Monday, April 27, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Arun Gawli and some links
Here is something I wrote about Gawli a while ago for a paper on Ganeshotsav mandals:
HOWEVER, it makes no sense to vbote for him unless you benefit from his network. That is what grassroots means right?
The change in the size of the constituency is making everything confusing.
Other candidates are: Incumbent Congress MP Milind Deora, Sena MP Mohan Rawale, independent banker Meera Sanyal, Bala Nandgaonkar (MNS), Mohammad Ali (BSP),
The meteoric rise of Arun Gawli within the textile mills is also interesting to the conversation on Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav. He belongs to the generation of petty criminals that were born of the textile mill strikes in the 1970. The arc of his career follows through from a small time charge-sheeter to an alignment with the Dawood Ibrahim gang, to creating his own gang – the Dagdi Chawl – syndicate where he is known a Daddy. The methods by which he worked resembled that of the grassroots work of the Shiv Sena where he offered to help solve problems of all the people who pledged their allegiance to him. From the fixing of drain pipes, water supply, the funding of a gymkhana and resolving domestic violence he created a mass base that was non communal, rather geographic in its territory and created a large political base that challenged the hold of the Shiv Sena in his locality. This arc was completed with his entry into politics when in 1997 with the launch of the Akhil Bharatiya Sena and with huge support – support that till date one will see for him at Byculla, where Dagdi Chawl is. An article in the Indian Express in 1997 talks about the politics of sponsorship and territorial control that expose themselves through the visibility offered by Ganpati Mandals. That the Shiv Sena used the organisational network of the Ganpati mandals to deploy it shakhas into the city and Gawlis use of the mandals to demonstate popularity highlights how in the 90s the mandals became tools through which political affiliations carved their boundaries onto the city. Conversely the refusal of Mandals to subscribe to anything outside a religious and logistical structure has allowed them to exist within and adapt to the politically changing city very adeptly.
HOWEVER, it makes no sense to vbote for him unless you benefit from his network. That is what grassroots means right?
The change in the size of the constituency is making everything confusing.
Other candidates are: Incumbent Congress MP Milind Deora, Sena MP Mohan Rawale, independent banker Meera Sanyal, Bala Nandgaonkar (MNS), Mohammad Ali (BSP),
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Caste and Voting
A post on Kafila by Shivam Vij about post Mandal politics.
while I am at it, I want to link to the post about the god-awful celebrity ad urging people to vote.
What is interesting is to look at the ad in contrast to the Stephen Colbert clip with Kanishk Tharoor that feigns incredible surprise at the idea that India has one of the largest voting populations, that India has a large group of poor and rural voters. Of course, Kanishk Tharoor's reading of the indian poor voting against the BJP's India Shining campaign, that the poor voted against viscous free market policies, is an opportunistic and simplistic reading but that is not the point of this other problem.
In the context of the Colbert video that claims that rural India votes more than urban India, the 'is desh ka kuch nahin ho sakta' emerges as targetted to a largely urban crowd, a call to bring out the vote in the urban middle class. This politics becomes specifically important when you think about South Mumbai seat where you have the old BJP candidate from bhuleshwar versus the younger Milind deora and have added to that the old mumbai constituency that involves the Arun Gawli seat. The ad specifically wants to bring out the vote against the constituencies that traditionally come out and vote. Now I want to do some statistical research to verify this, but for now I need to go back to writing my thesis.
while I am at it, I want to link to the post about the god-awful celebrity ad urging people to vote.
What is interesting is to look at the ad in contrast to the Stephen Colbert clip with Kanishk Tharoor that feigns incredible surprise at the idea that India has one of the largest voting populations, that India has a large group of poor and rural voters. Of course, Kanishk Tharoor's reading of the indian poor voting against the BJP's India Shining campaign, that the poor voted against viscous free market policies, is an opportunistic and simplistic reading but that is not the point of this other problem.
In the context of the Colbert video that claims that rural India votes more than urban India, the 'is desh ka kuch nahin ho sakta' emerges as targetted to a largely urban crowd, a call to bring out the vote in the urban middle class. This politics becomes specifically important when you think about South Mumbai seat where you have the old BJP candidate from bhuleshwar versus the younger Milind deora and have added to that the old mumbai constituency that involves the Arun Gawli seat. The ad specifically wants to bring out the vote against the constituencies that traditionally come out and vote. Now I want to do some statistical research to verify this, but for now I need to go back to writing my thesis.
Reality, One Bite at a Time
Siddharth Varadarajan from The Hindu's interview with Radio Free Europe about the elections. He discusses what he thinks the issues will be that will decide the outcome of the elections. As always I really enjoy the analytical and balanced discussion rather than the flat out reporting or allegiance to civil society imaginations.
some things of note:
1. He seems to see foreign issues as larger narratives that will play out regardless of the election and lays more stress on individual canidates than on parties winning, and I will try and mine the internet for some more about the candidates.
2. He calls for new techniques that will enable citizens direct control of governance. It is left ambiguous if he means more civil society or if he means that we need to do more than just vote. I personally would like to see more on that.
some things of note:
1. He seems to see foreign issues as larger narratives that will play out regardless of the election and lays more stress on individual canidates than on parties winning, and I will try and mine the internet for some more about the candidates.
2. He calls for new techniques that will enable citizens direct control of governance. It is left ambiguous if he means more civil society or if he means that we need to do more than just vote. I personally would like to see more on that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)