes to approach the issue of justice – several ways
of engagement. The philosophical path may tell us to go back to ancient
philosophers whose theories of justice tell us of the correctness of social
order and the virtue in maintaining it, or to the middle age theorists who
combined religion, virtue, and justice in a comprehensive theory of ethics
where justice had no special place, or to the modern day social theorists in
whose works justice becomes a complex arithmetic and a strenuous human
effort to maintain it in a world marked by hierarchies and illiberalism. A
slightly historical twist to the philosophical path can be found in Michael
Walzer’s Spheres of Justice (1983). One can also have a
sociological route, which enables one to identify various social notions of
justice, the “habitations of justice” we may say in the sense in which
Bourdieu used the word “habitation”, and this enables us to see justice
and its demand and procedures as a social phenomenon. The ethnographic
method may help us to map these habitations, and help us to see what one can
call the ethnographies of justice. There is a route grounded in ethical
readings also. Finally, there is a historical route, which allows one who
takes it to see in a historical glance what can be called the “regimes of
justice” and a “regime of justice” which has in it several notions,
institutions, discourses, and agencies of justice existing simultaneously
but in a relation of power and subsidiarity.
5.
The Conference will be ready to discuss whatever critical thought and
approach generate on the broad theme of justice in our minds. With the
spirit of the approach, we may have in mind the following problematic to be
addressed in the conference. The list is however only indicative and does
not exhaust the possible themes and sub-themes. It is also not necessary
that there will be a separate panel for deliberation on each of these
issues. Participants and panel conveners can get idea of the issues likely
to be critically discussed in the conference
6. Structure of the Conference:
(a)
It will be a 3 day conference.
(b)
Public lecture and roundtables may be parts of the conference.
(c) Panels will be invited to the conference. For submitting suggestions
for panels, panel conveners will have to submit short panel statements along
with names of proposed panelists.
(d) Individual papers may also be proposed. Such a proposal can be
submitted along with a provisional title and an abstract.
(e) There is no provision for travel allowance, but full hospitality will
be provided for a maximum period of 4 nights.
(f) Papers will be put on the website; discussions will be led by
designated discussants.
(g) By 28 February 2007 suggestions about themes of papers and panels
will have to reach CRG; by 15 March the first draft schedule will be
prepared; by 15 May abstracts of the papers have to reach CRG; and by 1
August , 2007 final papers will have to reach CRG.
7. The conference will be held in
either the National Library seminar room or the Academy of Fine Arts seminar
hall. Outstation guests will be lodged in Hotel Sojourn and Hotel Stadel in Salt
Lake and Akashdeep in Park Circus, Kolkata.
8. The Second Critical Studies
Conference will be preceded by discussions on the relevant themes at a
smaller scale where other institutions can also participate.
9. The Second Conference will
have a special feature. Just after the conference there will be “A
Two-Day Workshop with Etienne Balibar” on 24-25 September 2007. A
select group of participants will be invited to join the workshop. On the
first day Etienne Balibar will speak on his research interests, current
research work, and his reflections on past work; and on the second day there
will be question and answer session. In order to have an engaging workshop,
CRG will the help of friends and well-wishers will hold a series of
“Reading Balibar” sessions as preparatory to the workshop. Some of the
participants may be asked to present papers on Balibar there for discussion.
The organizers plan to record and publish the proceedings of the workshop.
10. For any communication
regarding the entire programme pl. write at
sanam@mcrg.ac.in
Societies,
States, “Terror” and
“Terrorism” - A Historical and Philosophical Perspective
Report
on the Conference on Terror, Paris, 2-4 November 2006
Click
Here
Thu
2 nov
(9AM-6PM)
Room 214 (2nd
floor left), Maison des Sciences de l'Homme , 54 bd Raspail, 75006 Paris
Fri
3 nov (9AM-7PM)
Maison de l'Europe, 35
rue des Francs-Bourgeois, 75004 Paris.
Sat
4 nov (9:30AM-4PM)
Room ground floor, Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (A.U.F.), 4 place
de la Sorbonne, 75005 Paris
Coordinated
by Rada IVEKOVIć and Ranabir SAMADDAR.
