The crisis had a dual nature. The contradiction between the powerful, decisive, aggressive offensive of the Berlin masses on the one hand and the indecisive, half-hearted vacillation of the Berlin leadership on the other is the mark of this latest episode. The leadership failed. But a new leadership can and must be created by the masses and from the masses. The masses are the crucial factor. They are the rock on which the ultimate victory of the revolution will be built. The masses were up to the challenge, and out of this “defeat” they have forged a link in the chain of historic defeats, which is the pride and strength of international socialism. That is why future victories will spring from this “defeat.”

On January 15, 1919 Rosa Luxemburg was murdered along with her comrade, Karl Liebknecht by the Friekorps. The following text is considered to be her last writing written a few hours before her arrest and murder.

ORDER PREVAILS IN BERLIN
January 14, 1919

“Order prevails in Warsaw!” declared Minister Sebastiani to the Paris Chamber of Deputies in 1831, when after having stormed the suburb of Praga, Paskevich’s marauding troops invaded the Polish capital to begin their butchery of the rebels.

“Order prevails in Berlin!” So proclaims the bourgeois press triumphantly, so proclaim Ebert and Noske, and the officers of the “victorious troops,” who are being cheered by the petty-bourgeois mob in Berlin waving handkerchiefs and shouting “Hurrah!” The glory and honor of German arms have been vindicated before world history. Those who were routed in Flanders and the Argonne have restored their reputation with a brilliant victory – over three hundred “Spartacists” in the Vorwärts building. The days when glorious German troops first crossed into Belgium, and the days of General von Emmich, the conqueror of Liege, pale before the exploits of Reinhardt and Co. in the streets of Berlin. The government’s rampaging troops massacred the mediators who had tried to negotiate the surrender of the Vorwärts building, using their rifle butts to beat them beyond recognition. Prisoners who were lined up against the wall and butchered so violently that skull and brain tissue splattered everywhere. In the sight of glorious deeds such as those, who would remember the ignominious defeat at the hands of the French, British, and Americans? Now “Spartacus” is the enemy, Berlin is the place where our officers can savor triumph, and Noske, “the worker,” is the general who can lead victories where Ludendorff failed.

Who is not reminded of that drunken celebration by the “law and order” mob in Paris, that Bacchanal of the bourgeoisie celebrated over the corpses of the Communards? That same bourgeoisie who had just shamefully capitulated to the Prussians and abandoned the capital to the invading enemy, taking to their heels like abject cowards. Oh, how the manly courage of those darling sons of the bourgeoisie, of the “golden youth,” and of the officer corps flared back to life against the poorly armed, starving Parisian proletariat and their defenseless women and children. How these courageous sons of Mars, who had buckled before the foreign enemy, raged with bestial cruelty against defenseless people, prisoners, and the fallen.

“Order prevails in Warsaw!” “Order prevails in Paris!” “Order prevails in Berlin!” Every half-century that is what the bulletins from the guardians of “order” proclaim from one center of the world-historic struggle to the next. And the jubilant “victors” fail to notice that any “order” that needs to be regularly maintained through bloody slaughter heads inexorably toward its historic destiny; its own demise.

What was this recent “Spartacus week” in Berlin? What has it brought? What does it teach us? While we are still in the midst of battle, while the counterrevolution is still howling about their victory, revolutionary proletarians must take stock of what happened and measure the events and their results against the great yardstick of history. The revolution has no time to lose, it continues to rush headlong over still-open graves, past “victories” and “defeats,” toward its great goal. The first duty of fighters for international socialism is to consciously follow the revolution’s principles and its path.

Was the ultimate victory of the revolutionary proletariat to be expected in this conflict? Could we have expected the overthrow Ebert-Scheidemann and the establishment of a socialist dictatorship? Certainly not, if we carefully consider all the variables that weigh upon the question. The weak link in the revolutionary cause is the political immaturity of the masses of soldiers, who still allow their officers to misuse them, against the people, for counterrevolutionary ends. This alone shows that no lasting revolutionary victory was possible at this juncture. On the other hand, the immaturity of the military is itself a symptom of the general immaturity of the German revolution.

The countryside, from which a large percentage of rank-and-file soldiers come, has hardly been touched by the revolution. So far, Berlin has remained virtually isolated from the rest of the country. The revolutionary centers in the provinces – the Rhineland, the northern coast, Brunswick, Saxony, Württemburg – have been heart and soul behind the Berlin workers, it is true. But for the time being they still do not march forward in lockstep with one another, there is still no unity of action, which would make the forward thrust and fighting will of the Berlin working class incomparably more effective. Furthermore, there is – and this is only the deeper cause of the political immaturity of the revolution – the economic struggle, the actual volcanic font that feeds the revolution, is only in its initial stage. And that is the underlying reason why the revolutionary class struggle, is in its infancy.

From all this that flows the fact a decisive, lasting victory could not be counted upon at this moment. Does that mean that the past week’s struggle was an “error”? The answer is yes if we were talking about a premeditated “raid” or “putsch.” But what triggered this week of combat? As in all previous cases, such as December 6 and December 24, it was a brutal provocation by the government. Like the bloodbath against defenseless demonstrators in Chausseestrasse, like the butchery of the sailors, this time the assault on the Berlin police headquarters was the cause of all the events that followed. The revolution does not develop evenly of its own volition, in a clear field of battle, according to a cunning plan devised by clever “strategists.”

The revolution’s enemies can also take the initiative, and indeed as a rule they exercise it more frequently than does the revolution. Faced with the brazen provocation by Ebert-Scheidemann, the revolutionary workers were forced to take up arms. Indeed, the honor of the revolution depended upon repelling the attack immediately, with full force in order to prevent the counter-revolution from being encouraged to press forward, and lest the revolutionary ranks of the proletariat and the moral credit of the German revolution in the International be shaken.

The immediate and spontaneous outpouring of resistance from the Berlin masses flowed with such energy and determination that in the first round the moral victory was won by the “streets.”

Now, it is one of the fundamental, inner laws of revolution that it never stands still, it never becomes passive or docile at any stage, once the first step has been taken. The best defense is a strong blow. This is the elementary rule of any fight but it is especially true at each and every stage of the revolution. It is a demonstration of the healthy instinct and fresh inner strength of the Berlin proletariat that it was not appeased by the reinstatement of Eichorn (which it had demanded), rather the proletariat spontaneously occupied the command posts of the counter-revolution: the bourgeois press, the semi-official press agency, the Vorwärts office. All these measures were a result of the masses’ instinctive realization that, for its part, the counter-revolution would not accept defeat but would carry on with a general demonstration of its strength.

Here again we stand before one of the great historical laws of the revolution against which are smashed to pieces all the sophistry and arrogance of the petty USPD variety “revolutionaries” who look for any pretext to retreat from struggle. As soon as the fundamental problem of the revolution has been clearly posed – and in this revolution it is the overthrow of the Ebert-Scheidemann government, the primary obstacle to the victory of socialism – then this basic problem will rise again and again in its entirety. With the inevitability of a natural law, every individual chapter in the struggle will unveil this problem to its full extent regardless of how unprepared the revolution is ready to solve it or how unripe the situation may be. “Down with Ebert-Scheidemann!” – this slogan springs forth inevitably in each revolutionary crisis as the only formula summing up all partial struggles. Thus automatically, by its own internal, objective logic, bringing each episode in the struggle to a boil, whether one wants it to or not.

Because of the contradiction in the early stages of the revolutionary process between the task being sharply posed and the absence of any preconditions to resolve it, individual battles of the revolution end in formal defeat. But revolution is the only form of “war” – and this is another peculiar law of history – in which the ultimate victory can be prepared only by a series of “defeats.”

What does the entire history of socialism and of all modern revolutions show us? The first spark of class struggle in Europe, the revolt of the silk weavers in Lyon in 1831, ended with a heavy defeat; the Chartist movement in Britain ended in defeat; the uprising of the Parisian proletariat in the June days of 1848 ended with a crushing defeat; and the Paris commune ended with a terrible defeat. The whole road of socialism – so far as revolutionary struggles are concerned – is paved with nothing but thunderous defeats. Yet, at the same time, history marches inexorably, step by step, toward final victory! Where would we be today without those “defeats,” from which we draw historical experience, understanding, power and idealism? Today, as we advance into the final battle of the proletarian class war, we stand on the foundation of those very defeats; and we can do without any of them, because each one contributes to our strength and understanding.

The revolutionary struggle is the very antithesis of the parliamentary struggle. In Germany, for four decades we had nothing but parliamentary “victories.” We practically walked from victory to victory. And when faced with the great historical test of August 4, 1914, the result was the devastating political and moral defeat, an outrageous debacle and rot without parallel. To date, revolutions have given us nothing but defeats. Yet these unavoidable defeats pile up guarantee upon guarantee of the future final victory.

There is but one condition. The question of why each defeat occurred must be answered. Did it occur because the forward-storming combative energy of the masses collided with the barrier of unripe historical conditions, or was it that indecision, vacillation, and internal frailty crippled the revolutionary impulse itself?

Classic examples of both cases are the February revolution in France on the one hand and the March revolution in Germany on the other. The courage of the Parisian proletariat in the year 1848 has become a fountain of energy for the class struggle of the entire international proletariat. The deplorable events of the German March revolution of the same year have weighed down the whole development of modern Germany like a ball and chain. In the particular history of official German Social Democracy, they have reverberated right up into the most recent developments in the German revolution and on into the dramatic crisis we have just experienced.

