இதுதான் வாழ்க்க

இதுதான் வாழ்க்க  !💚🍃

மானுடர் உழாவிடினும் வித்து நடாவிடினும்
வரம்பு கட்டாவிடினும் அன்றிநீர் பாய்ச்சாவிடினும்
வானுலகு நீர்தருமேல் மண்மீது மரங்கள்
வகைவகையா நெற்கள்புற்கள் மலிந்திருக்குமென்றே?
யானெதற்கும் அஞ்சுகிலேன்,மானுடரே,நீவிர்
என்மதத்தைக் கைக் கொண்மின்;பாடுபடல்வேண்டா;
ஊனுடலை வருத்தாதீர்;உணவியற்கை கொடுக்கும்;
உங்களுக்குத் தொழிலிங்கே அன்புசெய்தல் கண்டீர்!
-பாரதியார்

10 reasons to limit fructose consumption

10 reasons to limit fructose consumption

1. Fructose can only be metabolized by the liver and can’t be used for energy by your body’s cells. It’s therefore not only completely useless for the body, but is also a toxin in high enough amount because the job of the liver is to get rid of it, mainly by transforming it into fat and sending that fat to our fat cells.
2. Excess fructose damages the liver and leads to insulin resistance in the liver as well as fatty liver disease. In fact, fructose has the same effects on the liver as alcohol (ethanol), which is already well known as a liver toxin.
3. Fructose reacts with proteins and polyunsaturated fats in our bodies 7 times more than glucose. This reaction creates AGEs (advanced glycation end-products), which are compounds that create oxidative damage in our cells and ultimately lead or contribute to inflammation and a host of chronic diseases.
4. Fructose increases uric acid production, which, in excess, can cause gout, kidney stones and precipitate or aggravate hypertension.
5. While most of your body’s cells can’t use fructose as a source of energy, the bacteria in your gut can and excess fructose can create gut flora imbalances, promote bacterial overgrowth and promote the growth of pathogenic bacteria.
6. In part because of the damage done to the liver, chronic excess fructose causes dyslipidemia, which means that your blood lipid markers tend to shift towards numbers that indicate a risk for heart disease.
7. Fructose rapidly causes leptin resistance. Leptin is a hormone that controls appetite and metabolism to maintain a normal weight. Leptin resistant people tend to gain fat and become obese really easily.
8. Excess fructose alone can cause all the problems associated with the metabolic syndrome (diabetes, obesity, heart disease).
9. Cancer cells thrive and proliferate very well with fructose as their energy source.
10. Excess fructose also affects brain functioning, especially as it relates to appetite regulation. It has also been shown to impair memory in rats.

WHAT LIVING WITH AN AMAZONIAN TRIBE TAUGHT ME ABOUT NUTRITION

It was December of 2011 and I was hot, thirsty, and probably needed a shower. I was also sailing across the Amazon River from the Rio Negro in Northern Brazil where I would spend the next 3 days living and learning the ways of an Amazonian tribe. Excited? Yes, but also pretty frightened about what could happen. I’d been in the jungle for a week by then, and I’d come to the conclusion that the place was dangerous! My guide would tell me stories of jaguars, anacondas and bugs that can do more damage than I wanted to think about. Still though, I was very keen to learn the ways of the Amazon – the people, environment, legends, and the mystical spirituality that I’d heard so much about.I did have an ulterior motive though; I was supremely fascinated by what these guys did for food – what sort of relationship and knowledge they had of nutrition and plant medicine.
What I found didn’t surprise me really; my experience was as magical, mystical and educational as I could’ve hoped for. Most of all, I walked away from this experience with a clarified perspective of health and nutrition, and what I believe to be the answer to fat loss and dietary disease.

Upon disembarking the boat I was greeted by a member of the tribe. Medium height, limited clothing, war paint, but my first thought? Robustly healthy. Biceps that I’d spent years to get (still couldn’t measure up to him), and a naturally athletic look that can either be attributed to hours in the gym or days laboring his body naturally in the Amazon Jungle; I got a feeling it was the latter. I was accompanied by my translator who spoke in the tribe’s native tongue and had pretty good english himself, so I quickly thanked him and gave appreciation for allowing me to stay with him. His response was politely dismissive as he quickly helped me with my backpack and showed me around the village.

*A tribesman and myself…. Putting my muscles to shame.”

