JL Austin & a priori crap

In his paper 'are there a priori concepts?', JL Austin asked

when we ask 'Do - we possess the concept?' what are we asking?

If x asks a question, we can ask x to clarify what exactly he is asking. What is a priori about an utterance is the intention of the utterer- even if the utterance is never actually made. 

Thus when my boss asked me if I possessed the concept of punctuality, it was not necessary for him to clarify that what he wanted to know was whether I understood I had to come to work at 9 A.M, not 2 P.M.  

If we are asking about some individual, or about some group of individuals, whether he or they 'possess the concept of redness', some meanings can well be attached to this expression.

Such an attachment would be arbitrary. I choose to think my boss's question means he thinks I've been working too hard & should take the rest of the week off.  Indeed, this is what he is asking me to do. This becomes the basis of my claim of unfair dismissal. However, the court does not uphold my complaint because they decide that what my Boss was asking was for me to come to work on time. This is the reasonable or canonical or 'natural' interpretation of the question. Mine was arbitrary & self-serving. 

We may well ask of people from a different culture whether their colour palette coincides with us when it comes to the colour red. The Himba tribe of northern Namibia is widely cited in linguistic and anthropological studies as a culture that does not categorize the colour blue as distinct from green. We may say that they don't have a separate concept of blue.

It might be supposed to mean, for example, 'Does he, or do they, understand the word "red"?' But that again needs further explanation; we shall almost certainly find that it is still ambiguous, and that, at least on many interpretations, no precise answer can be given as to whether the individual does or does not 'understand' the 'word'.

Nonsense! The person who asked the question can clear up any ambiguity. True, we can pretend otherwise. I could say 'punctuality' is ambiguous.  It could mean 'punch you actually' which is why I punched my boss. But, no reasonable person would uphold this view. 

Does the word 'red' matter? Would it not do if he used 'rouge' and understood that? Or even 'green' if he meant by that what most Englishmen mean by 'red'? And so on.

This is silly. It is psilosophy. Austin thinks

to ask 'whether we possess a certain concept?' is the same as to ask whether a certain word- or rather, sentences in which it occurs- has any meaning.

ask the guy using the word or sentence. He may say 'I was babbling nonsense. I didn't mean anything by it'. But if he intended something else, he can say so. If he is dead or unable to communicate, a Judge or other competent authority may 'read in' a meaning which best suits the case.  

whether that is a sensible question to ask, and if so how it is to be answered, I do not know: in any case, it is llkely to be ambiguous.

Only if that is the intention. Austin's philosophical practice was to create ambiguities where none need  exist.  

True, anyone can arbitrarily deny the existence or meaningfulness or logical compossibility of anything else. But why get our knickers in a twist over what nutters or awkward sods get up to? 

 Since it is going to be awkward, to say the least, to prove that a certain concept simply is not, it is tempting to try another way. Instead of maintaining that it does not exist, we maintain that it cannot exist. For instance, in certain cases we may hope to show that an 'idea' is 'self-contradictory', as Leibniz thought he could show of the 'infinite number' or Berkeley of 'matter'. 

Is 'a priori' a concept? If so, at least one concept is a priori. If not, either it isn't for an a priori reason- in which case it is- or it isn't for a non a priori reason. But such a reason presupposes a concept of a priori- just as 'non-unicorn' presupposes unicorn (even though unicorns don't exist).  Of course, one could say x does not exist for no reason at all. But that doesn't mean the concept of it doesn't exist. But what's the difference between saying 'the 'a priori' is a concept' & 'the concept of 'a priori' is a concept? 

Austin may be right to say philosophers are confused & thus they should not attempt to answer such questions. Indeed, we may go further. We may say they have shit for brains and should be retrained as pieces of office furniture. But the fact that a class of people are imbeciles doesn't mean anybody else needs to bother with 'linguistic analysis'. 

In 'the meaning of a word' Austin writes-

Suppose that in ordinary life I am asked: 'What is the meaning of the word racy?'

You might say 'ordinarily the word means risqué' but what is the context? Who used that word to you- was it a darkie with an accent? If so, he was calling you a racist. 

There are two sorts of thing I may do in response: I may reply in words, trying to describe what raciness is and what it is not, to give examples of sentences in which one might use the word racy, and of others in which one should not. Let us call this sort of thing 'explaining the syntactics' of the word 'racy' in the English language.

You'd only do this if you were qualified to teach English.  

On the other hand, I might do what we may call 'demonstrating the semantics' of the word, by getting the questioner to imagine, or even actually to experience, situations which we should describe correctly by means of sentences containing the words 'racy' 'raciness', &c., and again other situations where we should not use these words. This is, of course, a simple case: but perhaps the same two sorts of procedure would be gone through in the case of at least most ordinary words. And in the same way, if I wished to find out 'whether he understands the meaning of the word racy', I should test hm at some length in these two ways (which perhaps could not be entirely divorced from each other).

This is true only of a teacher of English or someone who feels a duty to correct people's use of the language according to their own conception of how it ought to be spoken.  

Having asked in ths way, and answered, 'What is the meaning of (the word) "rat"?', 'What is the meaning of (the word) "cat"?', 'What is the meaning of (the word) "mat"?', and so on, we then try, being phlosophers, to ask the further general question, 'What is the meaning of a word?'

Its meaning unless a cypher is being used or catachresis has occurred etc. 

But there is something spurious about this question.

It sounds like a 'brain-fart' like when a tired teacher asks 'who was the author of James Joyce's Ulysses?'  

We do not intend to mean by it a certain question which would be perfectly all right, namely, 'What is the meaning of (the word) "word"?': that would be no more general than is asking the meaning of the word 'rat', and would be answered in a precisely similar way.

Questions of this sort are evidence of ignorance- in the case of foreigners- or intense stupidity. You may say 'they are a step above a 'brain-fart' but not much more than that. A discipline which concerns itself with either is degenerate. Why was this not obvious at the time? 

Das Kapital- Chapter 1

In the Foreword to his magnum opus, Karl Marx wrote 

Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences.

If you begin with a false premise you aren't doing science.  

To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty.

It is easy to understand. Sadly it is utter shit.  

That which concerns more especially the analysis of the substance of value and the magnitude of value, I have, as much as it was possible, popularised.

You have shat on it. The substance of value is the substance of a thing which is valuable. In the case of bullion, it is a precious metal. In the case of sheep, it is mutton & wool. The magnitude of value is expressed by numbers. One sheep is less valuable than two sheep. Marx was too stupid to understand this.  

The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form,

Money is a one type of asset. There were already far more sophisticated types of negotiable instrument. 

is very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all,

But Karl was such a genius he didn't just get to its bottom but made it his bitch.  

whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation. Why? Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that body.

Now the fucker thinks he is a medical genius.  

In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use.

Nor is a head full of shit. 

The force of abstraction must replace both.

Abstraction has no force. If a stupid shithead is doing the abstracting, it is shit. Karl was a cretin.  

Chapter 1: Commodities Section 1: The Two Factors of a Commodity: Use-Value and Value (The Substance of Value and the Magnitude of Value) The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”

 Nonsense! You might see big big piles of wool or wheat in some feudal shithole. You won't see any at all on the Stock Exchange or the conference rooms of Merchant Banks.   

its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.

None is needed. It is a Tarskian primitive. If the thing is on sale, its a commodity. If you can't buy or sell it, it isn't.  

A commodity is, in the first place,

fungible- i.e. interchangeable rather than unique. But, for such to be the case, there must be market-makers who procure &  & make merchantable a standardized product. 

an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.

Nobody knows what 'satisfied human wants'. Market makers & entrepreneurs have expectations in this regard as do consumers.  

The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.

Yes it does. There are somethings which stomachs are capable of digesting. There are other things which are poison. That is why if you are in the food business, you have to observe different health codes than if you are in the entertainment business.  

Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.