How does the defeat of “Spartacus week” appear in the light of the above historical question? Was it a case of raging, uncontrollable revolutionary energy colliding with an insufficiently ripe situation, or was it a case of weak and indecisive action?

Both! The crisis had a dual nature. The contradiction between the powerful, decisive, aggressive offensive of the Berlin masses on the one hand and the indecisive, half-hearted vacillation of the Berlin leadership on the other is the mark of this latest episode. The leadership failed. But a new leadership can and must be created by the masses and from the masses. The masses are the crucial factor. They are the rock on which the ultimate victory of the revolution will be built. The masses were up to the challenge, and out of this “defeat” they have forged a link in the chain of historic defeats, which is the pride and strength of international socialism. That is why future victories will spring from this “defeat.”

“Order prevails in Berlin!” You foolish lackeys! Your “order” is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will “rise up again, clashing its weapons,” and to your horror it will proclaim with trumpets blazing:

I was, I am, I shall be!

Click on the cover page to read excerpts from the book. Contact Aakar Books to order.

Faridabad Majdoor Samachar

On Sunday, March 12, there were discussions with some eight or ten friends and comrades from Kathmandu, Morena, Delhi and Gurgaon at Majdoor Library. The March 10 judgment in the Maruti Suzuki Manesar case was also discussed. There were some discussions on the same case on March 16 and 17 with temporary workers of the Honda Manesar and Maruti Gurgaon factories. We had more discussions with friends from Gurgaon, Delhi, Kolkata and America after the judge sentenced 13 workers to life imprisonment on March 18.

After June 2011, relations became increasingly close among apprentices, trainees, workers hired through contractor companies and permanent workers at the Maruti Suzuki Manesar factory. The company and the government also gave the workers one concession after another in order to re-establish control. Despite the concessions, on the evening of July 18, 2012, 4,000 of Shifts A and B attacked two symbols of the wage system — managers and factory buildings. This was not a sudden outburst of anger. The question was: Why should anyone be a wage worker? The luminosity produced by this rather hard knock given to wage work in order to end it reached all over the world. The possibility that such luminosity could spread through thousands of factories in the Industrial Model Town of Manesar and nearby industrial areas became distinct. But it did not come to pass.

In this scenario:

– The government, scared by the luminosity, immediately stationed 600 police commandos at IMT Manesar and arrested 147 workers. The police commandos continue to be stationed there even in 2017.

– The company was scared by the luminosity and the chairman called it class war. The management of the Manesar factory discharged 546 permanent workers and dismissed 3,000 apprentices, trainees, workers hired through contractor companies.

– Central trade unions, scared by the power of this luminosity, immediately constituted a committee of 16 union leaders to take matters out of the workers’ arena. The committee turned it into a matter of petitioning officers and ministers in Gurgaon with applications, memoranda, dharna, demonstrations, hunger strike and such like, making Gurgaon the arena for further action. The committee couldn’t entangle the temporary workers. But the 546 discharged permanent workers, their friends and comrades, and families of the 147 jailed workers became as if bonded to the committee of the 16 union leaders. They were like its captive audience. Within six months, the committee breathed its last. But those using aggressive language moved the demonstrations, hunger strikes, etc., 200 km away to the rural environs of Kaithal. By At the end of the year, on July 18, 2013, under the umbrella of 19-23 so-called revolutionary groups, with police permission, a charade was enacted in the form of a candle-light procession in daylight at the Leisure Valley park in Gurgaon, with grim faces, hoisting a picture of the dead HR manager, declared ‘pro-worker’, since he had gone (he was sent by the company) to Chandigarh for registration of the union.

– Activists and so-called revolutionary groups, scared by the luminosity, sought to deny the existence of something the workers had themselves produced. For them, workers are poor and helpless, and there is no such thing as acts by workers. According to such revolutionary groups and activists, workers need direction from others even to resolve daily problems. In their view, workers merely react. For such activists and ‘revolutionaries’, who are experts in reacting, governments, companies, capital act, and the people-workers react. And so, activists and the so-called revolutionary groups fabricated a story for July 18, 2012 too: it was a conspiracy of the Maruti Suzuki Company; 200 bouncers attacked workers; workers defended themselves in response, and the tragic accident resulted.

– Liberals are very scared of the luminosity. In order to maintain the prevalent hierarchies, liberals wish to do something for incapable workers, helpless peasants and the pitiable poor. Ever conscious of their own interests, the liberals further promote their self-interest even in the course of “doing something”. So, the stories fabricated by activists and the so-called revolutionary groups go well with the liberals. Liberal reporters and liberal lawyers readily lapped up the stories on Maruti Manesar fabricated by activists and so-called revolutionary groups in opposition to the fabrications of the company and government. And, courts and litigation became the next stop for the hypocrites after candles in the daylight and the farce of the pro-worker manager.

Managers in terror

Factory managers in Faridabad were scared of the luminosity produced by the workers at Maruti Suzuki Manesar factory on 18 July 2012. Every branch of the state in India was in agreement that the fear of this luminosity must be removed from the hearts and minds of the company higher-ups here, and the Chairmen/MDs/CEOs of corporations in Japan, America, Europe. Towards that end, concerted attempts were made, following a time-tested script, to spread terror among workers. This is why bail was denied to the 147 arrested workers by the district court, high court and the Supreme Court for three years. Armed commandos were, of course, around. And middlemen, well-versed in the protocol of controlling workers, continued playing their role of spreading terror among workers through their shenanigans, writings, speeches, pamphlets, posters, etc.

‘Punishment shall be exemplary’ — workers in Noida busted this notion in February 2013, and workers completely tore asunder this concept at Okhla industrial area on the following day. This series has gone on unbroken. It is spreading. At IMT Manesar, even with 600 commandos stationed there, the fearlessness of the men and women workers in the factories of Munjal Kiriyu, Auto Liv, JNS, Baxter, Napino Auto, ASTI Electronics, Jay Ushin, etc. has been fascinating. The same has more or less been true of the workers of Palwal district at the Prithla- Baghola industrial area, and the workers of Dhruv Global and Lakhani Vardhan group factories at Faridabad; managers and directors fled from factories terrorised by workers in Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon in February 2015. The fearlessness of women workers in the tea estates of Munnar, Kerala, who chased away middlemen, is another example. Without any middlemen, the women workers of garment factories in Bangalore, Karnataka scared the central government into canceling the new PF rules. Honda Tapukara factory workers… workers of Bin Laden group in Saudi Arabia … garment workers of Bangladesh…. In December 2015, eight workers of Pricol factory in Tamil Nadu were sentenced to double life imprisonment and yet between January 4 and 10, 2016, 2,400 fearless workers (between 18 and 20 years old) of Lucas TVS factory put the management and the government in a spot.

Formalities-formalities-formalities

In such a time, the matter concerning the jailed Maruti Suzuki workers shifted from being in the purview of workers to a series of formalities, which has continued till date. In this period, when laws have become irrelevant, the scope of legislation-constitution-law is no more than a formality. Police investigation (farcical investigation), witnesses (farcical witnesses), evidence (farcical evidence), company lawyers, government lawyer, district judge, High Court judge, Supreme Court judge, defence lawyers, journalists sympathetic to either side, company officers, government officers, activists, so-called revolutionary groups, union leaders kept playing their formal roles. Punishment is also a formality as it has already been hollowed out. All these people involved in formal acts were essentially ‘going through the motions’.

Union leaders called for a lunch boycott in factory canteens for a couple of days when the judgment convicting workers was announced. An hour-long tool-down happened in the Maruti Suzuki group of factories after the sentence was pronounced. The government, assuaged now by Sunday struggles, allowed unions to hold a meeting at IMT Manesar on March 23. That meeting was organised by 40 unions from IMT and surrounding industrial areas at the end of the A shift in the factories, and was attended by 5,000-7,000 workers. Despite the large turnout, union leaders in speech after speech talked of moving the high court with an appeal. A comrade who attended the meeting called it a fundraising meeting. At present, 80-90% workers in factories are temporary while 90% at this meeting were permanent workers. According to the law, permanent workers alone can become members of factory unions. According to the law, temporary workers cannot become members of factory unions. Then, on April 4, country-wide protest demonstrations, events in other countries demanding the release of the workers and, at the same time, a memorandum asking the President of India to commute the sentence was handed by leaders in Gurgaon to the Deputy Collector of Gurgaon.

We can only give them our love

An eighty-year-old ‘revolutionary’ came from Kolkata to Gurgaon. In his view, solidarity of militant unions is essential to speed up the revolution. Maruti Suzuki Manesar union is, today, an example of a militant union. Two leaders of the Maruti Suzuki Manesar union came to meet the senior ‘revolutionary’. In the course of conversation, the senior ‘revolutionary’ kept devising strategies out of blind alleys, dead ends. The two young leaders, who had been present during the heady days of 2011-2012 at Maruti Manesar, repeatedly said that a lot had changed and now they could only give their love to the temporary workers.

