Subir Sinha

All populism relies on the creation of 'a' people from 'the' people. In India under Modi, this process of polarisation as gone beyond naming Muslims as 'enemies' of the Hindus - the 'true people' in Modi's Hindutva politics. It has now moved towards an annihilationist horizon, in the sense that the dehumanisation of Muslims is common, and inflicting legal and extra-legal violence, including death, is widespread. I examine elements of 'cryptopolitics' and 'total politics' on social media as key elements in constituting Modi's 'people'.

Much modern discourse on environmental degradation takes place under the shadow of the 'tragedy of the commons' The logic of that metaphor has been used by states for seizing control of local commons on grounds of conservarion. Report on a conference which sought to highlight research on common property systems that do function, the limits to local solutions to ecological dilemmas and the problems with state-directed environmental protection.

Development Introduction New approaches to poverty eradication have sought to bring the poor themselves to centre stage, acknowledging and supporting their own capacity to articulate their needs. It is in this context of a renewed commitment by governments, aid agencies and NGOs that this paper re-examines certain features of Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) analysis. To achieve sustainable livelihoods is a developmental objective. SL is also an analytical framework that provides a way of understanding the factors influencing people’s ability to enhance their livelihoods. It is also an approach to poverty eradication which pursues the developmental objective by combining the analytical framework with several core principles, e.g. that development support should be peoplecentred, participatory and dynamic. The focus in this paper is on SL as an analytical framework, and particularly on the treatment of power and polit ics, which are widely thought to have been underrepresented in the fra...

This article provides an introduction to the special issue, ‘Marxism and Postcolonial Theory: What’s Left of the Debate?’ It casts a critical glance at the long history of engagements between Marxism and postcolonial theory that have been both collaborative and antagonistic. The authors argue that far from materializing the end of either postcolonial theory or of Marxist approaches, these exchanges have been productive and have underscored the continuing currency of both, pointing to ways that go beyond the impasse. The article also provides a critical overview of the debates within different disciplines and suggests new and creative ways of reconceptualizing Marxism and postcolonial theory for the current conjuncture.

This paper speculates on 'fieldwork' and 'ethnography' of migrant labour in India at a time when, due to Covid-19 related travel restrictions, accessing the field itself is not possible. In conversation with recent writings on 'partial' and 'patchwork' ethnography, I suggest that a 'cyber-field' that took shape in response to the pandemic and the lockdown offers new archival material and voices that one does not normally produce via 'fieldwork, but reflects the voices of workers and their social and political allies that researchers can benefit from. Such an archive, I conclude, indicates the inability of Indian migrant labour to become 'working class'.

The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and senior members of his party, the BJP, have often and openly spoken of their objective of a ‘Congress-free India’, marking the latest and most comprehensive form of ‘anti-Congressism’ in Indian politics. Anti-Congressism has a hoary lineage, and has both left and right wing variants, dating to the late colonial period. On the left, in the Communist parties have, in the main, been ideological opponents and electoral competitors, but also sometimes collaborators with the Congress. On the right, from the Hindu Mahasabha to the RSS and their affiliated political parties like the BJP and its precursors, the opposition has been implacable: they see the Congress as inauthentic to Indian traditions, representing an effete liberalism, and worthy of annihilation: witness Modi’s recent comparison of the Congress to ‘dogs’ and ‘termites’. Straddling the left and right divides are a number of self-styled ‘socialist’ parties that were critical of Congress under Nehru, opponents of Indira Gandhi and the national Emergency she imposed, and subsequently partners with the BJP in a number of ruling coalitions at the national and state levels since 1975.

This paper analyses the anti-Congress coalition of hardline Hindu parties and ‘socialists’ as an important trajectory of Indian democracy since 1947, with an emphasis on the change in the balance of power within this platform from ‘socialist’ parties to the BJP. The balance between the BJP and its allies has decisively shifted due to Modi’s leadership and his practice of ‘total politics’, that is, a politics that enters and unsettles every domain of everyday life, and functions to serially polarise the electorate. This overt ‘total politics’ relies crucially on a reservoir of ‘crypto-politics’ in which fake history, fake news, morphed audio and video images, and humour, are circulated within the social media sphere. This canvas of politics, and the modes and registers used to serially recompose ‘the people’ from whom Modi draws sovereignty, is arguably broader than that of any other entities within the anti-Congress formations. ‘Socialists’ within the coalition have had little choice but to accept Modi’s leadership within a hegemonic Hindutva. I weave this account within an overall narrative of the changing content and styles of competing forms of populism in post-independence India, and explore the limits of hegemony in the current conjuncture in Indian politics.