Conference
co-organized with the Calcutta Research Group (MCRG) and with the support of
the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (Paris), of the Maison de l’Europe de
Paris, of the French Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, of the Services
de Coopération et d'Action Culturelle of the French Embassies in India and
in Tunisia, of the Centre Culturel Français d'Alger, of the Columbia
University in Paris, Reid Hall, of the Global Fund for Women, and of the
Universidade de São Paulo.
The
end of the Cold War has brought wars on a big scale back. While there is no
balance of power and no possible consensus between opposite political
options in international relations, the mainstream discourse on Human
Rights, Democracy, Security, Globalisation and “War on terror” takes
part in a general desemantisation and depoliticisation. Most (all?)
histories have had their ages of terror, whether nominally described or not;
yet it is an important question as to why, when, and which times are
subsequently called the times of terror. We cannot ignore either the
singularity of these times, or their generalities. The “universal”
description of some “terrorism” supposed to be essential or exemplary,
supposed to be a case study of terrorism, is used in order to erase some
terrors, while generalising others. It is in the name of effacing terrorism
for good that the worst terror is being practiced. Under theses conditions,
both “terror” and “terrorism” (can) become normative concepts. Are
philosophy and social sciences capable of making sense of the claims about
what are termed unique events of terror? Beyond the historic condition, it
would mean grasping the political (le politique; not la
politique) at its root. The conference will be the occasion to address
these problems through different approaches: philosophy, history, law,
sociology, the study of gender or feminist studies, political sciences,
literature as well as field work. A general discourse on terrorism raises
the following questions: terror as historic event; terror as political
discourse or generalised ideology; terror, war on terror and the need for
legitimating; historic and discursive relations between democracy and
terror; terror as an extension of violence, as “extreme violence”; race,
difference and instruments of colonial and postcolonial terror;
post-communism, societies and terror; the cold war and the “war on
terror”.
Thursday,
November 2 (Maison des Sciences de l'Homme)
Democracy
Building, Producing Violence, Exporting Borders
Morning
, 9AM-1PM
Democracy,
Law, State-building (1)
Moderator
: Stéphane Douailler (Université de Paris 8)
-
Paula Banerjee (CRG, Kolkata and Calcutta University) : The
Gendered Face of Extra-Ordinary Powers
- Ricardo
Timm de Souza (Universidade de Porto Alegre) :
The Thinking of Levinas and Political Philosophy. A global state of
exception and its ethical challenges
Discussants:
Danielle Haase-Dubosc (Reid Hall,
Columbia University in Paris); Bishnu Mohapatra, Ford
Foundation Delhi, "Abstract
Anger and Terrorism: Some Preliminary thoughts"
Pause 10:30-10:45 AM
Terror
in History, Discourses on Terror (1)
Moderator
: Sophie Bessis (research director, IRIS-Institut des relations
internationales et stratégiques)
-
Pradip Kr. Bose (CRG, Kolkata) : Terror
and the Democratic Paradox
-
Artemy Magun (European University, St-Petersburg) : Kant
on French revolution: the role of terror in the constitution of the subject
Discussant :
Catherine Malabou (Université de Nanterre)
Afternoon,
2-6 PM
Colonialism,
Post-Colonialism, Post-Communism, Societies, and Terror
Round
table
Modator
: Stefano Bianchini (University Alma Mater, Bologne)
-
Rastko Mocnik (Ljubljana University) : Le
terrorisme comme verwandelte form des contradictions du capitalisme
contemporain. An Ontology of <<terrorism>>
-
Biljana Kasic (Centre for
Women’s Studies, Zagreb ; Zadar University) : A Feminist Cartography of
Resistance
-Stephen
Wright (CIPh): La Rumeur comme media
Introducting
the debate: Daho
Djerbal (Université d’Alger
and the journal « Naqd ») : Résistance,
terreur, terrorisme, par où passe la ligne de partage ?
8PM :
Evening at Reid Hall (4 rue de Chevreuse, 75006 Paris) : présentation-debate
around the book Partitions. Reshaping
of States and Minds by Stefano Bianchini, Sanjay Chaturvedi, Rada
Ivekovic, Ranabir Samaddar, (Frank Cass, London, 2005), with the
participation of Danielle Haase-Dubosc (Columbia University in Paris at Reid
Hall); Chantal Mouffe (Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of
Westminster, London); Jean-Luc Racine (Centre d'Études de l'Inde et de
l'Asie du Sud [CNRS-EHESS] & Programme International d'Études Avancées,
Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris).