Let’s take a look at this love. In the three-year management-union settlement signed in 2012, the wage of permanent workers at the Maruti Suzuki Manesar factory was hiked by Rs 18,800. Then, in the three-year settlement in September 2015, permanent workers wages were increased by Rs. 16,000. The wages of young permanent workers at the Maruti Suzuki Manesar factory is in the range of Rs 50,000-60,000. The Maruti management was so pleased with the settlement of September 2015 that it gave a gift of Rs 3,000 to every permanent worker. And on September 26, the day after the settlement was announced by leaders, 400 temporary workmen refused to enter the factory for the 6:30 am morning shift, in protest against the management-union settlement. (Temporary workmen, TW, are the workers hired directly by the company for seven months, a practice since July 2012, and are kept besides the workers hired through contractor companies.) Friends of the TW from B Shift also gathered at the factory gate. Immediately some men from the 14 villages adopted by the Maruti Suzuki Company, reached the factory in vehicles and clashed with the workers gathered there. Police intervention. Inside the factory, the ‘militant’ union cooperated with the management to keep production going. The company claimed normal production in the A shift but instead of 1,440 vehicles being assembled on the three assembly lines in the A shift, only 781 vehicles were assembled as the temporary workmen stayed away from work.

Translated by Anuradha from the April 2017 issue of Faridabad Majdoor Samachar. Email: majdoorsamachartalmel@gmail.com

It is a year before Plebiscite and the two provinces of The Lambda – The City and The Frontier – separated from each other by a gate can talk of little else. Governed by the Fairlanders, Lambda may soon be free. The City is home to the old elite. The Frontier is a land denuded of trees, the pit of factories. The old elite are cobbled into a party, the Dongs. The Partisans urge fellow workers among school teachers, field hands, newspapermen to join the strike breaking out at the factories. At the meetings, it is also decided to rethink a new culture of politics and work, before deciding whether they are ready for freedom.

At a time when Mir, the leader of the Partisans, is still unsure about an alternative to an independent nation-state, the news that a Partisan contingent is meeting the Fairlanders raises questions among his supporters. Is Mir giving in or breaking new ground? What is the value of taking a pause during a struggle? Is their final bloody manoeuvre a failure, a success, or both; or can their resistance be seen in other terms? In a Future April is a political allegory that tries to grapple with the many meanings of love, freedom, friendship, camaraderie, commitment and betrayal in the undecidable time of the Revolution.

Paramita Ghosh is a Delhi-based journalist. She grew up in Calcutta and began her career with The Statesman. She writes on culture and politics for Hindustan Times.

FOREWORD

“An operation carried out in the written language” – Italo Calvino

This foreword is not an apologia. It is not an attempt to provide justifications for publishing a work of fiction in a series of booklets and books that belong to the essayistic genre of critical theory and/or political analysis. The readers can themselves determine whether or not this novel, or other creative works that we intend to publish in the near future, fit into the dynamic politics of this series. Nevertheless, the question remains whether these literary-creative engagements replicate what political essays do, whether they provide insights that these essays cannot even think through.

We are not formalists who study the specificities of forms in order to see them as their own justification. In fact, there is no such formal autonomy. If you find one, rest assured it is the poverty of form that the essence generates and productivises to generate illusions of such autonomy.

“Essence must appear or shine forth. The essence is thus not behind or beyond the appearance; instead, by virtue of the fact that it is the essence that exists concretely, concrete existence is appearance.” (Hegel:197) We consider the identification and study of the practice of form very crucial to access specific levels of reality – the structural dynamics that appear through this form.

A literary work accesses aspects of reality that only a literary form can reveal. Not very long ago, Italo Calvino approached a literary work “as an operation carried out in the written language.” Literature involves “several levels of reality” and it is the awareness of the distinction between these levels that makes a literary work possible. Calvino further elaborates: “In a work of literature, various levels of reality may meet while remaining distinct and separate, or else they may melt and mingle and knit together, achieving a harmony among their contradictions or else forming an explosive mixture.”(Calvino:101)

Hence, a literary work emerges as a methodological operation demythologising Reality into levels of reality. It is through this operation that we access these specific levels. As Spinoza’s “extension” and Marx’s “sensuous activity”, literary practice is intrinsic to those levels of reality of which it is an awareness. Calvino, however, cautions against the tendency to overgeneralise, to forget the form’s immanence to its own levels of reality – in the case of literature, these levels are part of the “written world”. Calvino while “distinguishing the various levels of reality within the work of art considered as a world of its own”, and, therefore, avoiding the sirens of historicism, is emphatic in considering “the work as a product, in its relation to the outside world in the age when it was created and the age when we received it”. In fact, this historicisation is what is termed as self-awareness – when literary works “turn around on themselves, look at themselves in the act of coming into being, and become aware of the materials they are made of”. (Calvino: 103)

Almost a century ago, Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs had expressed very eloquently the dialectical problematic of form and content in literature and its historicity. He understood a literary genre as intrinsic to an “age”. “The novel is the epic of an age in which the extensive totality of life is no longer directly given, in which the immanence of meaning in life has become a problem, yet which still thinks in terms of totality.” (Lukacs: 56) The novel is born in an epoch characterised by the separation of labour from labour-power. In such circumstances, the totality cannot be accessed in its immediacy because forms of labour are dualised: the concrete becomes discrete, and gets individuated and differentiated from its meaning in totality. In other words, the concrete is rendered an undifferentiated mass of particular appearances. Thus we need “the force of abstraction” to access and to reproduce the totality in thought.

The “form-giving intention” (or, what Marx in Grundrisse, of which Lukacs must have not been aware of at the time of writing this work, termed “living, form-giving, fire”) of a novelist reconstructs or systematises the totality abstractly. The totality is not immediately and organically accessed, rather it emerges in the creation of the novel through “abstract systematisation” that exposes and distances from the conventionality of “concrete life”, the “objective world”. It emerges in the process of a critique of this concrete, objective life and world, revealing “the interiority of the subjective” world, the “political unconscious”.

The living labour of a novelist creates totality in a “socially symbolic act”.(Jameson) It is a critical operation that in its Utopianism creates a crisis for subsumption – providing a glimpse of real totality beyond the swamps of false totality – of capital and state (the conventionality and its everydayness).

“To see the world in a grain of sand” – William Blake

Till recently a slice of reality was considered sufficient to grasp the truth of reality – to see the universe in a grain of sand. This Blakean radical vision originally was a reminder of metaphysical holism, that was losing its grip in the nineteenth century. It was restricted to those who saw the future as a doom or a dawn – the judgement day or a world revolution. You could make out the total sense of a particularity.

The processes of “infinite regression of quibbling and calculating” (Badiou: 40) – a continuous discretising and recombining, the so-called “creative destruction”, was effectuated by the generalised commodity economy and industrialism, which led to the perpetuation of analytics, analytical philosophies and positivism. Eventually, the Blakean vision was reduced “to see the world of a grain of sand,” so that the elements of these grains could be identified, discretised and recombined – isn’t this what production is all about?

But still you could imagine a universe of many universes – a meta was still there but as an aggregate of atomic individualities or as a forced universality. Hence, national revolutions, national socialisms, Socialism in one country, national development – however, the vision of national liberation still had an international tenor as it grasped liberation in terms of “liberation from”. The collective dream that politics embodied was condensed in the possibility to empower the dethroned subjectivity, bypass the developmental pains and still catch up or even divert.

But as the economy got more and more integrated, the humanity and sociality were further analysed and discretised – to be invested in the social factory. It is the digital recombining of anything and everything as mere numbers. As the world increasingly became a global village, we were transformed into villagers – “formed by simple accretion, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes.” (Marx) As we were increasingly reduced, and reduced to sameness, we militantly asserted our difference. The postmodern assertion of relativities was nothing but the other side of modernist absolutism. They mutually energised one another. We assert our differences, and in an instant they are equalised, accumulated and turned into gold – and we are reduced to “packets of time, separated from their interchangeable and occasional bearers.”(Bifo: 95)

In A Future April is a novel about revolutions in this age – but being of this age, it is truly a “monstrous abbreviation” of all times, even of those revolutionary periods which were inaugurated exactly a century ago. All revolutionaries of those times were aware of the elements of passive counter-revolution in these revolutions, but the passage to the decline was always considered a struggle. Revolution and its systemic subsumption could still be compositionally, spatially and temporally differentiated. But today in late-st capitalism they both are the same. If this is a novel about precariats and cognitarians as vanguards, it is also about vanguards as precariats and cognitarians. But was this not true for all revolutions? In A Future April narrates and operates the stories of revolutions to abbreviate them into the pregnant dialectic of hope and dismay.

Pratyush Chandra,
Radical Notes
November 23, 2016

References:

Alain Badiou (2005) “Philosophy and Desire.” Infinite Thought. Trans. and ed. Oliver Feltham and Justin Clemens. New York: Continuum. 29-42

Franco “Bifo” Berardi (2009) The Soul at Work. Trans. Francesca Cadel and Giuseppina Mecchia. Semiotext(e). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Italo Calvino (1997) “Levels of Reality in Literature.” The Literature Machine. Trans. Patrick Creagh. London: Vintage Books. 101-121.

GWF Hegel (2010) Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline Part I: Science of Logic. Trans. and ed. by Klaus Brinkmann and Daniel O. Dahlstrom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Georg Lukacs (1971) The Theory of the Novel. Trans. Anna Bostock. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Karl Marx ([1852] 2002) “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” (Trans. Terrell Carver) Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire: (Post)modern Interpretations. Ed. Mark Cowling and James Martin. London: Pluto Press. 19-109

Cyrus Bina

“In a time of universal deceit,
Telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

When the entire arsenal of impulsive and aggressive foreign policy is deployed in absolute desperation and without accomplishment by a declining power unaware of its imminent demise, first it resorts to self-aggrandisement and spectacle, and then suddenly and viciously turns on itself through self-flagellation and serious self-mutilation. This is a classic pretext that trumps the assorted reasons for the demise of Hilary Clinton and thus the bafflement of the US political establishment and its coattail in the established media. This should concisely spell out the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, his populism, and his success in leasing the plush real estate at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. To be sure, “We make America great again” is the alter ego of America’s demise since the collapse of the Pax Americana (1945-1979). Recognition of this very transformation is in itself a radical act.