Because what Marx is here concerned with is useless shite. If you are a producer or consumer you need to know the determinants of demand & supply.  

Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity.

this may be done by those engaged in a wholly useless or mischievous activity.  

It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.

No. It is the work of scientists, technologists, entrepreneurs, inventors etc. Marx had shit for brains.  

So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects.

Fuck that! A better standard of measure is like a better mouse-trap. A path to your door will be beaten by- not society as a whole- but those interested in making more money or producing a thing more economically.  

The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.

because that's how language works.  But language doesn't matter greatly in economics. 

The utility of a thing makes it a use value.

Only if the smell of a thing makes it a smell value or the fact that you shove it up your arse makes it an anal dildo value. People have expectations regarding the usefulness of a thing. Often they are wrong. I keep buying kitchen appliances which I never use.  

But this utility is not a thing of air.

Expectations could be described as such. They don't exist in any tangible manner though we can infer them easily enough. This is called 'revealed preference'.  

Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity.

Nonsense! Gold is a commodity. A legal claim to gold has great utility and has an existence apart from the commodity. But this is true of anything which is fungible in a certain manner. 

A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful.

No. Lots of things which existed in Marx's time had no 'use value' but would become very valuable at a later point. Uranium was discovered in 1798. It became useful a century later. 

This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities.

It is not a property of the commodity. It is an expectation in the mind of a user or potential user of it. Marx might as well say 'Kingliness is a property of Kings. A King is a king even if no labour is expended on his coronation or other ceremonies of state. Also, his Mum wouldn't have needed to go into labour in order for him to be born.'  

When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron.

No. You work with estimates & probability distributions.  

The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.

As commerce burgeons, the statistical sciences burgeon. This cunt knew nothing of a developments in commercial insurance which had been going on in London since the late seventeenth century.  

Use values become a reality only by use or consumption:

They are not a reality. They are a predicate applied to something which may or may not be tangible. Marx commits the fallacy of accident- fallacia accidentis- by thinking what is true of a merchantable commodity is true of thing being sold. Thus, when I buy a k.g. of potatoes, I am buying something merchantable. This does not means any and every potato is merchantable. It is likely that some processing has to supervene before merchantability is attained. I may say 'potatoes are found in the grocery store'. But it is no part of the 'essence' (what is true of a thing in all possible worlds) of a tuber that it be found in a shop. 

they also constitute the substance of all wealth,

A lot of wealth is a legal claim to future payments- e.g. rent, interest, profits- or a claim to assets of various sorts- e.g. land, buildings, intellectual property etc.  

whatever may be the social form of that wealth.

There is a legal form of wealth. That is its social form. True, as a manner of speaking, we may say 'health is the true wealth' or 'love alone is worth prizing' or 'gaining God's grace is the best of treasures'.  

In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

There is realty- which is specific. For commodities, there is fungibility-  the ability of an asset or commodity to be exchanged or substituted with other identical units of the same type and value, with no loss of value.

Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort, a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.

The commodity is defined by merchantability- i.e. is fit for its ordinary purpose, being of average quality, adequately packaged, etc. It is not an inherent attribute. 

Let us consider the matter a little more closely. A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. – in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions.

Only if there is a market with market makers. Otherwise, all we can say is that x was exchanged for y at time t.  

Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many.

If there are market makers then there may be a vector of this sort. Otherwise, there is only the value at which a particular exchange took place.  

But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other.

Only if some market-maker stipulates thus. But they won't. They will offer a 'spread'- i.e. a buy price and a sell price.  

Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.

It is a predicate & isn't any more or less phenomenal than anything else. 

Let us take two commodities, e.g., corn and iron. The proportions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those proportions may be, can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron: e.g., 1 quarter corn = x cwt. iron.

No. There will always be a 'spread'- i.e. a profit for the market-maker. Otherwise, all there is is a particular transaction at a particular time and place- e.g. Smith exchanged 1 ton of corn for 1 ton of iron with Jones last Tuesday at Paddington.  

What does this equation tell us? It tells us that in two different things – in 1 quarter of corn and x cwt. of iron, there exists in equal quantities something common to both.

No. We merely learn that Smith & Jones made such and such transaction. We don't know if this is the 'market clearing' price- i.e. everybody could sell & buy at this price.  

The two things must therefore be equal to a third, which in itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange value, must therefore be reducible to this third.

No. A market-maker (or a bunch of them) may offer a 'spread' & this may 'clear the market'- i.e. there is no excess supply or demand at the end of trading.  

A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, we decompose them into triangles.

Rectangles, not triangles.  

But the area of the triangle itself is expressed by

some guy for some purpose 

something totally different from its visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base multiplied by the altitude.

This assumes the embedding space is Euclidean.  

In the same way the exchange values of commodities must be capable of being expressed

by some guy for some particular purpose 

in terms of something common to them all, of which thing they represent a greater or less quantity.

One particular commodity can be used as the 'numeraire'. Every price can be expressed in its terms- e.g. in prison, we might say a can of soup is worth five cigarettes while a tube of toothpaste is worth ten cigarettes. But this depends on the existence of 'market-makers'- i.e. guys with a bunch of ciggies who trade them in the hope of making a profit- i.e. ending up with more ciggies or stuff which can be exchanged for them.  

This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities.

It could be. Suppose some ciggies contain more tobacco than others. They will trade at a premium.  

Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value.

No. It is characterised by total contingency. I need my ciggie now and trade it for toothpaste though I will regret this later on.  

Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says, “one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”

Only if a market maker makes this stipulation- except, there won't be an equation. There will be a spread between selling and buying price. Marx lived in a City where there were a lot of brokers and arbitrageurs of various sorts. He is pretending they didn't make a profit. They risked their money & expended their time in a purely altruistic spirit. 

Even if a non-profit enterprise undertook market making, it would charge a commission to cover its costs- including cost of funds, & the price of 'hedging' (insuring against risks).  

As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.

No. They are still of different qualities. The more perishable the commodity the more it will trade at a discount. Non perishables which are high value to weight trade at a premium. This means the 'spread' is differs because of specific qualities- e.g. perishability.  

If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour.

No. The only common property is that market-makers are involved. They may be trading cowrie shells they picked up at the beach or using such cowrie shells to bet on a cock fight. 

Incidentally, most of the things which are the product of labour aren't commodities.  

But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands.

Which is why we don't want your grubby hands touching anything we produced with much labour.  

If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing.

Nonsense! If you bid on a house at an auction you see it as a house. True, you may expect to 'flip' it at a profit but that is because of the type of house it is and where it is located and what value you think you can add to it.  

Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.

Utterly false. Nobody is thinking of the human labour which went into a thing. They are thinking of who might want to buy it at a higher price at some later time. True, there is an element of risk involved. But some people may be better at assessing risk & they can succeed as market-makers.  

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure.

Nonsense! The fact that some labour has been expended on a thing does not protect it from destruction. In any case, human labour is not homogenous.  

All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them.

Energy of various types has been expended on producing a thing and this will be reflected in its cost of production which is a determinant of the market supply of the commodity. The number of man-hours involved may be insignificant relative to the cost of electricity expended.  

Not all products are traded on open markets. Where there is 'administered pricing' & excess demand is denoted by longer waiting time- one might say that the per unit labour cost plays a role in determining price. If this is equated to the marginal cost- i.e. the wage is determined by the marginal productivity of the last worker hired- then, in a Malthusian society, you would have 'the iron law of wages'- i.e. population expansion would keep wages at just the subsistence level. But wages are not set on open markets and, in any case, this would only hold true for the 'fix-price' sector of the economy. 

When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.

No. Only stuff taken to market gets assigned a price- if it sells. The 'crystals' of society are people. It is foolish to pretend every man has his price & is constantly selling himself for filthy lucre.  

We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value.

We have seen the opposite every day. You buy x but find it not to be of merchantable quality. You return it and get a refund. Maybe the seller can sell it at a lower price for some other purpose- e.g. spoiled milk may be sold to the cheesemaker for a lower price.  