Friday,
Novembre 3 (Maison de l'Europe de Paris)
Face
and flipside of the European mirror. Mapping the concepts
Morning,9AM-1PM
Welcome
by Catherine Lalumière, president of the Maison de l'Europe, Paris
Democracy,
Law, State-building (2)
Moderator :
Martine Spensky (Université
Blaise Pascal de Clermont-Ferrand)
-
Ranabir Samaddar (CRG, Kolkata) : Philosophies
and Actions in Times of Terror
-
Virgilio Alfonso da Silva (Université de São Paulo) : « State
of emergency » or « state of exception » in the Latin
American context
-
Béchir Chourou (Université
de Tunis) : Human Security as a
Barrier to All Forms of Terrorism
Discussant :
Étienne Balibar (University of Irwine and Université de Nanterre)
Pause
10:30-10:45 AM
Europe,
borders, security, violence. Back to War after the Cold War
Moderator:
Bishnu Mohapatra, Ford Foundation,
Delhi
-
Giacomo Marramao (University of Rome 3) : Terror
and Global Domination : two faces of Identitarian Logics
-
Didier Bigo (CERI, Paris) : Antiterrorism,
exception and ban : policing (in) security today
-Ivaylo
Ditchey(University de Sofia-St. Clément d'Ohride):Imaginary
Territories: Staging Terror, Protecting from Terror
Discussant
: Luisa Passerini (University of Turin)
Afternoon,
2-7PM
Terror
in History and Discourses on Terror
(2)
Moderator :
François Roussel
-
Bruno Clément (CIPh) : La
Terreur dans les lettres (Paulhan)
-
Sanjay Chaturvedi (Panjab
University, Chandigarh) : Terror
and its Geopolitics
-
Boyan Manchev (CIPh) : Terror and
the Crisis of the Political
Discussant :
Ghislaine Glasson Deschaumes
Pause
15:45-16:00 PM
Scales
of Violence in the Age of Globalisation
Round
table:
Moderator:
Jean-Luc Racine (MSH, Paris)
-
Samir Kumar Das, CRG,
Kolkata, Terrorists
in the Northeast and Dialogues with Them? A Solid case for the Improbables
in this Hypothesis
-
Alain Brossat (Université de Paris 8) : Extraordinary Renditions Programme
-
Béchir Koudhai, Université de Kairouan, The Stranger, Violence and Terror (Terrorism)
Introducing
the discussion: Frédéric Neyrat (CIPh)
Samedi
4 novembre (Agence universitaire de la Francophonie) 9AM-4PM
Ideas
on Societies, Identities, Intimacies
Morning,
from 9:30AM
Philosophy’s
engagement with and response to Terror
Moderator:
Daniel Bensaid (Université de Paris 8)
-
Jacques Poulain (Université de Paris 8) : Guérir
de la terreur
-
Francisco Naishtat (Universidad de Buenos Aires) : Les
figures de la terreur et le débat philosophique de lamodernité
-
Rada Iveković (CIPh), Terror/ism
as the Political or as Heterogeneity. On meaning and translation
Discussant
: Eleni Varikas (Université de Paris 8).
Conference on Conflicts, Law and Constitutionalism
Jointly organised by Maison Des Sciences De L
'Homme & CRG, Paris (16-18 February, 2005)
Programme
Inde et Asie du Sud / South Asia
Programme
Séminaire international du 16 au 18 février 2005
Salle 214,
Maison des Sciences de L’homme
54
Boulevard Raspail, Paris 6e (métro Sèvres-Babylone)
Programme
16 février : Permanent Exceptions to
Constitutional Rule
10.00 :
Accueil, introduction : Maurice Aymard,
Administrateur de la FMSH, Gilles Tarabout, Ranabir Samaddar
10.30-12.30 :
- Olivier
Le Cour Grandmaison, Université d’Evry: L’Etat
colonial: un état d’exception permanent
- Ranabir
Samaddar, Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group, Calcutta
: Law and Terror in the Age of
Constitution-Making
Présidente
de séance : Sophie Bessis, Institut de
Relations Internationales et Stratégiques
Discutante :
Rada Ivekovic, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne,
& Collège International de Philosophie
12.30-14.00 :
Déjeuner (buffet)
14.00-16.45: - Rada
Ivekovic, Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Etienne,
& Collège International de Philosophie, Paris: Exception as Space
and Time. Borders
and Partitions.