The moment of truth has finally arrived. The slogan of “Make America Great Again” is now at the centre stage. The members of the wrecking crew in Donald Trump’s proposed cabinet are now waiting for their Senate confirmation to get to work. Donald J. Trump is now the president of the United States. And all three branches of government are in the hands of one party – a party that since Reagan’s presidency has seemingly been reduced to an apologetic bunch in retrograde politics suspended in history. The party that once took pride in being the party of Lincoln is simply taken over by a known-unknown outsider; George Soros went on to call him an “imposter.” Trump’s message though has been consistently the same: “Make America Great Again.” This “Again,” at the same time, conveys an acknowledgement of the glorious past, not-so-glorious present, and the possibility time-travel presumably to the pre-Civil Rights’ period on the domestic side and hegemony, leadership and respect (i.e., the era of Pax Americana, 1945-1979) on the foreign policy side.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom and despite his rhetoric, Donald Trump’s presidency does not seem to correspond with American isolationism. Trump’s vision is rather more in tune with the reversal of time that supposedly transports America to the 1950s, an era in which a Junior Senator from Wisconsin’s witch hunts were in full swing. And a foreign policy that unilaterally engaged in coups after coups against democratically elected government abroad with little cost – known as America’s Golden Age – under the umbrella of the now defunct of Pax Americana (1945-1979). Under the Trump administration, some even are horrified – for a good reason – by an idea that he may take us all the way back to the pre-Civil War period in race, gender, and social relations. The irony here suggests parallels with George Orwell’s “1984” in 2017 America.

The other party is not so innocent either. Democrats did not only tolerate the notorious war crimes by the Bush-Cheney administration in Iraq and Afghanistan; they nonetheless come in full circle with their own bloody misadventures in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, to name a few, while they did some good with respect to Cuba and Iran. Overall, though, the Obama administration inherited and thus contributed to what the Bush-Cheney administration has wrought as a paranoiac state/surveillance state in America. On the foreign policy front, particularly in Libya (and the bloody overthrow of Col. Gaddafi), Hilary Clinton’s hand is bloody. On the toppling of the Libyan government and the murder of Gaddafi, Secretary Clinton bragged: “We came, we saw, he died.” The catch here is that the Obama administration had already promised the Russians at the UN Security Council that if they agreed to vote for the “no fly zone” in Libya (or abstain), it would refrain from overthrowing Gaddafi. With Clinton’s Julius Caesar-like enthusiasm, the Obama administration broke its promise. As is well known, President Obama also recently expressed his regrets for the involvement in Libya. As for the pointless involvement in the coup, against Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, the share of Secretary Clinton (via Victoria Nuland’s direct involvement) is not miniscule either.

Again, as is well documented, this initial step eventually led to the ouster of Yanukovych and the chaos that brought the ultra-right takeover of the government through the infamous referendum in Crimea, which then paved the way for the Russian invasion. Clinton Democrats utterly miscalculated the outcome of that election by betting on the wrong horse. The ignored the fact that the country (both the left and the right) is gasping for change by any means necessary. Clinton Democrats ignored the deep cleavage in income inequality combined with profound political polarisation. They arrogantly resorted to the habitual course of action by attacking Sen. Bernie Sanders – a seemingly viable candidate that might have defeated Donald Trump if he had not been subjected to unfair, immoral, and indeed illegal shenanigans in the primaries. Thanks to WikiLeaks for revealing these very true heart-wrenching stories perpetrated by the Clinton camp and the Democratic Party that is presently on the teeter of disintegration. That is why those who care about the truth – and cause-and-effect in this matter – believe that Democrats’ cruel pomposity and crude self-assurance tossed their viable candidate under the proverbial bus. In the end, the “basket of deplorables” statement by frustrated Hilary was the one that finally broke the camel’s back.

The inauguration of Donald J. Trump is over and he is officially the 45th president of the United States. The factors that have led to his seemingly successful campaign toward his presidency are numerous, varied, and multidimensional, and historians will debate them for year and decades to come. Nevertheless, it is clear that the spectre of change is in the air and that the sizeable majorities on the right and on the left are challenging the status quo. The Pax Americana had collapsed in the late1970s, but aftereffects of its fall are still around with respect to both domestic and foreign arenas. The fact is that there is no hint of American exceptionalism in all this. The changes that transpired in the last few decades have taken us beyond the Pax Americana and beyond American exceptionalism. The United States is now as ordinary as any other nation in the new global polity in the making.

On the foreign policy side, the United States is not what it used to be, yet the forces of regression, and reaction, are insisting on being “Great Again.” On the domestic side, the fissure of deep economic inequality, political polarisation, pernicious politics, blatant racism and “white supremacy,” bashing women, Islamophobia, and other social ailments are now overtly pronounced. This election has torn the veil of political correctness and peeled off nearly all opacities that are gingerly left underneath race relations in America. Donald Trump is the sui generis messenger and now, as president, the message of divided America. And in this manner, the whole nation is naked before our eyes. This nation (and by implication the US government) is not exceptional; it is not pre-ordained for hegemony; it is not predisposed for the leadership of global polity in the making. There is a limit to what the United States can or cannot do with respect to domestic as well as foreign policy.

Therefore, “making America great again” is inevitably subject to such boundaries. The United States is a declining power and the election of Donald Trump is a hint of such a decline in both domestic and foreign affairs. We are just beginning to grapple with the aftereffects of the loss of the American century and the painful consequence of the denial of the fall of the Pax Americana since the 1980s. On the foreign policy side, the setbacks have so far been unequivocal. It may take some time to digest the truth of the shrinkage of the middle class and the disguised class warfare in the form of overt racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and other forms of prejudice and bigotry in the name of nationalism and patriotism. We need to fasten our proverbial seatbelts for a long, rough, turbulent, yet indefatigable ride on, in Robert Frost’s apt vision, “the road not taken” in these unflattering and uncertain times.

Cyrus Bina is Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Minnesota (Morris Campus). His latest book is A Prelude in the Foundation of Political Economy: Oil, War, and Global Polity (2013). An earlier version of this article was an address to a rally organised by students at the Morris campus of University of Minnesota during the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States on January 20, 2017.

COORDINATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS ORGANISATION
Press Release 19th April,2016

Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisation is alarmed at how a demand for justice results again in killing of civilians by a trigger happy Government force in Kashmir. The alleged molestation of a 16 year old girl on April 12th by a personnel of 21 RR posted in Handwara, and resultant protests saw abduction and illegal incarceration by Police of the girl, her aunt and father, the killing of five persons in three days of protests, including a woman working in her kitchen garden, followed by strict imposition of S 144 of RPC , and are a grim reminder that ‘more things change more they remain the same’ in Kashmir. Killings are a direct outcome of treating Kashmiris, as people devoid of any rights, including the Right to live in dignity and freedom.

CDRO wishes to remind the public that in Kashmir events follow a pattern: when allegations are leveled against the Armed Forces of the Union, the effort is to damn the aggrieved, for acting at behest of “separatists”, “jihadists” and “Pakistan’s ISI”, and/or to malign the Indian forces. When protests erupt to demand justice, forces open fire to shoot to kill by aiming fire on head and body. Doctors at Sher i Kashmir Institute of Medical Science, Srinagar where injured and the dead were brought, were aghast at the bullet being fired at vital parts; either head or stomach, and pellet injuries to the eyes. Deliberate use of guns to kill gets justified by claiming that it was done in self-defense as crowd was pelting stones. The disproportionate use of force on unarmed civilians, makes it abundantly clear that in Kashmir guns are preferred against civilians. Handwara was no different.

While three persons Muhammad Iqbal (24), Nayem Qadir Bhat (22) and Raja Begum (70) were killed on 12th April, Jahangir Ahmad Wani was killed at Drugmulla, Kupwara on 13th April and Arif Hassan Dar was shot dead on 14th April at Natnusa village of Kupwara. The fact that a case of molestation of a minor took a bloody turn resulting in killing of five persons and grievousinjuries to 40 othersis evidence of the oppressive conditions on the ground, where Armed Forces of the Union and the J&K Police are empowered to virtually take away lives, at will. The Police claim that 125 of their personnel suffered injuries, yet none of the injuries was severe enough for hospitalization, unlike the civilians who suffered grievously. In keeping with knee jerk reaction, the Central Government promptly announced dispatching 3600 more troops.

Standard Operations Procedure (SOPs) in Kashmir appears to be to kill first and explain it away later. Recently Indian authorities and corporate media were agog with simulated outrage over lathi charge on the non-local students at NIT Srinagar campus by the Police. However, when it came to killing of Kashmiris, the Government extended support to the Army and Police, claiming they had come under attack and reacted in “self-defense”. That heavily armed forces, confronting unarmed civilian protestors shouting slogans and at worse pelting stones, opened fire on them and killed and injured civilians was of less consequence than protecting the reputation of Government forces. What is also important to note is that disclosing the identity of the minor girl including exposing her face, while she was a captive of the Police, is a crime punishable under S 228(A) [Disclosure of Identity of the victim…], apart from the crime of holding a female minor in illegal “protective” captivity. Civil administration was nowhere in sight for five days. In Kashmir the Armed Forces and the Police are their own masters accountable to no one.