But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above.

No. Use value is itself an abstraction or generalisation from something observed- viz. people buying some things but not others. We assume they get some use from it. But they may be speculators- e.g. the Dutch tulip mania where people drove up the price of the thing hoping to sell at a bigger profit.  

Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value.

But those values differ. Sure you can say all value is Value or all weight is weight or all height is height. But, this is non informative. It is a tautology of a puerile type.  

The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed.

Nonsense! Consider the gold in a gold mine. Specialist surveyors with knowledge of geology will give different estimates as to the quantity of recoverable ore. Valuation will be based on some such estimate. The gold mine may be sold- i.e. have exchange value- on the basis of this estimate. 

For the present, however, we have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its form.

This is like considering the nature of the height of a person independent of his body.  

A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it.

A person has height only because height has been embedded in him. All three dimensional things have height. If they have value or are useful or are capable of being inserted into your anus it is because height is the property common to all. This proves that History must ineluctably empower tall people over shorties.  

How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by

money or the numeraire (e.g. cigarettes used as currency in a prison) 

the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article.

It is irrelevant. That is why my books- upon which I have expended a lot of labour- are worthless.  

The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours.

Time is measured in that way. The quantity of labour is established by 'head-count'. 

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be,

Nobody has ever thought that. They did think that if labour was more productive, things would be cheaper for everybody.  

because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour,

there is no such thing. Sadly, there is also no homogenous Capital or Entrepreneurship or Sexiness. Capital theory is as useless as Marxian theory.  

expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society,

Fuck off! An oil rich Emirate may not have much labour power but it may have very high per capita GDP 

counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society,

all people are the same height in so far as they have the character of average height.  

and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary.

Nobody knows what that is. If asked how tall you are, you reply that you are as tall as it is socially necessary to be, you have not revealed any information save that you have shit for brains.  

The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.

Some 'work study' experts may establish this for a particular industry at a particular time. But no 'social necessity' is involved.  

The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth.

Mechanisation of spinning meant that yarn became cheaper thus permitting handloom weavers to gain higher wages for a couple of decades before weaving itself became mechanised. This was a brief golden age.  

The handloom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

No. If the handloom weaver produced the same type of cloth as the power loom then his wage fell. But if he shifted to producing something differentiated by quality (higher thread count) or style then the market might permit him to take home a higher wage than previously- more particularly if he could afford to buy one of the new 'dandy looms'. But the number of people in that line of work would tend to drop. There was little point being apprenticed to a dying trade. 

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.

We would see that only if we were stupid enough to see that a person is as tall as it is socially necessary for him to be. But why stop there? Why not speak of the smelliness of one's farts as being no more than is socially necessary?  

Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.

No. Each is compared to the average and either marked down or up on that basis. The price of cotton is 10. Inferior cotton sells at 7. Superior cotton can go up to 15. We also speak of people as being taller or shorter than average.  

Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value.

They may do. They may not. Chances are, if inferior cotton was used, this will be reflected in the price of the finished article.  

The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other.

My height is to your height as is the height it is socially necessary for me to be relative to the height it is socially necessary for you to be. Does that answer your question as to whether I am taller than you or, as you suspect, a malignant little dwarf? 

“As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”

None are. Also your height isn't congealed tallness.  

The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant.

No. The price of raw materials & the interest rate & cost of transport & level of taxes etc. would also be relevant.  

But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour.

It may do. It may not. If labour can capture the reward for the increase in productivity, then per unit labour cost remains the same. England, when Marx first arrived, had seen some decrease in real wages for certain types of manual labour. This is why about a million emigrated between 1814-1845. But England was also attracting immigrants & had strong demographic growth. In the second half of the nineteenth century there was real wage growth for all classes as well as increased social mobility. With the ending of the Corn Laws, the landed gentry's ability to extract rent declined though rising agricultural productivity meant that there was no depression till the 1880s. However, the Ricardian complaint against the landlords no longer had the same 'bite'. Still, Henry George's theories were welcomed in the UK though, because of the importance of collective bargaining, a modified Marxian theory became mainstream on the Left. Still, Marx was seen more as a polemicist than a systematic thinker. His labour theory of value was interpreted merely as the cry that it was the English worker who had raised the country to greatness. Nothing wrong with that. The English genuinely were and are hard workers with a gift for innovation. This does not make the country immune to structural unemployment but it does greatly ameliorate the welfare effects of economic change. 

Vivek's Veronica's Polish Notation.

Today, in the steam room of the gym, an old, garrulous, Pole

Very bitter against black girls, thus, my thunder, stole

Telling me of her own myriad poems she mercilessly burned

After a decade of longing & a love all had spurned

Till, one night, she raped the young priest for whom she kept house

& did so again & again- the boy trembled, quiet as a mouse,

Then, she left for London & a job as a Montessori nurse

Babies, the phoenix, rising from the ashes of verse.

Because I'm not a girl & a different type of black

My nunc dimittis can't be taken back

Such the ex nihilo logic of the Rood's Sixth Station

Vivek's Veronica's, Reverse Polish Notation

I asked Copilot to help me turn this illiterate shite into a proper English poem. It refused because of the reference to rape. Yet, if there is a 'Vera eikon' (true image) of Christ then, absent heiros gamos, some such thing happens- if only in the 'virgin womb of the imagination where the Word is made flesh'. Every Christian maiden rapes Christ to give birth to a Christian baby. This is the corollary to John Donne's Holy Sonnet on the Church- as 'Christ's bride- so bright & clear' whose hubby is less cuckold than pimp. 

Dwells she with us, or like adventuring knights

First travel we to seek, and then make love?

Betray, kind husband, thy spouse to our sights,

And let mine amorous soul court thy mild Dove,

Who is most true and pleasing to thee then

When she'is embrac'd and open to most men.

Dr. Munusamy on Indian Federalism

People who think India is a 'Federation' should also believe that there was no British Empire. There was a federation between India & Britain. Queen Victoria's real name was Vasantha Maharani. 

The Supreme Court asserts its absolute right to 'do complete justice' under Article 142. Sadly, it has to rely on the Centre to enforce its judgments. In other words, even if it supports Federalism, it can only make that support meaningful to the extent that the Union is willing to play along. 

 Dr. Kiruba Munusamy- a Supreme Court advocate & legal scholar- has a good article on the LSE blog which, in a spirit of pure farce, speaks of 

The Dynamics of Federalism in the Constitution of India

The Brits had wanted India to be Federal. The Indians decided to have a unitary state though they had to work with what existed and only gradually change the borders of existing administrative entities. There is no 'Federalism' in the Indian Constitution. What doesn't exist can't have a dynamics. True, I could say 'India was created for the purpose of cat worship. The Constitution of India can be viewed as displaying the dynamics of the realisation of cat-worship on a wider & vaster scale.' But telling a stupid lie doesn't make it true even if many Indians think cat-worship is what Dr. Ambedkar dedicated his life to.  

The authors of India’s Constitution were clear that it was important to have a ‘strong, united Centre’;

& that India should not be federal- i.e. dual sovereignty was off the table.  

yet, federalism is a core part of the dynamic relationship between the Union and States.

Only in the sense that cat-worship is. Did you know that when Mamta sends Modi mangoes, what she is really doing is demanding that a big temple be built for her pussy? 

The enduring question of the autonomy of States in India reasserted itself recently with Tamil Nadu resolutely reclaiming its federal rights amid an increasingly centralising Union.

It has no 'federal rights'. It did have a right to approach the Bench, under Article 32,  to remedy what it considered an injustice. But everybody has such a right.  

It is true that the lawyers for TN urged that the 'basic structure' was federal, but that was not the ratio of the judgment. It was simply the notion that the President (& by extension the Governor) is a ceremonial head. Where assent is withheld there is no 'political thicket' (doctrine of political question) & the matter is justiciable- i.e. the Bench will decide. 