- Ujjwal
Kumar Singh, University
of Delhi:
The Silent Erosion: Anti-Terror Laws and Shifting Contours of Jurisprudence
in India
- Marcus
Franke,
University of Hull: War Without
an End. The Case of the Naga HillsPrésidente
de séance : Ghislaine Glasson-Deschaumes,
directeur de Transeuropéennes, Revue internationale de pensée critique
Discutant :
Bruno Jobert, CNRS, Centre de Recherche sur le
Politique, l’Administration, la Ville et le Territoire
17.30
Conférence, suivie
d’un cocktail, Cafétéria de
la MSH : Dietmar Rothermund,
Université de Heidelberg: Constitution
Making in the Process of Decolonisation
Président
de séance : Maurice Aymard
17 février
: Constitution and the Landscape of Citizenship
10.00-12.45: - Kalypso
Nicolaidis, University of Oxford & Institut d'Etudes Politiques
de Paris: We, the Peoples of
Europe
...
- Paula
Banerjee, Mahanirban
Calcutta Research Group, Calcutta ,& University of Calcutta: The Acts and Facts of
Women’s Autonomy in India
- Afonso da Silva, Universidade
de São Paulo, Faculdade
de Direito: The Limits of Constitutional Law:
Public Policies and the Constitution
Président
de séance : Michel Troper, Université
Paris X-Nanterre & Institut Universitaire de
France
Discutante :
Catherine de Wenden, CNRS/CERI
12.45-14.00 :Déjeuner
14.00-17.00: - Zoya Hasan, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi:
The Indian Constitution and
Political Equality: Rethinking Political Representation Beyond
Castes.
- Rastko Mocnik, Université
de Ljubljana: Regulation of the Particular and its Socio-Political
Effects.
- Leonhard Voltmer, Minorities and Autonomies, EURAC
research,
Bolzano
: Minority
Citizenship and Identity :Disparate
Developments?
Présidente
de séance : Martine Spensky, Université
de Clermont-Ferrand
Discutant :
Gilles Lhuilier, CNAM
18
février : Constitutionalism, Change, and
Transition
10.00-12.45: - Sandro Mezzadra, Dipartimento
di Politica, Istituzioni,
Storia, Università di Bologna : Citizen and Subject: A
Postcolonial Constitution for the European Union ?
- Djerbal Daho, Université d’Alger: De la sujétion
coloniale à l’assujettissement à l’autorité despotique. La quête du
droit citoyen dans l’Algérie contemporaine
- Artemy Magun, European University, Saint-Petersburg: The
Post-Communist Revolution in
Russia
and the Genesis of
Representative Democracy.
Président
de séance : Sidi Mohammed Barkat, CNAM
Discutant :
François de Bernard, Université Paris 8 & Groupe d’Etudes et de
Recherches sur les Mondialisations.
12.45-14.00 :
Déjeuner
(buffet)
14.00-16.00:- Jose
Gamas Torruco, Instituto
de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM: Mexican Democratic Transition: A Change of Political System through
Constitutional Reforms - Mohammad Waseem, Qaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad: Constitutionalism
in
Pakistan
: The
Lingering Crisis of Dyarchy
Président
de séance : Pasquale Pasquino, CNRS/ Centre de Théorie et Analyse du Droit, &
University
of New York
Discutants :
Dominique Fournier, CNRS/FMSH, et Ranabir Samaddar,
MCRG
16.00-16.30 :
pause
16.30-18.00 :
Discussion générale, présidée par Jean Leca,
FNSP et président, Association Française de Science Politique
First Conference on Critical Thinking
Panel
Statements
, Programme
, Paper Abstracts
Click
Here
What
is Autonomy?
Venue:
Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata
Date: 29-30 July 2005
Conference Statement
In
the first decade of the twentieth century where we live in, autonomy has
become one of the major concerns of our social and political existence.
Right to autonomous life is now a political, cultural, and social call of
both individual and the groups - a rare conformity that points to the
critical importance of the problematic of autonomy in the agenda of critical
thinking.