Equally alarming was the virtual curfew imposed across large parts of Kashmir. And with internet blocked, uncorroborated news had free play. Locals were coerced into remaining indoors. In Handwara lawyers representing the mother were prevented from meeting her, and for days the girl, her aunt and father were dis-allowed to get in touch with anyone. Media was barred entry. JK Coalition of Civil Society was physically prevented from holding a press conference. Elsewhere in different parts of Kashmir concertina wires, drop gates, check-posts and more troops made their presence felt. The abduction of a minor girl keeping her incommunicado raise not just questions about the arbitrary powers being exercised by the Police, but the killing shows how far Government Forces can go to protect their arbitrary rule. While we welcome the J&K High Court’s order asking the police to explain under which law they had kept the minor, her aunt and father in their “protective” captivity, and barred the disclosure of her statement to the media, which they directed that it be recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Handwara. In violation of the High Court order the contents of the statement were again leaked to the media. The girl and her family have now been placed under virtual house arrest at a relative’s house and Police is refusing them to return home, instead coercing them to re-locate elsewhere. On 17th April the girl met her mother as well as her lawyers from JKCCS. A statement released by JKCCS on 18th April says the following:

In the limited meeting that was allowed to take place the following key points emerged from the minor girl and her family:

§ The minor girl has on two occasions – in the video recorded and circulated and in the Section 164- A CrPC statement before the judicial magistrate – been pressurized to testify in a manner as directed by the police. Neither of these statements were made voluntarily. § From 12 April to 14 April 2016 the minor girl and family were illegally detained at the Handwara Police Station. From 11 p.m. of 14 April to the morning of 16 April 2016 the minor girl and family were illegally detained at a police personnel’s private residence at Shehlal village who was a complete stranger to the family. On 16 April 2016, the minor girl’s statement under Section164-A Cr PC was recorded before the judicial magistrate at Handwara. Her father was not present in court during the recording of the statement. No lawyer was present in court accompanying her. In the courtroom, besides the judge, there were four other persons who the minor girl couldn’t identify. From the night of 16 April 2016 to this morning the family has stayed at Zachaldara under constant police surveillance and control.

The extraordinary lengths to which Police go to keep the girl and her family sequestered under police guard raises concerns over the safety of the family ,in particular the girl, but also the extent of illegal power that has come to be vested in Police or arrogated by them.

This incident comes at a time when there is no political resolution in sight over Kashmir dispute, and killing of civilians by Government forces remains a recurring phenomena. By remaining mute today, as was done in the past, we only acquiesce in the policy of military suppression and the continued demoralization of the people. The nightmare Kashmiris continue to face will end only when we in India mount a campaign for abolishing legal immunity provided to the armed forces of the union and push for democratically ascertaining the will of the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir. CDRO reiterates its demand for abolishing legal immunity provided to the Armed Force of the Union and the J&K Police, and urges that the long pending dispute be resolved democratically.

C. Chandrasekhar (CLC, Andhra Pradesh), Asish Gupta (PUDR, Delhi), Pritpal Singh (AFDR, Punjab), Phulendro Konsam (COHR, Manipur) and Tapas Chakraborty (APDR, West Bengal) (Coordinators of CDRO). ————-

Constituent Organisations:Association for Democratic Rights (AFDR), Punjab; Association for Protection of Democratic Rights APDR), West Bengal; Bandi Mukti Morcha (BMC), West Bengal; Campaign for Peace & Democracy in Manipur (CPDM), Delhi; Civil Liberties Committee (CLC), Andhra Pradesh; Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR), Mumbai; Coordination for Human Rights (COHR), Manipur; Human Rights Forum (HRF), Andhra Pradesh; Jharkhand Council for Democratic Rights (JCDR), Jharkhand; Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti (MASS), Assam; Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR); Organisation for Protection of Democratic Rights (OPDR), Andhra Pradesh; Peoples’ Committee for Human Rights (PCHR), Jammu and Kashmir; Peoples Democratic Forum (PDF), Karnataka; Peoples Union For Democratic Rights (PUDR), Delhi; Peoples Union for Civil Rights (PUCR), Haryana, Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR),Tamilnadu.

Over 500 academicians, activists, artists and writers including eminent Professors Noam Chomsky, Gayatri Spivak, Barbara Hariss-White, Michael Davis among others condemn the ongoing state violence and unlawful detention of faculty and student protesters of the University of Hyderabad. Please send your endorsements to justiceforhcu@gmail.com. 

We, academicians, activists, artists and writers, condemn the ongoing brutal attacks on and unlawful detention of peacefully protesting faculty and students at the University of Hyderabad by the University administration and the police. We also condemn the restriction of access to basic necessities such as water and food on campus.

The students and faculty members of the University of Hyderabad were protesting the reinstatement of Dr. Appa Rao Podile as the Vice-Chancellor despite the ongoing judicial enquiry against him related to  the circumstances leading to the death of the dalit student Rohith Vemula on January 17th, 2016. Students and faculty members of the university community are concerned that this may provide him the opportunity to tamper with evidence and to influence witnesses. Suicides by dalit students have been recurring in the University of Hyderabad and other campuses across the country.  The issue spiraled into a nationwide students’ protest with the death of the dalit scholar Rohith Vemula. The protests have pushed into the foreground public discussion and debate on the persistence of caste-based discrimination in educational institutions, and surveillance and suppression of dissent and intellectual debate in university spaces.

Since the morning of March 22 when Dr. Appa Rao returned to campus, the students and staff have been in a siege-like situation.  The peacefully protesting staff and students were brutally lathi-charged by the police, and 27 people were taken into custody. The 27 detainees were untraceable for 48 hours, brutally tortured, and denied legal access. In short, all legal procedures of detention have been suspended. After the incident, the university has been locked down with no access to food, water, electricity, and Internet connectivity.   Students were brutally assaulted when they opened community kitchens.  Lawyers and members of human rights organization as well the ordinary citizens of the city were denied access to students. University of Hyderabad is one of India’s biggest public universities.

We have followed, with deep concern, similar violent attacks and undemocratic crackdown on students on the campuses of Jawaharlal Nehru University, the Film and Television Institute of India, the University of Allahabad, Jadavpur University, Burdwan University, and others across the country. That the highest administrative authorities in the university have allowed the silencing of debate and dissent is unfortunate. We are disturbed by the pattern of growing nexus between student vigilante groups, youth wing of the ruling party, state and university authorities in colleges and university campuses across the country in order to mobilize the state machinery against vulnerable students. This has created a climate of fear and oppression in the country, and continually violates fundamental human and Constitutional rights of students.

We stand in support of the protesting students, staff and faculty of the University of Hyderabad and demand the following:  

1. Immediate withdrawal of police from the campus.
2. Immediate release of, and withdrawal of all cases against, all arrested students and faculty.
3. Suspension of the Vice-Chancellor P. Appa Rao.
4. Judicial enquiry into the role of the HRD Ministry, the HRD Minister and Mr. Bandaru Dattatreya in inciting violence against Dalits on campus.
5. Independent enquiry into the incidents of violence on the campus including the role of the ABVP in vandalising the Vice-Chancellor’s office.
6. Action against police personnel named by students in their complaints.
7. Passage of the “Rohith Act” against caste discrimination in education.