It should be said that Bommai (1994) makes Federalism, as conceived by the British 1935 Act,  part of the 'basic structure' of the constitution. However, what the Court meant by Federalism was what had obtained at that time- viz. no Federalism whatsoever. The Viceroy could dismiss any Ministry he didn't like. Interestingly, the Bench relied on Bommai to uphold the Centre's actions in J&K. Essentially, the Centre can do what it likes if it says there is a constitutional direction of the Central government which is being disregarded by the state government.

In a landmark judgment delivered in April 2025 in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of Tamil Nadu in a petition filed against the Governor of the State, who had indefinitely withheld assent to several bills passed by the State Legislative Assembly.

It may be that a future Bench will say that the 'basic structure' is Federal. But then there is dual sovereignty which has previously been denied by the judiciary. If so, how can the Centre enforce the Supreme Court's directions? Indeed, on what basis would the Supreme Court be able to override High Court decisions? 

Besides reiterating the authority of States to legislate on matters assigned to them under the Constitution of India, as well as the obligations of the Governor therein, the Court also stipulated a reasonable time frame for the President of India and Governors of States to act in accordance with their mandates as outlined in the Constitution.

The judgment refers to the tussle between President Prasad & Prime Minister Nehru over the Hindu Code Bill. The Attorney General advised that the President was like the British monarch & was obliged to accept what had been passed by parliament.  

In an exceptionally rare move, the President of India subsequently referred the matter to the Supreme Court (per Article 143), seeking advice on whether such time stipulations could be imposed on the President and Governors in the exercise of their Constitutional functions relating to assent to bills.

In other words, the President was asserting that the Bench had not already settled the question. 

While acts like the Governor withholding assent and the Presidential reference are criticised as attempts to bypass Constitutional precepts, there is another question: how does the Constitution of India safeguard State autonomy within its federal structure?

There is no autonomy & no federal structure. What exist are States & Union Territories which have legislatures (unless they are under President's Rule) and which have specific legal rights & obligations. 

Article 1 of the Constitution delineates India as a ‘Union of States’, comprising regions that have been organised into States and as Union Territories. While the States have their own elected governments with legislative and administrative powers,

they may do. They may not.  

the Union Territories are directly administered by the Central Government. Certain Union Territories like Delhi and Puducherry have been granted legislatures for historical and administrative reasons.

What the Centre gives, the Centre can take away.  

Under Article 245 of the Constitution, the Central Government (through the Parliament) may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, whereas the State through its Legislative Assemblies may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.

But Union Law takes precedence.  

In contrast, the powers of the legislatures in the Union Territories are limited.

As are the powers of State legislatures.  

The governance of these regions is thus divided between the Union, State and Concurrent Lists under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

No. Governance is unitary. Specific revenue raising & spending are apportioned to different entities.  

In this framework, the Central Government is empowered to decide and legislate on subjects of national importance such as defence, foreign affairs, citizenship, inter-state trade and commerce, and other matters that require uniformity among the States.

No. It can do what it likes. It holds all residuary control rights. Its actions are not subject to any test- e.g. whether it is for the purpose of promoting uniformity. It is true, that anybody at all can approach the Bench & the Bench may be foolish enough to make a judgment which the Executive refuses to implement. At that point, the Bench has to capitulate or else be wholly disintermediated. It is important to remember that even if the Bench blocks a particular way of getting a thing done, there are myriad other methods to achieve the same object.  

Conversely, State Governments are vested with autonomy to self-govern and exercise control over subjects of local and regional significance specified in the State List such as police, public health, agriculture, public services, local government, etc allowing for the administration appropriate to the region.

There are 'Autonomous District Councils' in the North East but there is no real autonomy. The Brits had envisaged Provincial Autonomy as the first step to the creation of a Federation. India rejected both provincial autonomy & a federal structure.  Still, secessionists may want to pretend such was not the case. But then, cat lovers may want to pretend that there is a Directive Principle re. cat worship. 

The Concurrent List, which includes subjects like education, forests, criminal law, and marriage, refers to those matters where both the Union and the States can legislate; in case of a conflict, Union prevails.

So, there is delegation, not dual sovereignty of the American type.  

The legislatures of Union Territories can make laws on most subjects in the State List and Concurrent List, especially on routine matters like health, education, and transport. However, the Delhi legislature is constitutionally prohibited from exercising power on critical areas such as public order, police, and land.

How is this relevant? The fact that power of various sorts has been delegated doesn't mean a Federation exists.  

While this division of powers

there is delegation from the Union to the States & Territories. However, a Court may find that a particular action of the Union is ultra vires because of some act of omission or commission.  

provides a structural foundation for federal governance,

There is no division & no foundation what soever for 'federal governance'. It is a different matter that you can say 'India has some of the features of a Federation' but one can also say 'India looks to me like a cat worshipping country. Mamta's pussy, in particular, is greatly revered.'  

the degree of autonomy bestowed upon the States varies according to the historical context and terms of their integration into the Indian Union.

No. They are all in the same boat. None has a 'shred of sovereignty'. 

For example, by virtue of the clauses in the Instrument of Accession to India, Jammu and Kashmir was granted a special status under Article 370 of the Constitution (abrogated in 2019).

In 2016, the Bench said it had 'no shred of sovereignty'. There is a long history of such decisions. Why is Dr. Munusamy pretending otherwise? The answer is that a lawyer may lie about the law if that is in the interest of her client. If she is elevated to the Bench, hopefully, she will follow the law of the land.  

Per this special Article, Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constitution and retained autonomous powers in all internal matters relating to the State except for foreign affairs, defence and communication.

This didn't stop Nehru jailing Abdullah for 11 years.  The fact is the Kashmir Constitution was more draconian- indeed, it permitted the jailing of Abdullah's son & grandson thanks to a law he himself brought in. 

Similarly, Nagaland, which became a new State of the Union in 1963, has a special status under Article 371A, based on the 16-Point Agreement between the Government of India and the Naga People’s Convention (NPC) in 1960.

Hilarious! Nagaland was declared as ‘disturbed area’ in 1972 . The 'Armed Force Special Powers Act' was enacted on September 1, 1972 which gave a wide extension of power to the Armed forces of India making them able to shoot or detain any Naga on mere suspicion of insurgency

Accordingly, neither the provisions of the Constitution nor any law passed by Parliament shall apply to or interfere with Naga religious or social practices, customary law and procedures, administration of civil and criminal justice, and the ownership and transfer of land and its resources unless the State Legislative Assembly approves it through a resolution. Similar special status on different subjects has been granted to several other States under Article 371 in Part XXI of the Constitution.

So what. Such laws existed under the British. This didn't mean their Empire was actually a Federation.  

The scheme of federal governance and the special provisions with respect to certain States collectively demonstrates that the Constitution of India did not seek to establish a centralised–uniform nation but rather a Union grounded in diversity and pluralism.

No. It demonstrates that India was poor and had to proceed slowly. But it killed secessionists with vim and vigour. There was no fucking Federalism. Instead there was a Dynasty much more autocratic than that of England's. 

If so, then why does the Constitution contain unitary features?

It is unitary. It isn't federal though Nehru & Co. had to proceed with a certain amount of guile till the Princely States were integrated & the Muslims & Commies were crushed.  

The Indian Federation — as articulated by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee B. R. Ambedkar, and the Constituent Assembly — emerged from European colonisation and was formed through the annexation of British provinces and princely states, albeit not by mutual agreement but by historical necessity.

This is nonsense. There was no annexation. There was a transfer of power. India & Pakistan became Dominions. Both chose a unitary, not a Federal, form of Government. Malaysia is Federal. Burma, India, Sri Lanka etc. aren't federal. They are unitary.  

With Pakistan already a separate nation, the framers of the Constitution had even more reasons to establish a stronger Union Government at the Centre. This was to ensure national unity and safeguard against external threats.

