Quick Note on Narmadha Dam

I have always wondered about this - that the Narmadha Dam issue has been projected as a fight between capitalism, development one side; and the anti-developmental forces of leftists on the other.
Purely from a theoretical perspective, private property is sacred and inviolate in capitalist society. In fact the origins of modern forms of government were based on the question of the guarantee for private property. What I mean by private property is the rights of a human living in peace to hold property without threat of confiscation. In medieval days, such property was held to be liable for confiscation by the King. It is to stop such violations on indviduals that Magna Carta was signed.
In a capitalistic society the rights of an individual holding private property is inviolate. On the other hand Communism demands the placing of all private property under the central planning authority, for public good.
This is one of the fundamental differences between capitalism and communism.
Yet, in the Narmadha dam issue, the private property of Adivasis (who are granted such rights by the Consititution) is being confiscated by the government, by exercising its power. And the cheerleaders for the Gujarat government call it development work of capitalism.
The people fighting against such confiscation and who seek to protect the rights of private property, such as Medha Patkar are, instead, called as Communists and holders of a failed philosophy.
The irony of it never seems to amaze me. Capitalism means, in our country, whatever the kings will. The kings shall take from us when they want, in the name of development.
"The real object of all Despotism is revenue" - Tom Paine

IT Layoffs - Stop blaming the staff

In the recent days TCS and IBM have cut jobs in sight of a looming US recession. This has been widely reported in the media and much analysis has gone through.
I have been reading these news items and analysis, and there is a common thread running through them. A recent Ananda Vikatan article I read prompted me to write this post.
The industry "analysts" and the company's own people are at pains to point out that the employees were fired because of lacklustre performance. It is a regular "weeding", they say and has nothing to do with the company's own performance.
In the case of IBM, the people who were laid off were mostly trainees. These companies recruited these people after different rounds of interviews. Suddenly, when the US market was going down, these guys realized that they had "non-performers" among them?
This is corporate India for you - in the last few years we have become a country that shamelessly celebrates corporations. News media calls them "India Inc" as if they represent India herself. The media have been brainwashing us into thinking that nothing "India Inc" does can go wrong - and that these are men of steely will working towards a common purpose. Most corporate advertisments try to align themselves with patriotic fervor.

The middle class has gotten to think that its interests are closely aligned with those of these corporate masters.
That is why, TCS and IBM can get away with this, without criticism for their spin.
Mind you, I am not saying they cannot lay off - my point is that there is a difference between layoffs and firings. By calling mass layoffs as firings (for performance) the companies are trying to keep their reputation clean. These companies want to keep their sharholders happy - so for naked advantage, they are saying that nothing is wrong with themselves. They are laying the blame on the poor employees laid off. The truth is that TCS and IBM anticipate revenue problems. They are shedding people BECAUSE of the company's problems - not merely because of performance. By shifting the blame on the victims, TCS and IBM are trying to shield themselves.

This is cruel, because our society has no social security net for people fired or laid off. These employees are victims of capitalism and they should be called as such, instead of blaming them. The companies should be honest about this.

The point is also that in modern India, these employees have no constituency. An employer just has to say "This guy did not perform" and everybody accepts it without questioning. Performance is a general word and no one can really cross check.

This reminds me of the 2001 recession when H1B workers started returning to India. The same kind of jeering response rose from our media at that time. The writer Sujatha said that "non-performers were sent back" - as if the American companies were the ultimate arbiter of performance. I was in the United States at that time and I know for a fact that people who were laid off just happened to be in the wrong departments. Entire divisions were cut down.
You cannot call yourselves a capitalist society and then keep jeering at people laid off.