Signatories

1. Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus), MIT
2. Lawrence Cohen, Director, Institute for South Asia Studies, University of California, Berkeley
3. Navtej K Purewal Deputy Director, South Asia Institute SOAS University of London
4. Akhil Gupta, Director, Center for India and South Asia (CISA), UCLA
5. Michael Davis, Professor Emeritus, Department of Creative Writing, University of California Riverside
6. Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director, The Oakland Institute
7. Barbara Harriss-White, Oxford University
8. Kavita Krishnan, Secretary AIPWA
9. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, University Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University
10. G. Arunima, Professor and Chair, Centre for Women’s Studies, School of Social Sciences, JNU
11. Sandeep Pandey, former Visiting Faculty, IIT, BHU, Varanasi
12. Michael D. Yates, Professor Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh, United States
13. Abha Sur, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
14. Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University
15. Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Chair, Department of International Development Studies, Trent University, Canada
16. Henry Reichman, First Vice-President, American Association of University Professors
17. Piya Chatterjee, Scripps College, US
18. Apoorvanand, University of Delhi
19. Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Professor of Political Science and Chair of Women’s Studies Department, Simon Fraser University, Canada
20. Gerald Epstein, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
21. Sumanta Banerjee, Writer,  Journalist
22. Surinder S. Jodhka, Jawaharlal Nehru University
23. Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Syracuse University
24. Sangeeta Kamat, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
25. Amit Bhaduri, Professor Emeritus, JNU
26. Dr. Shailaja Paik, University of Cincinnati
27. Kevin B. Anderson, Professor of Sociology, University of California  Santa Barbara
28. Tithi Bhattacharya, Professor of History, Purdue University
29. Pranav Jani, The Ohio State University
30. Vinay Gidwani, University of Minnesota
31. Nivedita Menon, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
32. Alpa Shah, London School of Economics
33. Jayati Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru University
34. Srirupa Roy, University of Göttingen, Germany
35. Angana P. Chatterji
36. Achin Vanaik, Retd. Professor of International Relations, Univ. of Delhi
37. Rahul Varman, IIT Kanpur
38. Dr. Pushkar Raj, CSR Global Peace Project Coordinator, Australian Centre for Education & Training, National General Secy., PUCL, India (Ex.)
39. Ashwini Tambe, University of Maryland, College Park
40. Jens Lerche, SOAS, University of London
41. Gillian Hart, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
42. Adrian Wilson,  Social Anthropology, London School of Economics
43. Ayesha Kidwai, Professor ,Jawaharlal Nehru University
44. Subhashini Ali, Vice-President All India Democratic Womens Association, (AIDWA)
45. Anand Patwardhan
46. Meher Engineer
47. Admiral and Mrs. Lalita Ramdas, CNDP
48. Suhasini Mulay
49. Aishwary Kumar, School of Humanities & Sciences, Stanford University
50. Ajantha Subramanian, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Harvard University
51. Jyoti Puri, Chair and Professor of Sociology, Simmons College
52. Abdul JanMohamed, Professor, University of California, Berkeley
53. Dr. Nathaniel Roberts, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Goettingen, Germany
54. Paula Chakravartty, New York University
55. Mahendra Kumar, President, Ambedkar International Center (AIC)
56. Atul Sood, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
57. Prof. Mohan Rao, Jawaharlal  Nehru University
58. Yasmin Saikia, Professor of History, Arizona State University
59. Nandini Chandra, Delhi University
60. Elisabeth Weber, Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
61. C. P. Chandrasekhar, Jawaharlal Nehru University
62. Prof. Rupa Viswanath, University of Goettingen, Germany
63. Rama Baru, Jawaharlal Nehru University
64. Svati Shah, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
65. Immanuel Ness, Professor, City University of New York
66. Mahi Pal Singh, Editor, The Radical Humanist, Former National Secretary, PUCL
67. Balmurli Natrajan, William Paterson University
68. Veena Hariharan, School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru University
69. Rajat Datta, Professor, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
70. Geraldine Forbes, Professor, State University of New York, Oswego
71. Joya Misra, Professor of Sociology and Public Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
72. Richard Seymour, London School of Economics
73. Susan Visvanathan, Professor of Sociology, Jawaharlal Nehru University
74. Dr. Pérez de Mendiola, Richard Armour Professor of Modern Languages, Chair, Dept. of Latin American, Caribbean and Spanish Literatures and Cultures & Humanities, Scripps College
75. Peter Spiegler, Asst. Prof.,  Dept. of Economics, UMass, Amherst
76. Swati Birla, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
77. Atreyi Dasgupta, Baylor College of Medicine
78. Kuver Sinha, Syracuse University
79. Sirisha Naidu, Wright State University
80. Siddhartha Mitra, Programmer, Rockefeller University
81. Samantha Agarwal, PhD Candidate, Johns Hopkins University
82. Anup Gampa, PhD Candidate, University of Virginia
83. Anu Mandavilli, Friends of South Asia
84. Deepankar Basu, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
85. Nandini Dhar, Assistant Professor, Florida International University
86. Michael Levien, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University
87. Devika Dutt, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
88. Smita Ramnarain, Assistant Professor of Economics, Siena College
89. Taki Manolakos, Wright State University
90. Valentina Dallona, Johns Hopkins University
91. Iveta Jusova, Carleton College, USA
92. Aditi Chandra, University of California, Merced
93. Hee-Young Shin, Wright State University
94. Anjali Arondekar, UC Santa Cruz
95. Jinee Lokaneeta, Drew University
96. Ajay Chandra, University of Warwick
97. Xiao Yu, Peking University
98. Bettina Apthekar, UC Santa Cruz
99. Anirban Karak, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
100. Natasha S K, Syracuse University
101. Mitul Barua, Syracuse University
102. Simmy Makhijani, San Francisco State University
103. Sofia Gavtadze, Solidarity Network, Georgi
104. Avishek Konar, Alumnus, The Ohio State University
105. Robert Carley, Wright State University
106. Dia Da Costa, Associate Professor, University of Alberta
107. Ann Smock, University of California, Berkeley
108. Liz Mount, Syracuse University
109. Terese V Gagnon, Syracuse University
110. Giorgi Kobakhidze, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
111. Levin Ahmed, Jawaharlal Nehru University
112. Christos Mais, Universiteit Leiden
113. Taveeshi Singh, Syracuse University
114. Aniruddha Das, Columbia University
115. Safar Safqat, St Mary’s College of Maryland
116. Ramaa Vasudevan, Colorado State University
117. Osman Keshawarz, doctoral student, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
118. Narendra Subramaniam, McGill University
119. Ammel Sharon, University of Pennsylvania
120. Gventa Gventsadze
121. Borisi Cirekidze
122. Minakshi Menon, Max Planck Institute, Berlin
123. Dmitri Khuskivadze
124. Salo Kaladze
125. Judith Rodenbeck, UC Riverside
126. Ashok Prasad, Colorado State University
127. Priyanka Srivastava, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
128. Arani Roy, Brandeis University
129. Dag Erik Berg, University of Gottingen, Germany
130. Rahul Nair, Antioch College, USA
131. Gajendran Ayyathurai, Goettingen University, Germany
132. Balaji Narasimhan, William Paterson University, United States
133. Ember Skye Kanelee, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
134. Jungyeon Suh, Independent Researcher, United States
135. Kannan Srinivasan
136. Roli Verma, University of New Mexico
137. Lalit Batra, University of Minnesota
138. Avanti Mukherjee, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
139. Tyler Hansen, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
140. Subho Basu, McGill University, Canada
141. Laurie Nisonoff, Hampshire College, United States
142. Satya Mohapatra, MIT
143. Julia Corwin, University of Minnesota
144. Parama Roy, UC Davis
145. Krishna Melnattur, Washington University School of Medicine
146. Rupal Oza, Hunter College, City University of New York
147. Noeleen McIlvenna, Wright State University
148. Daniel Thompson, Johns Hopkins University
149. Jesse Knutson, University of Hawaii, Manoa
150. Prashant Keshavmurthy, McGill University, Canada
151. Anasuya Sengupta, Berkeley, USA
152. Uditi Sen, Hampshire College
153. Zarrina Juraqulova, Denison University, USA
154. Kiran Asher, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
155. Prakash Kashwan, University of Connecticut, Storrs
156. Hamid Rezai, Pitzer College, USA
157. Anindya Dey, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
158. Lara Deeb, Scripps College, USA
159. Richa Nagar, University of Minnesota
160. Vatsal Naresh, Columbia University
161. Niharika Yadav, Princeton University
162. Bedatri Datta Choudhury, NYU
163. Sanjiv Gupta, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
164. Suvadip Sinha, University of Minnesota
165. Ipsita Mandal, Perimeter Institute, Canada
166. Poulomi Pal, Fulbright scholar
167. Asmita Rangari, Activist, New Delhi
168. Shipra Nigam, Activist, New Delhi
169. Srinivas Lankala, Independent media scholar, Hyderabad
170. Carolyn Elliott, University of Vermont
171. Aviroop Sengupta, Columbia University
172. Madhura Lohokare, Syracuse University
173. Arijit Sen, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
174. Suyapa Portillo Villeda, Pitzer College, USA
175. Oishik Sircar, University of Melbourne
176. Arjun Bagchi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
177. Greg Anderson, Ohio State University
178. Prarit Agarwal, Seoul National University, Korea
179. Sayori Ghoshal, Columbia University
180. Uponita Mukherjee, Columbia University
181. Suyapa Portillo Villeda, Pitzer College
182. Patricia Morton, University of California, Riverside
183. Sofia Checa, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