As
is currently understood, the notion of autonomy, both as something that
belongs to human beings and human nature, and as something that is the
source or basis of morality, that is, duty, is bound up inextricably with
the philosophy of our time. The term began to be applied primarily or even
exclusively in a political context, to “civic communities” possessing
independent legislative and self-governing authority. Then the term was
taken up again in the context of individual rational persons that is in the
context of their individual rights and existences, for their individual
modes of behavior. In the background of the upsurge of anti-colonial
movements the term gained new perspectives and meanings, which would now
imply not only new rights, but also new responsibilities (autonomy of whom,
for whom, in respect to what?). It became the emblem of group rights, in
particular minority rights. In time the idea of autonomy became not only the
standard of rights or responsibilities, but also an issue of govern mentality
- something that denotes transaction, government, negotiation, and relating
to others on the basis of set rules.
So
we have now the questions: If autonomy has been emblematic of rights, does
it take into account the gendered nature of the term? Can we trace the birth
of the autonomous subject? What are the relevant constitutional and
juridical thoughts shaping the universe of autonomy? Why is autonomy, an
idea that holds universal attraction for mass politics, related to so much
violence? Is autonomy one more regulated term, or is the concept autonomous,
so that we can speak of autonomy of the autonomies? And, is private
property, to go the fundamentals, a problematic for autonomy? What is
autonomy without access to resources? On the other hand, if forms of
ownership of resources determine autonomy, what is left of autonomy as a
norm?
If
we relate the concept of autonomy to the more familiar notions of freedom or
self-determination, we can locate in this case the questions of
responsibility and the conditions of freedom. Autonomy generally is held as
a valued condition for persons in liberal cultures. We uphold autonomous
agents as the exemplar of persons who, by their judgment and action,
authenticate the social and political principles and policies that advance
their interests. But the sceptic may ask if we are not being “blinded”
by the ideal of autonomy, and therefore the question, what happens if we
value autonomy too much? In autonomous action the agent herself directs and
governs the action. But what does it mean for the agent herself to direct
and to govern? In the context of the emerging demands for group autonomy,
the further question to be probed is if this is not now the occasion to
investigate and re-envision the concept of democracy with the norm,
principles, and various forms of autonomy and more importantly in a way,
where the standards of minimal justice become the foundation for a new
democratic outlook inscribed by practices of autonomy perched on
understanding of each other. Accommodation becomes the form of
responsibility for the agency that wills autonomy.
In
the history of thought reason has co-opted our conception of autonomy. Given
this history, it can be argued that the task is now to set autonomy free.
But the question is how? Surely, the problem is in the way the self defines
the claims for autonomy, the way in which it relegates the issue of justice
and understanding from considerations of autonomy. Law becomes in such
conditions the most assured site of autonomy, and the juridical arrangement
handed down from the top becomes the only possible form of autonomy. The
paradox is then: if we are governed by reason in what we choose and how we
choose, that means that we subject ourselves to reason in this business of
what and how we choose; we are not in that case autonomous. Yet, if we say
that we are not governed by reason but by desires and passions, then in that
case we are not governing ourselves in what we choose, and we are not
therefore autonomous. The way out of the closure has to be sought in
historical understanding of the way in which the two principles of autonomy
and accommodation have worked in political life, and the way in which
standards of justice have negotiated the relation between autonomy and
accommodation.
We
require both historical and analytical understanding of the issue for such a
critical enterprise. We require moreover deeper and rigorous understanding
of the geo-political and ethno-political grounds on which the call for
autonomy is now articulated and which modulate the self’s understanding of
the norm. Similarly the need is to inquire into the ethical grounds on which
the call for autonomy is given and practices of autonomy continue. The
purpose of the conference is to inquire into conditions and dimensions of
autonomy, their historical nature, and their political significance in terms
of enriching democracy.
The
conference will be held in Kolkata, India, on 29-30 July 2005. Structured
around panel discussions, the conference will deal with six themes, which
will form the panel sub-themes:
The
Birth of the Autonomous Subject (Panel Convener: Samir K. Das –
samir@mcrg.ac.in)
Autonomy
as an Idea for Mass Politics (Panel Convener: Sanjoy Barbora –
xonzoi@hotmail.com)
Laws
of Autonomy (Panel
Convener: (Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury –
sabyasachi@mcrg.ac.in)
Feminism
as a Resource for Autonomy
(Panel Convener: Paula Banerjee –
paula@mcrg.ac.in)
Autonomy
of the Autonomies (Panel Convener: Sanjay Chaturvedi –
sanjay_1999_99_99@yahoo.com)
Access,
Ownership and Resources – Private Property as A Problem of Autonomy (Panel
Convener: Arun Kumar Patnaik -
akpatnaik@satyam.net.in)
Various
experiences on movements for autonomy will be discussed in the context of
the sub-themes. The conference is part of a research and dialogue programme
on autonomy, which CRG has been conducting with the support of the Ford
Foundation.