Indians didn't want a Federation because sooner or later there would be Civil War.  

Speaking of the form of the forthcoming Constitution, Ambedkar, who advocated for ‘a strong united Centre, much stronger than the Centre […] created under the Government of India Act of 1935’, explained in the Constituent Assembly that

… the Draft Constitution can be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirements of time and circumstances. In normal times, it is framed to work as a federal system. But in times of war, it is so designed as to make it work as though it were a unitary system.

Ambedkar was lying through his teeth. He didn't want a Federation for the same reason that Nehru, Patel, Prasad etc. didn't want it. Hindu society needed to be reformed from top to bottom. The more backward areas needed such reform even more than the big cities. Regionalism was associated with feudal customs & practices. Centralization was associated with modernity & progress.  

This suggests that the unitary features that positioned the Union at the Centre and granted overriding powers of regional autonomy of the States under Articles 352–60 in Part XVIII of the Constitution were not intended to be expansive but restricted to emergencies.

Only in the sense that it suggests that Ambedkar wanted us all to worship Mamta's pussy. The problem with telling stupid lies is that anybody can tell an even more stupid lie.  

The Constitution confers Executive power of the Union and the States upon the President of India and the Governors of each State (appointed by the President) respectively.

No. It vests power- i.e. is unconditional. Conferral may be conditional. Since Governors aren't elected, it is clear there is no federalism in India.  

These are authorities responsible for the governance of the Union and the State according to the Constitution, including assenting to bills passed by the Parliament and the Legislative Assembly of the State. When questioned about the Union abusing Emergency powers through the ceremonial heads (President and Governor), Ambedkar remarked that such provisions were expected to ‘remain a dead letter’, never to be brought into effect.

He was lying. So what? It was in a good cause.  

Nevertheless, following the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, Article 356 was invoked to impose President’s Rule by dissolving the Legislative Assembly in various States. On one such occasion, S. R. Bommai (former Chief Minister of the dissolved government of Karnataka State), approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutional basis of the use of Emergency powers. The Supreme Court, deciding whether Article 356 could be invoked only when the State government fails or when it refuses to comply with directions issued by the Union government in `), held that


Article 356 empowers the President of India to exercise the provision only in case of failure of constitutional machinery in the States, i.e. when … a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The power conferred by Article 356 upon the President is a conditioned power … [which] should be used very sparingly ….

All power is such where a matter is justiciable.  

This decision further reinforced the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors vs State of Kerala and Anr (1973) which declared that the federal governance guaranteeing autonomy to States constitutes a fundamental feature of the Constitution which the Parliament could not alter, and is therefore indestructible.

This was one reason why judicial autonomy was curbed. For the last three decades the pendulum has swung the other way but this may change. 

As evident from Constituent Assembly debates, the indestructibility or the permanency of the federal structure was not merely a judicial interpretation but a conscious inclusion by the makers of the Constitution.

The opposite is the case. Essentially, after the killing of Rajiv, there was a period when politicians agreed to curb the power of the Centre just in case the Dynasty returned to power. Another way to get to the same result is to have simultaneous State and Central elections.  

They recognised that a Constitutional foundation was crucial not just for federalism to function effectively but also for the working of democracy in India.

Some Democracies have constitutions. Others don't. Plenty of military dictatorships have Constitutions. The thing has no magic power. 

Justifying the inclusion of administrative components in the Constitution, Ambedkar argued that ‘while […] the diffusion of constitutional morality

the Brits have fucked off. We must try to become more like the Brits. Otherwise we will give ear to some Mahacrackpot & our country will turn to shit.  

is necessary for the peaceful working of a democratic Constitution […] administration has a close connection with the form of the Constitution. The form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the Constitution.’

Ambedkar dismissed his contribution to the Constitution as 'hack work'. Still, he did his bit for the good of the new nation.  

Ambedkar further warned that even without formally amending the Constitution, ‘it is […] possible to pervert the Constitution […] by merely changing the form of the administration […] to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution.’

Like his colleagues, the fellow could talk the hindlegs off a donkey.  

At the same time, Ambedkar was also deeply sceptical of relying on political actors to uphold Constitutional ideals which, he noted in the Constituent Assembly: ‘… constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated [….] Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic. In these circumstances it is wiser not to trust the Legislature to prescribe forms of administration.’

This was important. What the Constitution is really about is ensuring Civil Servants don't get sacked or lose their pensions no matter how corrupt and incompetent they are.  

This foresight of Ambedkar about the potential undermining of Constitutional ideals through administrative manipulation led to the embedding of administrative norms and federal features directly within the text of the Constitution, rather than leaving them to legislative discretion.

No. What was created was 'justiciability'. Sadly, if Courts are ignored the thing is a dead letter. The plain fact is Judges stayed very quiet when extra-judicial killing was done on an industrial scale.  

This makes evident that State autonomy within the federal framework was not merely an administrative convenience but a core expression of the Constitution’s foundational ethos.

It simply didn't exist, Bommai notwithstanding. Why did dismissals become more infrequent? The answer was the Anti-Defection Bill on the one hand and, on the other, that the Election Commission, thanks to Seshan, upped its game. There is no point toppling a State Administration if you can't capture booths & get your people elected.  

Therefore, on the 75th anniversary of the Constitution of India, it is imperative to reaffirm that State autonomy enshrined in the federal structure is an integral part of the basic structure of Indian constitutional democracy and not a matter of discretion of the Union.

There is no federal structure. Nobody knows what 'basic structure' is. No two benches share the same view. One may say that the Centre has to be more discrete or devious in pulling down an Opposition State.  But, suppose the cretin Rahul gets a big majority. He may do any sort of stupid shit. Only the fear of assassination restrains him but he might decide that his mastery of Aikido has made him bullet proof. What of Tamil Nadu? Stalin has revived the secession threat & Rahul has said stupid things 'e.g. India is like EU' (i.e. countries can secede). Udhaynidhi may be a true believer. Why not emulate the Tamil Tigers? They did well for themselves- right? 

Harsh Mander's imaginary Federalism.

The British wanted India to have a Federal structure- just like Canada, Australia, South Africa etc. Congress- more particularly Nehru- opposed this strongly. However, they may have accepted Federalism had there been no Partition. Once that happened, the vast majority of Indians wanted and got a Unitary constitution with a Centre strong enough to create or redefine States & Union Territories. As the Supreme Court said in 2016, no Indian territory of State has 'a shred of sovereignty'. America has dual sovereignty. It is Federal.  India does not. It is unitary.

Harsh Mander was an IAS officer. He should know this just as well as any High School student. Yet, he writes in the deeply anti-national Scroll. 

 Language, local governance and finance – the debates that defined Indian federalism

There is no federalism because

1)  there had to be linguistic re-organization 

2) local governance meant famine & ethnic cleansing- as in Muslim League ruled Bengal. The Centre had to take power from the states. It could impose President's Rule & use extra-judicial killing on an industrial scale to contain insurgencies of various types. 

3) India could not rely on the British Army & Navy. The Centre had to have much more money so as to fund the military. 

The post-2014 assault on India’s federal democracy

is a myth.  

follows decades of the uneven implementation and erosion of federalism.

Nehru did have to go at a slower pace than he might have wished. But Indira was a different kettle of fish. She had no compunction in dismissing the Communist Government in Kerala. Under her rule there was no such thing as 'States' rights'. It would be safe to say non-Congress parties are more inclined to 'States' rights' because they fear another Dynastic autocrat of limited intelligence.  

The Indian federation under Narendra Modi today is vastly different from the “union of states” imagined by the constituent assembly.

They couldn't be sure the people of at least some of the Princely States might not be loyal to their traditional rulers. However, by the end of the Sixties, India was wholly unitary. The Princes didn't count for shit. Nor did Chief Ministers. Indira was India & India, far from being a 'soft state', was well hard. Heath's Emergency was a miserable failure. Indira's Emergency was a stunning success.  The Bench, wen asked to bend, chose to crawl. Millions of men were forcibly sterilized.  