184. Arpan Roy, John Hopkins University
185. Cynthia Correa, The University of Texas at Austin
186. Parvathy Binoy, Syracuse University, Syracuse
187. Jonathon Hurd, RN, Seattle
188. Varuni Bhatia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
189. Erin McElroy, UCSC, Director, Anti-Eviction Mapping Project
190. Geert Dhondt, John Jay College, The City University of New York
191. Mithun Bhowmick, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
192. Alladi Sitaram, Retired Professor, Indian Statistical Institute
193. Dr Kasturi Ray, San Francisco State University
194. Alicia Giron, National University of Mexico
195. Probal Dasgupta, Indian Statistical Institute
196. Larry Halpern, Wittenberg University
197. Suchitra Mathur, Faculty, IIT Kanpur, India
198. Aditi Saraf, Johns Hopkins University
199. Ketaki Jaywant, University of Minnesota
200. Nagesh Rao, Colgate University
201. Irfan Ahmad, ACU Melbourne, Australia
202. Suvrat Raju, TIFR
203. Saikat Ghosh, IIT Kanpur
204. Samyak Ghosh, Columbia University
205. Catherine Liu, UC Irvine
206. Francis Cody, University of Toronto
207. Bhavani Raman, University of Toronto
208. Erika Suderburg, University of California Riverside
209. Saptarshi Mandal, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat
210. Anannya Bohidar, Graduate Student, South Asia Studies, UPenn
211. Rahul Pandey, visiting faculty, IIM Lucknow
212. Tania Bhattacharyya, Columbia University
213. Aditi Sarkar, Architect, Las Cruces, New Mexico
214. Shakti Sathish Nambiar, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne
215. Maroona Murmu, Assistant Professor, Jadavpur University
216. Gayatri Chatterjee, Symbiosis School of Liberal Art
217. Sipra Mukherjee, Professor, West Bengal State University
218. Raja Swamy, Asst. Prof., Dept. of Anthropology, University of Tennessee
219. Anandavardhanan, Department of Mathematics, IIT Bombay
220. Priyanka Bhattacharya, The Doon School, Dehradun
221. Anuradha Roy, Jadavpur University
222. Ramesh Sreekantan, Statistics and Mathematics Unit Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore.
223. Srinath Jagannathan, Indian Institute of Management Indore
224. Tanima Sharma, PhD student, University of Chicago
225. Meena Alexander, City University of New York
226. Sharmila Sreekumar, IIT Bombay
227. Venkatesh K Subramanian, IIT Kanpur
228. Food Sovereignty Alliance, India
229. The Ghadar Alliance, US
230. Nandita Narain, St.Stephen’s College, Delhi University
231. Deepa Kurup, University of Oxford
232. Ramesh Bairy, IIT Bombay
233. Papori Bora, Jawaharlal Nehru University
234. Ritwik Balo
235. Ranjani Mazumdar, School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru University
236. PK Vijayan
237. Dr. Papia Sengupta, CPS/SSS
238. Krishna V V, CSSP/SSS
239. A.K. Ramakrishnan, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
240. Arunima S Mukherjee
241. George Chkhaidze
242. Elizabeth Abel
243. Dr. Kochurani Abraham, Kerala
244. Saumyajit Bhattacharya
245. Pradip Datta, Jawaharlal Nehru University
246. Rohit Azad, Center for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University
247. Deepak K Mishra, Jawaharlal Nehru University
248. Tulay Atay–Avsar, Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey
249. Dr. Vikas Bajpai, Jawaharlal Nehru University
250. Saradindu Bhaduri, Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi and ISS, The Hague
251. Dr Erica Wald, Goldsmiths, University of London
252. Navaneetha Mokkil
253. Manidipa Sen, Jawaharlal Nehru University
254. Ameet Parameswaran, Jawaharlal Nehru University
255. K. B. Usha, Jawaharlal Nehru University
256. Gopinath Ravindran
257. Avinash Kumar, CISLS, SSS, Jawaharlal Nehru University
258. Puja Rani, University of Delhi
259. Ritoo Jerath, Jawaharlal Nehru University
260. Hannah Carlan, Department of Anthropology, UCLA
261. Ganga Bhavani Manthini
262. Sucharita Sen, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
263. Dr. Mallarika Sinha Roy, Centre for Women’s Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
264. Archana Prasad, Jawaharlal Nehru University
265. Dinesh Abrol, Institute for Studies in Industrial Development.
266. Vikas Rawal, Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University
267. Sanjaya Kumar Bohidar, Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi University
268. Simona Sawhney, IIT Delhi
269. Dr. Debjani Sengupta, Indraprastha College for Women, University of Delhi
270. Anirban Gupta-Nigam, University of California, Irvine
271. Nandita Badami, University of California, Irvine
272. Sneha Gaddam, PhD Candidate, University of Leicester
273. Prabhu Mohapatra Department of History Univ of Delhi
274. Farida Khan, Univ. of Wisconsin Parkside
275. Pankaj Mehta, Dept. of Physics, Boston University
276. Tista Bagchi, University of Delhi
277. Ra Ravishankar, Bangalore
278. Sambuddha Chaudhuri, University of Pennsylvania
279. Ani Maitra, Colgate University
280. Ethel Brooks, Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Women’s and Gender Studies and Sociology, Rutgers University
281. Abha Dev Habib, Miranda House, University of Delhi
282. Surajit Mazumdar, Center for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University
283. Sonajharia Minz, Professor, School of Computer & Systems Sciences, JNU
284. Vinay Kumar Ambedkar
285. Naveen Gaur, Associate Professor, Dyal Singh College, University of Delhi
286. Margot Weiss, Wesleyan University
287. Vivekananda Mukherjee, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Jadavpur University
288. Dr Shakira Hussein, National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies, Asia Institute, University of Melbourne
289. Udaya Kumar, Professor, CES, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, JNU
290. Kriti Budhiraja, Graduate Student, University of Minnesota
291. Radhika Balakrishnan, Rutgers University
292. Seema Saha Poddar
293. Poulomi Saha, Assistant Professor of English, UC Berkeley
294. Swapnil Deshmukh, Mumbai University
295. Dr. Lata Singh, Associate Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
296. Tyler Feaver, Wright State University
297. Pavithra Vasudevan, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
298. Santosh Rohit Yerrabolu, Buffalo, NY
299. Professor V V Krishna, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, SSS, JNU
300. Ian Duncan, Professor of English, University of California, Berkeley
301. Bir singh, Asstt. Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Delhi
302. Amit Singh, Postdoctoral Fellow, Northwestern University
303. Poonam Srivastava, University of Chicago, Postdoc Researcher
304. Omnia El Shakry, University of California, Davis
305. Jhuma Sen, O.P. Jindal Global University, India
306. Corey Payne and Chase Alston, Co-Presidents of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Johns Hopkins University
307. Sankaran Krishna, Professor, Dept. of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa
308. Mytheli Sreenivas, Professor, Ohio State University
309. Preeti Shekar, Asian College of Journalism
310. Susan Himmelweit, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Open University, Walton Hall, UK
311. Kalyani Monteiro Jayasankar, Graduate Student, Princeton University
312. Nicolau Dols, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain
313. Kartik Misra, Graduate Student, Dept. of Economics, UMass, Amherst
314. Dolly Daftary, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan
315. Kunal Chattopadhyay, Professor of Comparative Literature, Jadavpur University
316. Soma Marik, Associate Professor of History, RKSM Vivekananda Vidyabhavan
317. Aditya Nigam, CSDS, Delhi
318. Pratiksha Baxi, Assoc. Prof., Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Johns Hopkins University
319. Arun Karthik B., Graduate Student, IIT-Kanpur
320. Manisha Sethi, Jamia Millia Islamia
321. Debaditya Bhattacharya, Asst. Prof., Nivedita College, University of Calcutta
322. Ahmed Sohaib, Jamia Millia Islamia, ​New Delhi
323. Michael Ash, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, UMass, Amherst
324. Ramya M. Vijaya Assoc. Professor of Economics, Stockton University, New Jersey
325. Sheila Walker, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Scripps College and Chair, Intercollegiate Department of Africana Studies, The Claremont Colleges
326. Debarshi Das, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India
327. Tarun Bhargava, Mtech Computer Science, IIT Kanpur
328. Rajita Menon, PhD candidate, Boston University
329. Kasturi Basu, People’s Film Collective, Kolkata
330. Daniel Pasciuti, Assistant Research Scientist, Johns Hopkins University
331. Aaron Barlow, Associate Professor of English New York City College of Technology (CUNY)
332. Rahul Thube, Ferguson College
333. Sugata Ray, Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science
334. Nimisha Patel, Wright State University
335. Mehrene Larudee, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
336. Jayadev Athreya, Director, Washington Experimental Mathematics Lab, University of Washington
337. Sunitha Gorty, alumni of HCU, MCA 93-96
338. Devika Narayan, University of Minnesota
339. Aravind Muthusamy, IIT Kanpur
340. Shruti Mukherjee, SUNY, New York
341. Marty Kich, Wright State University
342. Geetha Nambissan, Jawaharlal Nehru University
343. Ajay Bhardwaj, Ph.D. Student and Documentary Filmmaker, Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
344. Amy E. Alterman, Graduate Student, University of California Los Angeles
345. Baki Tezcan, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Davis
346. M Ghazi Shahnawaz, Jamia Millia Islamia, India
347. Jasbeer Musthafa, PhD Candidate, Western Sydney University, Australia
348. Eric Hoyt, PhD candidate, Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
349. Alka Acharya, School of International Studies, JNU
350. Urmimala Sarkar , Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
351. Margo Okazawa-Rey, Elihu Root Peace Fund Chair in Women’s Studies, Hamilton College
352. Sunaina Maira, Professor, University of California-Davis, USA
353. Snigdha Kumar, Delhi University
354. Diksha Dhar, Fulbright Nehru Doctoral Scholar, University of Pennsylvania
355. Dan Clawson, Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Amherst
356. Sanghamitra Misra, Assistant Prof, Department of History, University of Delhi
357. Rahul Govind, Assistant Professor, Department of History, University of Delhi