Capitalist development in India, and the politics of those who are its immediate victims, defies the main varieties of postcolonial theory and Marxism that are in contentious debate today. The paper rescues the debate between the two approaches from being cast as one between culture and political economy, and between particularity and universalism. Instead, it draws on recently translated works by Marx, debates in agrarian political economy, and contributions that emphasize the temporal specificity of contemporary capitalist development. It shows that the ‘dull compulsion of economic forces’ is held back by on-going politics of hegemony in which fractions of capital want state protection, and democracy and rights provide the poor with limited but sometimes effective political power. As a result, the primitive accumulation process is incomplete, and mature capitalism, defined by some Marxists as ‘universal’, is held in a sustained state of deferral.

... here, though they are not responsible for errors: Henrik Aspengren, Chetan Bhatt, Ulbe Bosma, Giuseppe Caruso, Arturo Escobar, Saurabh Gupta, Nandini Nayak, Alf Nilsen, Paolo Novak, R. Rajesh, Somnath Sen, Ajantha Subramanian, Ardashir Vakil, and Rashmi Varma. ...

... The interplay between the poor and the rural rich is raised in Chakraborty's ('Linkages between Income Distribution and Environmental Degradation in Rural India', in Madsen.) discussion of the relations between environmental degradation and income distribution more ...

Page 1. The 'New Traditionalist' Discourse of Indian Environmentalism SUBIR SINHA, SHUBHRA GURURANI and BRIAN GREENBERG In this article we identify 'new traditionalism' as the discourse that dominates the historiography of the Indian environment. ...

Abstract

Paper Title: ‘Strong Leaders’, Authoritarian Populism and Indian Developmentalism: the Moment in Historical Context.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is part of a worldwide wave of strong ‘populist’ leaders who have emerged in the context of the crisis of neoliberalism, and among whose appeal is their claims to put their economies back on a growth trajectory by the authoritarian implementation of core neoliberal reforms. Nothing its relative lack in relevant literatures, I build an account of ‘strong leadership’, based on Modi’s record in government, as it mediates between ‘authoritarian populism’ and ‘neoliberal restoration’. Such leadership, I show, is based on a serial creation of a ‘people/enemy’ divide in society, and mobilising this division to win large electoral mandates, which in turn support authoritarian projects of majoritarianism and of neoliberal economic reforms. Modi has drawn on leadership practices contextual to postcolonial India, such as earlier iterations under Nehru and Indira Gandhi. However, his project has moved beyond these earlier iterations of ‘strong leader’ politics into an authoritarian and, in some crucial ways, fascist directions. Coming to power to solve the ‘crisis of neoliberalism’, it has made most advance in instituting a majoritarian Hindu nation, first constructing it as a pre-figurative community, and now giving it shape as constitutional fact. These new modes of ‘embodying the nation’ and exercising spatial control have been made possible through the domination of media and social media that create serial ‘radical exclusions’ of nominated ‘enemies of the people’.

Keywords: Authoritarian populism; neoliberal restoration; authoritarian liberalism; strong leaders; Hindutva; Modi.

Direct and unmediated communication between the leader and the people is one of populism's definitive and constitutive elements. This paper examines how the terrain of social media, and communicative practices typical to it, have become sites and modes for constituting competing models of the leader, the people and their relationship in contemporary Indian politics. Building on Laclau's proposition that 'all democratic politics would tend to populism', I suggest that in India a form of competitive electoral populism is at play. Social media was mobilised for creating a parliamentary majority for Narendra Modi, who dominated this terrain, and mastered its use. Modi's campaign used different platforms such as comments sections on news portals, Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp, to access and enrol different social groups into a winning coalition behind his claims to a 'developmental sovereignty' ratified by 'the people'. I suggest that following his victory, other parties and political formations too have established substantial presence on these platforms. I examine the strategies of some of these parties, and of emerging subaltern politics, of using social media to voice criticisms of Modi and offer alternative leader-people relations. Their use of social media as 'counter-archive' leads to a 'democratization of social media', in which new platforms and modes of satirizing and criticizing Modi are constantly emerging. These practices of critiquing and disseminating such critiques suggest the outlines of possible 'counter-people' available for enrolment in populism's future forms. I conclude with remarks about the connection between activated citizens on social media, and the fragility of hegemony in the domain of politics more generally.