There are many aspects to this. Take the growing marginalisation of Parliament

Parliament is only marginal if the ruling party has a big majority. Modi currently is head of a coaltion government. 

and the defiant refusal of the union government to consult with opposition leaders and chief ministers on important matters.

There is no such duty though the LoP (or leader of largest opposition party since 2014) is consulted on key appointment as is the CJI or his nominee. But the decision is made by the majority prevails- i.e. in case of conflict, a Judge decides- e.g. in the transfer of Verma as CBI director. 

The latest blow was the aborted attempt to thrust on the country a constitutional amendment enabling a countrywide delimitation of parliamentary constituencies and the possible reduction of seats in southern states.

The Government wanted to raise the number of MPs so all States got more seats. The Opposition, rather foolishly, scuppered this. So delimitation will go ahead under the auspices of the Election Commission. The South will lose seats. What about Sikkim or Ladakh or other such places with low population? If they get to have numerical over-representation, surely that is an argument which should apply to the South?  

Take the weak and uncertain defence of constitutional rights by the judiciary.

The Judiciary is self-selecting. Also, judges have to know the law. They have to respect constitutional rights.  They can't be as ignorant and stupid as Mander.  

Take the deployment of every institution including most recently the Election Commission to interrogate their citizenship.

Why is the Election Commission- a constitutional body- doing its constitutional duty? Every country tries to verify its electoral roll from time to time.  

Take the conversion of the Mahatma Gandhi NREGA from a guarantee of the right to work guaranteed by the centre to a discretionary grant from the centre with major budgetary burdens on the states;

If you are in favour of Federalism, you should be in favour of this. Otherwise, the Centre provides the service directly and the State is disintermediated. Incidentally, there is no 'right to work'. There is an entitlement for certain classes of people for certain types of work for a limited number of days in certain areas. Sadly, getting the work doesn't necessarily mean you will actually get paid.  

and the repackaging of welfare schemes such as of food and housing from rights to the largesse of the prime minister.

A good thing. It gives the PM an incentive to actually deliver. Sadly, if there is no money, there is entitlement failure.  

Take the questionable tactics of coming to power in the majority of states at all costs.

Modi should not fight elections. He should kill himself. Indian Federalism demands no less.  

Take the surge of crony capitalism.

In Tamil Nadu? In West Bengal?  

Take the criminalising of dissent.

Which happened six decades ago.  

All of these have profoundly shaken democracy and India's federal character.

No. Rahul's cowardly refusal to step up to the plate meant that India became less dynastic & more democratic. Rapid economic growth means States have more capacity. That means they have a greater incentive to fight their corner.

Federal institutions like the Inter-State Council and the Finance Commission charged with equitable financial devolution principles have given way to the reshaping of taxation and resource distribution in favour of the Centre, and the overriding of state policies through centrally sponsored schemes.

This happened long ago. It must be said, Modi gave the States a soft landing when it came to the switch to GST.  

We see the naked use of Governors to control opposition-ruled States

not as naked as previously.  

in ways that violate both the letter and spirit of the constitution.

Sadly, the Constitution is heavily weighted to the centre. 

And the conflicts in sensitive border areas of Kashmir and Manipur have again been handled in ways that weaken state authority and exacerbate local community anxieties.

Both are affected by what is happening across the border. There is a limit to what can be achieved politically.  

At a time when the Indian constitution is under grave assault,

Mander is raping the Truth. Thankfully he has a tiny todger & so Truth doesn't notice.  

the Centre for Equity Studies

founded by Mander & other such useless cunts 25 years ago 

planned with the publishers Speaking Tiger a series of short monographs that attempt to identify, unpack and explain the basic ideas of the Constitution.

They told a bunch of stupid lies.  

We identified many of the key ideas for this series, from a reading of the text of the preamble of the Constitution. These were: Secularism, Socialism, Democracy, Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

Cow Protection is a Directive Principle. Guess which religion considers the cow to be sacred? What is important about the Constitution is that it declares itself autochthonous & gives itself unlimited power to amend or abrogate itself. There is no imprescriptible right which the Government can't violate 'in the public interest'.  

However, we felt that there were at least two other essential ideas of the Constitution that needed to be added to our literal reading of the words in the preamble. One of these was Scientific Temper. The other was Federalism.

So, this cunt admits that there is no fucking Federalism in the Constitution.  

Shortly to be released is Federalism: Making and Unmaking of a Union of States. It sets out how the idea of federalism was imagined, debated, pledged and implemented after freedom and the grave dangers it faces in Modi’s India.

I suppose some enemy of India might consider it worth financing this shithead.  

What the author Avinash Kumar accomplishes is to admirably capture crucial elements of the reverberant sweep of the thinking of the makers of independent India.

Ambedkar rightly dismissed his contribution to the Constitution as 'hack work'. Nehru, from 1928 onward, was the main shaper of independent India.  

How they sought to weave a democracy from this boundlessly diverse land with followers of every major religion in the world, more than 500 often restive princely states, and – according to a recent survey – 780 languages and 66 scripts.

Britain had done that. If the minorities had been agreeable, India could have had universal suffrage- just like Ceylon- from 1931 onward.  

The word federalism is never mentioned in the constitution. Yet when BR Ambedkar introduced the draft constitution, he described it as a “federal constitution”. He argued that India’s Constitution really is federal at its core.

Because the Princely States still counted for something. The thing was 'soft soap' or mere puffery- nothing more.  

Federal ‘middle-path’

Gandhi was firmly opposed to centralised states.

He was even more firmly opposed to sex. So what?  

His influential Hind Swaraj published in 1909 was

crazy shit. Nehru finally had the guts to tell Gandhi that in the Nineteen Forties. Gandhi threatened to publish this view of his. Nehru said the equivalent of 'publish & be damned'. Gandhi realised that everybody now thought he was a fucking nuisance.  

not just a landmark critique of modernity and Western civilisation.

Gandhi was deeply ignorant. He thought Japan had become a de facto British colony!  

It contained a blueprint for free India as a true federation of self-sufficient village republics founded on the principles of non-violence and truth.

& not having sex. The race would die out quickly enough unless, obviously, the Muslims took over the place & enslaved the Hindus.  

But Ambedkar passionately rejected Gandhi’s idealisation of the village republic. Villages, he said, were cesspools of caste inequity and oppression.

Also, they smelled of shit.  But so did the cities. 

The federalism voted for by the constituent assembly was very distant from Gandhi’s swaraj.

They couldn't be sure some of the Princes might not start recruiting ex-soldiers & seek to strike deals with regional parties.  Churchill was talking of a 'Prince-stan'. 

Ambedkar clarified that India was not a classic federation, like the United States. It was a “Union of States,” not a federation born of agreement among sovereign units. In this way, India became a federation but one that tilts to the centre, balancing unity with regional autonomy.

Ambedkar wasn't a fool. He knew he was a token appointment- just as his pal, Mandal, was Jinnah's token Law Minister. The wool was being pulled over the eyes of the Princes. Fortunately, they were as stupid as shit.  

As the decades passed, the Gandhian moral beacon that “What touches all must be decided by

me. Gandhi thought he was super-smart.  

all” has for the most part progressively faded in the imagination and practice of the federal ideal in India.

The ideal was a strong unitary state which could kill Muslims or Commies if they wagged their tails.  

During the constituent assembly debates between 1946 and 1949, Ambedkar was joined by Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel to prioritise national unity and integrity over regional autonomy.

Nehru had always seen Federalism as an Imperialist ploy.  There's a good reason Hindu India chose his path- not that of the Maha-crackpot. 

In the shadow of the horrific Partition bloodbath of religious violence and the sometimes reluctant integration of the princely states, they chose for India a federal structure but with a strong central bias.

No. They chose a unitary structure with the Centre redrawing the boundaries of states- the way Curzon had done to Bengal.  