358. Sefika Kumral, Ph.D. Candidate, Johns Hopkins University
359. Priyanka Borpujari, Fulbright Scholar-In-Residence, Nazareth College, USA
360. Sharvari Sastry, University of Chicago.
361. Anita Cherian, University of Delhi
362. Shivarama Padikkal, Professor, University of Hyderabad
363. Dr Sushrut Jadhav, University College London
364. Dr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Professor and Head, Department of Social Work (Delhi School of Social Work), University of Delhi
365. Ghanshyam Shah (retired Professor), JNU
366. Joseph Mattam
367. Dhruva Narayan, Janam Foundation
368. Rohit Shukla, Prof. (retired) Economics, President, “Save Education” (Gujarat Chapter)
369. Sharit ​Bhowmik, National Fellow (Sociology), ICSSR, Chairperson, Labour Education and Research Network (LEARN)
370. Karuna Dietrich Wielenga, Newton International Fellow, Oxford
371. Shashank Kela, Writer
372. Sumi Krishna, Independent Scholar, Bengaluru
373. Ignacio López-Calvo, University of California, Merced
374. B. Karthik Navayan, Project Manager (Programmes) Business and Human Rights, Amnesty International India
375. Chandan Singh Dalawat, Professor, Harish-Chandra Institute
376. Prem Verma, Convenor, Jarkhand Nagrik Prayas, Jarkhand Alternative Development Forum
377. Shourjya Deb, PhD Candidate, Rutgers University
378. Ajit Menon, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai
379. Milan Dharel, Executive Secretary, Swatantrata Abhiyan Nepal
380. Manasi Pingle, Filmmaker
381. Shambhavi Prakash, JNU
382. Sukla Sen, EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity), Mumbai
383. Lyn Ossome, Makerere University
384. Kirity Roy, MASUM
385. Pujita Guha, JNU
386. Sudipto Basu, Jadavpur University
387. Aurobindo Ghosh, Peoples’ Rights Organization
388. Uday Prakash, Poet, Writer, Journalist and Filmmaker
389. Dipa Sinha, Ambedkar University
390. Shah Alam Khan, Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, AIIMS
391. Sudhir Katiyar, Majdur Adhikar Manch, Gujarat
392. Rajesh Chandra Kumar, TISS Mumbai
393. Abhishek Jha, IIT Roorkee
394. Ania Loomba, Catherine Bryson Professor of English, Univ of Pennsylvania
395. Veena Hariharan, JNU
396. Hussain Indorewala, Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute of Architecture
397. Carlo Buldrini, Deputy Director, Italian Cultural Center, New Delhi
398. Hadiya Jasbeer, Macquarie University
399. Kamayani Bali Mahabal, Feminist and Human Rights Activist, Mumbai
400. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson, Dept. of Sociology, South Asian Univ., Delhi
401. Pragya Singh, Teacher
402. Vishal Pratap Singh Deo, Univ. of Delhi
403. Suad Joseph, Distinguished Professor, UC Davis
404. Suroopa Mukherjee, Hindu College, Delhi University
405. Gautam Gupta, Prof., Dept. of Economics, Jadavpur University
406. Abani K. Bhuyan, University of Hyderabad
407. Vikram Vyas, St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University
408. Hemangi Kadlak, TISS Mumbai
409. Aparajita Sarcar, Queen’s University, Canada
410. Vinod Kumar, Assoc. Prof. of Law, National Law Univ., Delhi
411. Hugo Gorringe, Univ. of Edinburgh
412. Mihir Pandey, Ramjas College, Univ. of Delhi
413. Farha Noor, JNU
414. Ushmayo Dutta, Jadavpur University
415. Sanghita Sen, Univ. of St. Andrews, Scotland
416. Promona Sengupta, JNU
417. Padmini Swaminathan, Prof. , TISS Mumbai
418. Evy Mehzabeen, JNU
419. Sumi Madhok, London School of Economics
420. Dr Sunil Kumar ‘Suman’, Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi University
421. Vineet Tiwari, Poet, General Secretary, M. P. Progressive Writers’ Association
422. Dr. Jaya Mehta, Economist and Theatre Activist, Joshi-Adhikari Institute of Social Studies
423. Marieme Helie Lucas, Former Faculty Algiers University (Algeria), Coordinator SIAWI ( Secularism Is A Women’s Issue)
424. Anand Teltumbde, Professor, IIT, Kharagpur
425. Manoj Mitta
426. Kalpana Wilson, London School of Economics and Political Science
427. G Wankhede, Former Professor and Chairperson Center for Higher Education, Tata Institute of Social Sciences Deonar
428. Harmony Siganporia, Assistant Professor, Communications Area, MICA-India
429. Professor Shiv Ganesh, Head of School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing, Massey University
430. Professor Shereen Ratnagar, Independent Researcher
431. Srilata Sircar, Lund University, Sweden
432. Sridipta Ghatak
433. Chinnaiah Jangam, Carleton University, Canada
434. Snehlata, DSG
435. Neela Bhagwat
436. Ish Mishra, Delhi University
437. Jyoti Sinha, University of Massachusetts, Boston
438. Manishita Dass, Royal Holloway, University of London
439. Ania Loomba, University of Pennsylvania
440. Prachinkumar Ghodajkar, Jawaharlal Nehru University
441. Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Jawaharlal Nehru University
442. Krishna Menon, Lady Shri Ram College
443. Vidhu Verma, Jawaharlal Nehru University
444. Milind Bhawar
445. Amlan Das Gupta, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi
446. Jagdeep Chhokar, Professor (Retd), Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
447. Ovais Sultan Khan
448. Divas Vats
449. Ashish Kothari, Pune
450. Anirban, Visiting Doctoral Candidate, Freie University, Berlin
451. Neera Singh, University of Toronto, Canada
452. Rita Kothari, Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar
453. Fatima Shahzad, SOAS, University of London
454. Nicole Wolf, Goldsmiths, University London
455. Christi A Merrill, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan
456. Gagana N.V., NUJS, Kolkata
457. Tultul Biswas, MP Mahila Manch, Bhopal, MP
458. Emma Meyer, PhD candidate, Emory University
459. Priti Gulati Cox, Independent Artist, Kansas
460. Neela Bhagwat, Classical singer of Gwalior gharana
461. Geeta Patel, University of Virginia
462. Ashwini Deshpande, Prof., Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics
463. Indraneel Dasgupta, Prof., Economic Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute
464. Soumava Basu, Student, University of Utah
465. Nandini Dutta, Associate Professor, Economics, Miranda House, Delhi University
466. Arjun Mukerji, Asst. Prof., Dept. of Planning and Architecture, NIT Rourkela
467. Keya Ganguly, Professor, Dept. of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, Univ. of Minnesota
468. Dr. N.Bhattacharya, Retired Teacher, DU and ex-student, JNU
469. Megha Anwer, Purdue University
470. Dr. Sriparna Pathak
471. Archisman Ghosh, International Centre for Theoretical Sciences
472. Claudio Fogu, University of California Santa Barbara
473. M. Madhava Prasad, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad
474. Prof. Amit Bhattacharyya, Jadavpur University
475. Harry Cleaver, University of Texas at Austin
476. Alok Mukherjee, Distinguished Visiting Professor, Ryerson University
477. Christopher Forster-Smith, Johns Hopkins University
478. Benita Parry, Emeritus Professor, Univ of Warwick
479. Debashree Mukherjee, Columbia University
480. Allan Stewart-Oaten, Professor (Emeritus), University of California Santa Barbara
481. Jai Sen
482. Teresa Hubel, Professor and Chair, Huron University College
483. Uttama Ray, Rammohan College, Kolkata
484. Snehal Shingavi, UT Austin
485. Colleen Lye, UC Berkeley
486. Arun P. Mukherjee, York University, Canada
487. V. Sujatha, Professor and Chairperson, CSSS, JNU
488. Ismail Poonawala, Prof. of Arabic and Islamic Studies, UCLA
489. Sangeeta Chatterji, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
490. Amrita Basu, Amherst College
491. Anne Bellows, Prof. and Grad. Prog. Director, Food Studies, Syracuse Univ.
492. Dhananjay Ravat, Prof. of Geophysics, Univ. of Kentucky
493. Abhijit Gupta, Prof. of English, Jadavpur University
494. Sajni Mukherji, Retired Professor, Jadavpur University
495. Robert Zussman, Professor Emeritus, U Mass Amherst
496. Mrinalini Chakravorty, Assoc. Prof., Univ. of Virginia
497. Amrita Ghatak, Assoc. Prof., Gujarat Inst. of Development Research
498. Supriya Shukla, Freie University, Berlin, Germany
499. Divya Anand, Novartis Institutes of BioMedical Research
500. Nilima Sheikh
501. Indira Unninayar, Advocate, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court
502. Rachana Johri, Ambedkar University Delhi
503. Dhiman Chatterjee, Faculty Member,  IIT, Madras
504. Alok, McMaster University, Canada
505. Sanjam Ahluwalia, Dept. of History, Northern Arizona University
506. Sharmila Purkayastha, Miranda House
507. Gary Michael Tartakov, Iowa State University
508. Zahra Nikpour, Univ. of Padova, Italy
509. Amit Basole University of Massachusetts Boston
510. K.Gopal Iyer. Professor Emeritus. Punjab University, Chandigarh
511. Dr.Laxmi Berwa, M.D, F.A.C.P, Fort Belvoir, U.S.A
512. Annette Hunt, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
513. Shilpi Suneja, Writer
514. Peter Halewood, Professor of Law, Albany Law School
515. Bina Fernandez, University of Melbourne
516. Jenny Sharpe, Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Gender Studies, Department of English, University of California
517. Sanjay Joshi, Professor of History, Northern Arizona University
518. Colin Barker, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
519. Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Artist, Raqs Media Collective, Delhi
520. Syed Asad Raza, Executive, MPA, Syracuse University
521. Rakesh Nanjappa, PhD Candidate, SUNY College of Optometry
522. Sadanand Menon, Media Professional & Teacher, Chennai
523. Sana Das, PhD Scholar, IIT Delhi
524. Maya Krishna Rao, Shiv Nadar University
525. William Halewood, Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Toronto
526. Anupama Potluri, University of Hyderabad
527. Virendra Kamalvanshi, Inst. of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University
528. Sunalini Kumar, Lady Shriram College, Delhi University
529. Gautambala Gautam
530. Bronwyn Winter, University of Sydney
531. Abhijit Roy, Jadavpur University
532. Narayanan Menon, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
533. Rita Manchanda, South Asia Forum for Human Rights

This film, “The Story of the Lucas Aerospace Shop Stewards Alternative Corporate Plan” was made in 1978 for the Open University. It documents an unusual episode in British corporate history. Shop stewards from Lucas Aerospace, facing massive redundancies, developed their own plan to safeguard their jobs by moving the business into alternative technologies that would meet social needs, as well as new methods of production.