Interested
paper contributors may contact the panel conveners. Inquiries are welcome
and all other inquiries can be addressed at
mcrg@mcrg.ac.in
Registration
charge for the conference is Rs. 100/ per person. Copies of the papers will
be available on payment of photocopying charge and on the CRG website.
Panels will be finalised by 30 April 2005, and papers will have to be
submitted by 30 June 2005. The conference will not have general travel
support fund. But it will provide full accommodation for the participants
during their stay for the conference. In case of partial or exceptional
travel support inquiries can be addressed to panel conveners or at
mcrg@mcrg.ac.in
The
Conference on “What is Autonomy?” will be the first in a series of
annual conferences that CRG will hold on critical thinking in India.
Organising
Committee:
Members:
Samir Kumar Das, Paula Banerjee, Sanjay Barbora, Sanjay Chaturvedi, Arun
Kumar Patnaik, and Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury,
Convener:
Ranabir Samaddar
Director
Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group
GC-45, Sector 3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700106, India
Ph: 91-33-23370408
Fax: 91-33-23371523
Email: ranabir@mcrg.ac.in /
mcrg@mcrg.ac.in
Civil Society Dialogues
-
Till date
three (3) dialogues have been held on specific issues of peace and human
rights in the east and the Northeast. These have drawn on the themes of
culture of peace, reconciliation, justice, and democracy: These dialogues
have produced a functioning network of cooperation on various peace
activities. Northeast is the theatre of the longest state versus community
conflict in South Asia and as such occupies a singular position in Indian
politics. Different ethnic groups living in this region have been for
years pressing either for independence, or separate statehood on the basis
of political and linguistic-cultural identities or for special
constitutional safeguards of their respective existences. But what is
forgotten often is that while these conflicts have created frontiers and
boundaries dividing and re-dividing territory, peoples, and communities,
they are not the only feature of the situation. Surviving connections,
relations, friendships, and continuing dialogues on the basis of fairness,
accommodation, and mutual recognition of claims also mark such a
situation. It seems that dialogues and efforts at accommodations and
understandings have complimented war, conflicts, and threatened peace. It
is with that realization that the dialogue programme was planned. It aims
to institute conversations of peace and human rights activists, gender
sensitive artists, novelists, painters, litterateurs, students, and youth
from the region of Northeast and East.
-
The
first dialogue
(2001)
held in Calcutta engaged with the inquiry: how are we to connect the issue
of democracy with peace in a conflict-ridden region and a war-ravaged
situation? While it is important to link human rights and peace, in what
way can this link be deepened and made specific with ideas of justice, in
particular gender justice, cultural democracy, decentralization, and a
dialogic culture? It is from such an inquiry and the related realisation,
that the first civil society dialogue on human rights and peace in the
east and northeast was held. The participants were human rights and peace
activists from diverse parts of the east and the Northeast. Its report has
been published.
-
The
second dialogue
(2002)
held in Shantiniketan carried forward the inquiry by bringing in notions
of cultural democracy and justice, in particular gender justice. The
dialogue probed the assertions of identity, abuse of human rights, and
increasing violence against women in the entire region. From rape as a
symbol of conquered terrain to identifying women as reproducers of
identities, gender appears to be a key dimension in many of these
conflicts and it is clear that belligerents including the state take
gender seriously. Yet, as the dialogue found, male-centric analysis of
identity conflict still tries to disregard the category of gender. These
events prompted extensive conversations among human rights activists,
grassroots women activists for democracy, and scholars on relevant issues.
The report is available.
-
The
third dialogue (2003)
held in Shillong took up the issue of autonomy, and deliberated on the question
of whether autonomy in the northeast and in the Darjeeling area of West Bengal
has advanced democracy or has been mainly tool of governing. It also discussed
the issue of autonomy within – that is, how much women or minorities within an
autonomous area enjoy autonomy and enjoy the fruits of self-government? Various
cases were discussed; the international law on minorities and on autonomy was
discussed; international experiences were deliberated upon. The report will come
out soon.
|
|
|