Nehru felt this was essential for stability and unity in the vast hinterland of illiteracy, communal forces, caste and ethnic divisions. He was convinced that a strong Centre also was essential to establish a secular, socialist welfare state.

He knew that the Presidencies would dominate unless power was centralized. Still, Delhi was a backwater compared to Bombay or Calcutta or even sleepy Madras. 

Some in the constituent assembly like Sarangdhar Das

from Orissa who feared a revival of feudal power 

and Frank Anthony

who supported the First Amendment saying if India needed a Dictator, let that Dictator be Nehru.  

advocated for maximum powers to be vested in the Centre to ensure national unity and stability in light of the challenges India faced post‑Partition. Brajeshwar Prasad feared that the creation of semi‑sovereign states could lead to dangerous centrifugal forces, that regional forces might tear the country apart.

The Muslims might rally under the banner of the Nizam.  

Others like BM Gupte felt that the truly federal idea had been given short shrift. He argued: “The units are kept completely dependent on the Centre for finances. This so‑called independence is just a façade because the provinces rely entirely on the Centre’s good will for financial support.”

The Planning Commission concentrated power in the PMO. To get anything done, industrialists had to go to Delhi & pay obeisance to the Dynasty.  

Linguistic reorganisation of states

Linguistic and regional aspirations soon began to test India’s quasi-federal system.

It had already prevailed with Burma going its own way & Sindh being split off from Bombay.  

A powerful demand rose from the ground after independence to reorganise states boundaries on linguistic grounds.

This had already happened. Orissa had been split off. But there were other more contentious cases.  

The Yiddish linguist Max Weinreich famously described a “language” as “a dialect with an army and a navy”.

Which Yiddish lacked. But Hebrew soon got both.  

It was language that was to result in the bloody separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan.

Religion. This fucker's family ran away from Lahore not because they spoke a different language but because they were Hindus.  

The language agitations in India were not on the backs of armies and navies, but spurred by passionate and sometimes militant activists.

Religion, too, mattered. That is why Punjab & Haryana were created.  

The Congress committee known as the “JVP” committee – named after its members Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya – both advised against linguistic reorganisation and the creation of new provinces because they felt that maintaining national unity was the priority of the time.

But Andhra Pradesh had to be conceded after a Telugu politician went on hunger strike & then actually died. A Sikh leader went on an even longer hunger strike but gave up after he put on too much weight.  

But linguistic aspirations refused to die down. In December 1952, Potti Sriramulu died after a hunger strike demanding a Telugu-speaking state. This sparked rioting and many died. Nehru eventually agreed to the creation of Andhra Pradesh and to establish an independent commission to address other statehood demands.

This had happened under the Brits as well.  

After the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, the Telangana region of Hyderabad State was merged with Andhra Pradesh, the Malabar district of Madras Presidency was joined with Travancore-Cochin to create the state of Kerala, Kannada-speaking regions from Bombay, Hyderabad, and Madras Presidency were added to Mysore State to form Karnataka, and the Bombay State was expanded by merging it with Kutch, Saurashtra, and Marathi-speaking parts of Hyderabad.

There can't be dual sovereignty- i.e. Federalism- if States aren't well defined.  

In 1960, Maharashtra and Gujarat were created from the former Bombay province, and in 1966, Haryana was separated from Punjab. Tripura and Mizoram were created on the basis of languages that were not even in the list of 22 languages scheduled in the Constitution. These were Kokborok and Mizo respectively.

This trend has continued. New States like Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Telengana etc. have been created. Orissa may be split up.  

Avinash Kumar describes how the imposition of Hindi as the national language was associated with fears of a centralised state encroaching on regional aspirations, from the times of Lal Bahadur Shastri to Narendra Modi.

Indira Gandhi killed off that bogeyman & thus got DMK support when she split from the Syndicate.  

When in the 1960s, prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri’s government dropped English as the second official language with Hindi, 27-year-old Chinnasamy from Tiruchi left a note stating “I plan to die in order to protect Tamil. One day, my goal will be met”, before setting himself on fire. Six more youths set themselves aflame or consumed poison and 70 lives were lost before Shastri withdrew his order.

Indira was the only sensible Congress-wallah at that time. Kamraj & Bhaktavatsalam shat the bed.  

The government promulgated a three-language formula, requiring all students to learn English, Hindi and any one modern Indian language, but Tamil Nadu under Annadurai refused to implement this.

Nobody cared. 

Fast-forward to 2025. Udhayanidhi Stalin of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam declares that “If Hindi is imposed on us, not hundreds, but thousands of youths are ready to sacrifice their lives to protect Tamil and our rights.”

Udhaynidhi will succeed his father. That's a good thing. Tamil Nadu will continue to grow.  

While the legitimacy of linguistic states are accepted in principle, the Indian state has been consistent in resisting demands of religious states. Nehru firmly turned down the demand for a separate Punjabi Sooba for Sikhs. This demand was partially conceded in 1966 only after it was reframed to focus on linguistic rather than religious grounds.

Fuck off! It was explicitly religious. It was hugely comic that Hindus were saying ' mērē nāla hidī vica gala kara. Mainū pajābī nahīṁ ā'undī',

Over the decades, regional aspirations not restricted to language – but not on the basis of religion – formed the ground for the creation of new states. Sikkim became a new state after it joined the Indian union in 1975.

Because the majority was Nepali not Bhutia.  

Goa became a state in 1987 as well as various states in the north-east responding to regional aspirations. Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand became states in 2000, and Telangana in 2014.

Will UP be further split up?  

Fiscal federalism

Avinash Kumar describes fiscal federalism as “both a tool of cooperation and a source of friction”.

Revenue sharing is always contentious. 

He identifies it as being the most contested arena in India’s federalism.

There is no Federalism. There is a Union Government & a State government.  

The Constitution empowers the Union to collect major taxes such as income tax, corporate tax, and excise duties, while States can levy taxes on land, agricultural income, alcohol, and sales of goods, among others.

Such was the previous position.  

Ambedkar in the constituent assembly was a strong advocate of defending the states’ right to levy and collect sales tax, so that at least one major source of revenue lay with the states, securing for them some autonomy in financial decision-making.

Everybody knew there was no alternative. You had to keep that which worked and add to it at the margin. It would take decades to implement a centralized fiscal apparatus. 

The Planning Commission was criticised by states at times for being top-down in determining the scale of central resources available to states and how they will deploy these.

It was also criticised for being utterly shit.  

From the late 1960s onwards, the Central government through the Planning Commission launched a growing number of important centrally-sponsored schemes for combating poverty, including programs for livelihoods, credit, food and housing. These on balance had positive results from the prism of equity, but also had the effect of expanding further the central control over dissemination of resources to the states.

The problem was that there was precious little to 'disseminate'.  

The Finance Commission is appointed by the President, and helps determine how tax revenues are distributed between the Union and States. It is supposed to function as a transparent arbiter and a defender of State finances and the finances of local governance bodies. Its performance has however been uneven.

There is little point having a Finance Commission if you have no fucking money.  

The greater control over resources by the centre faced less resistance as long as the Congress was in power in the centre and the majority of the states.

It faced little resistance when opposition leaders were locked up.  

As this changed, state governments of other political parties began to express their dissatisfaction with this tilt of India’s federal arrangements to the union government.

All governments pissed public money against a wall. that was what people objected to.  

An important landmark in this resistance was when in its 1989 manifesto the National Front coalition called for greater decentralisation as articulated by non-Congress state chief ministers, each of considerable political stature – Ramakrishna Hegde, NT Ramarao, Jyoti Basu and MG Ramachandran.

They wanted to piss more money against their own favourite wall.  

This argued that the States “ought to enjoy genuine autonomy – political, legislative, economic, fiscal and administrative – without submitting themselves to the indignity of becoming supplicants before the Centre, with a begging bowl”. Kumar however points to the irony that although the 1990s and early 2000s was the era of coalition governments in the union that relied hugely on regional parties, in practice even this period did not see a significant reworking of centre-state fiscal relations.

What does that tell you? Growing the cake was more profitable than squabbling over how it was cut up. Also, richer states had higher state capacity & thus could claim more under various Central schemes.  

He also describes the impact from the 1990s onwards on India’s fiscal federalism of economic liberalisation policies. The Centre was subjected to greater financial discipline reducing the share of states in the fiscal pool.

Tariff revenue fell as proportion of Central Government revenue which meant it needed to switch to expenditure taxes.   

States like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal began to lobby and compete for alternative sources of revenue, mostly in the form of foreign direct investment or by directly supporting the setting up of businesses and industries by foreign companies. This new era of “competitive federalism”

i.e. States offering better packages for f.d.i.  

however led to greater inequality between states

i.e. some become less fucking poor. Mander does not approve.  

and enhanced migration of unskilled labour from poorer states to those that were able to mobilise private and international capital. 

Capitalism is very evil. It sodomises poor workers.  

Taking federalism to local bodies

It was hoped that the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments would empower local bodies, bringing to life at last Gandhi’s principle – “What touches all must be decided by all”.

Lord Ripon tried to do it in the 1880s. The problem is that what touches all can't be decided by all if they don't have any fucking money.  

However, what actually mostly happened was that the real power of decision-making mostly remained with district-level bureaucracies.

The Brits had a commission on 'Devolution' which reported this over a century ago.  

These officials are both influenced and controlled by the state and central governments. Local bodies have no real power over them.

Unless they do in which case the outcome is worse.  

It was as late as in 1992 that amendments were brought into the constitution to belatedly and in very limited measure implement Gandhiji’s idea of swaraj or village-led self-rule. Until then the federal contestation was primarily between the centre and the states.

i.e. nothing actually happened.  

Urban bodies and people’s direct assemblies did not even enter the picture.

till they did and nothing actually happened.  

For this reason, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments of 1992 were optimistically hailed

by shitheads 

as a significant milestone in India's democratic federalism.

Subsidiarity not federalism.  

These amendments for the first time conferred a constitutional status to local self-governments – Panchayati Raj Institutions in rural areas and Urban Local Bodies in towns and cities.

What was legal under state law was also legal under the Constitution. But central land had precedence.  

These were touted as promoting decentralisation, and bringing the administration closer to the people by ensuring direct people’s participation in governance.

It could work & did work well enough in places. The problem is that if the people are shitty, their participation will have shitty results/ 

India’s federal structure

No. Its political structure changed. There is no 'federal structure'.  

in this way evolved from a two-tier to a three-tier structure. A new Eleventh Schedule was added to the Constitution, listing 29 subjects that could be devolved to the rural bodies and 18 to the urban bodies. Seats were reserved not just for Scheduled Castes and Tribes but also, for the first time, for women. Many states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka did take some steps to empower the local bodies. States like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar showed greater reluctance to do this. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh raised women’s reservations to 50%.

On average they raise less than a dollar per head & thus are reliant on State funds. Still at least three million useless people are getting a modest honorarium. 

However, despite the rhetoric and self-congratulation that accompanied the 73rd and 74th amendments, real decentralisation of funds, functions and functionaries to this third tier barely occurred in practice.

If you aren't raising money, you are merely a paid lackey.  

When programs like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act were implemented through rural local bodies, this did enrich them with funds but panchayats became as Kumar observed, “implementers of central schemes, not autonomous planning bodies”.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.  

Decentralisation remained administrative, not political, and with little fiscal independence.

But administration costs money. There isn't much of it in places where money is tight.  

Gandhiji in Hind Swaraj had imagined these very communities not just as the bulwark against centralized despotic regimes but also as self-dependent economic communities.

Which didn't have wheeled vehicles. If you can't walk there, don't go there. Gandhi had shit for brains. That is why Mander loves him so much.  

The 73rd and 74th amendments while paying lip service to these ideals in practice have done very little to make them a reality.

Because the reality would be too horrible for words.  

Hindutva and dismantling federal democracy

Hindus didn't want federalism because they felt threatened by Muslims, Christians & Communists. That is why Indian Democracy is unitary. Hindutva just means ecumenical (i.e. anti-caste & non-sectarian) Hinduism.  Hindus must hang together or else get conquered again. 

Kumar also maps the uneven implementation of the federal idea in India

it was rejected. Still, the country had no alternative but to work with what already existed only reforming it gradually or in response to pressure from below. But this was also true of the Brits.  

in the decades after freedom, and identifies periods marked by its conspicuous erosion. This was visible most of all under prime minister Indira Gandhi;

& Rajiv. But assassination tempers autocracy. 

and now even more damagingly under Narendra Modi

He should lose elections & then kill himself. Why are Hindooos not committing suicide en masse? Is it because they want to make Mander cry his little eyes out?  

Kumar describes the Emergency (1975-77), under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, as representing one peak of centralization, with the suspension of civil liberties and the undermining of federal autonomy.

OMG! This Kumar dude is a freakin' genius! 

The Modi era from 2014 reflects the second peak, a phase of the ideologically driven erosion of India’s federal idea.

It is also the erosion of the India that the country should be ruled by nice Italian lady or her idiot son.  

MG Golwarkar is one of the foremost Hindutva leaders who Narendra Modi once identified to be his greatest influence. Golwarkar writes starkly, “We are one country, one society, and one nation, with a community of life-values and secular aspirations and interests; and hence it is natural that the affairs of the nation are governed through a single state of the unitary type.

which is what Nehru created.  

The present federal system generates and feeds separatist feelings. In a way, it negates the truth of a single nationhood and is, therefore, divisive in nature. It must be remedied and the Constitution amended and cleaned so as to establish Unitary form of government.”

So Gowalkar & Nehru were on the same page in 1939 (when he published the above). But then the RSS was merely a weaker & more provincial sister of the Congress Seva Dal of which Nehru was a proud member.  

Hindutva demands a homogenisation of religion, language and culture, the denial of rights even of citizenship to religious minorities, and unquestioning obedience to the supreme leader.

Which is what the Dynasty used to deliver. Sadly, Rajiv was a bit crap & Rahul more than a bit.  

All of this is manifestly incompatible with federal and secular democracy.

Yet, it is what has obtained. That's the reason this cunt's family fled to India not Iran or Afghanistan.  

We therefore understand that the rapid centralisation under the Modi government is the outcome of the rise of aggressive Hindutva.

Which triumphed in 1947 after which Muslims became second class citizens unless they were stripped of citizenship by the 1948 ordinance.  

Kumar also refers to the deployment of popular films to push the Hindutva narrative at the expense of the complex political histories of states.

Kumar is a kretin.  

Films like The Kashmir Files, Article 370, The Bengal Files, and The Kerala Story

made money. The Cinema is a profit driven business. 

hinge on false and incendiary narratives of Hindu victimhood and Muslim radicalisation.

Did you know that Osama bin Laden was actually a Jewish Lesbian? There is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist.  

This is perhaps the most compelling part of Avinsha Kumar’s monograph, when he explains Hindutva's opposition to federalism is ideological.

As is their refusal to convert to Islam, get gender reassignment surgery, & marry Field Marshall Munir. 

We understand that the multiple assaults on federal democracy under Narendra Modi are not simply

imaginary? 

the outcome of an autocratic ruler hungry to amplify and centralise his power.

Modi doesn't own his party the way Stalin or Mamta or Rahul own their parties. If Modi does stupid shit, the BJP will dump him.  

We recognise it for what it is: an ideological project constituting an assault on both the idea of India but also the constitutional imagination of a secular democracy.

Why stop there? Why not say that Modi is vigorously sodomizing Mander? Such assaults are unconstitutional! 

Federalism in the Indian Constitution today stands in mortal danger.

What doesn't exist can't be killed.