While meeting the rest of the tribe, my thoughts were still pretty superficial; strong, lean, healthy people, why?!? How old are these people? I wonder if they’ve ever worked out? As a personal trainer, I’d always preached this type of body to my clients “lean, proportioned, defined and strong.” I’d read about people having the same revelations when coming in touch with these sort of tribes; Dr. Weston A Price for one, who monitored the health of many indigenous tribes and came to the conclusion that those who hadn’t been introduced to process foods (sugar, flour etc) had near perfect teeth and mouth structure….

Although I don’t have an inch of the knowledge of Dr. Price, I still felt that I was onto something in regards to indigenous health. What were these people eating? How did they live? What were they doing nutritionally that I wasn’t?

*Ritualistic song and dance from the tribe: I believe they’re giving thanks to mother nature.

After a day of settling into the village and learning about the customs, rituals and beliefs of the jungle people – very cool, I proceeded to explain to my interpreter that I was really keen to know what sort of diet these people had. I think he was a little surpised and expected a request like going fishing or hiking. He replied, “okkayyy I take you to Medicine Man.”

I’d heard about this man known as “Medicine Man” from my translator on the boat trip over. He’d explained that this man, a native Shaman, had three generations of jungle wisdom and plant medicine behind him, and he was so knowledgeable that he attracted terminally ill people from all over South America to be healed from the concoctions he created and alternative methods that he used. Fair to say that I was pretty nervous at this point; here was a guy who was probably at the peak of spiritualism and all I could conjure up was “so, what’s your diet like.” My insecurities were quickly whisked away when the Shaman greeted me with a soft but warm  handshake and an effortless smile that accentuated all of his facial muscles. He was older, but you could never guess his age. His face projected wisdom and warmth that could bring peace to any person. During the quiet discourse between The Shaman and my translator, I detected the moment when my question was asked. Nervous, and detecting any variations in vibe, I listened to my translator explain to me the answer to my question; “what is the diet of the tribepeople?”

The Shaman’s answer “anything that mother earth gives us.”

What a beautiful answer. Simple, powerful, and all I needed to solve my query.

Not satisfied though, the Shaman went on to explain that they have a deep respect and knowledge about what they eat. He directed me to a really big veggie patch and herb garden, and explained the nature of the food that they ate, and the medicinal qualities involved. His knowledge was endless; “green leafy vegetables immunity and avocados for nail and skin health.” He went further in explaining his intimate knowledge of the herbs. Although I only picked up 50% of what he was saying, it seemed that these herbs helped eliminate the common diseases, and the Shaman explained that the combinations that he, and only he knew of was the catalyst in keeping the tribespeople in optimum health.

*Every morning started with avocado picking*

As I continued my food and medicine journey, I pondered the simplicity of their food system. There was nothing in wrapping, nothing with advertising attached to it, and nothing that said “99% fat free all natural anti – oxident rich…” It just was good, real food; and it’s effects were evident in the health of the tribespeople.

The Shaman continued the tour by explaining the other half of his diet; protein. This was hot on my mind as I’d learnt how important it was and I was from my years of studying nutrition and I was kind of hoping that meat would be a apart of their diet (it was nearly dinner time). Sure as ever, the Shaman was a big proponent of meat in their diet, and explained that the village relied on the fresh Amazonian fish for the bulk of their meals, as well as the wild game that they’d hunt for on a regular basis. Dinner soon came around and I was treated to some of the freshest fish of my life, coupled with a generous serving of amazonian vegetables and fruits (bananas, mangos, jackfruit).

*Jackfruit: My favourite Amazonian fruit

*Cacao: The highest natural source of magnesium, chromium and iron… Imagine having this in your backyard!

Eating this fresh, nutritious meal, I began comparing our culture of diets, calories, and mixed marketing messages with this more simple, nutritious, real food culture. On one hand we have an obesity crises, sugar cravings, type 2 diabetes, and a wealth of dietary related diseases. On the other hand, we have simple, nutritious food that we’ve been eating for 99% of our evolution. This coupled with ancient plant wisdom, and they’ve got the result of lean, robust, mobile people, with a life expectancy that exceeds western culture.

*Pretty stoked after my daily mango picking*

What I learnt:

1. In order to be healthy, we must eat what we’re designed to eat…. This tribe was living proof of that.

2. We’ve managed to complicate the hell out of this dietary/nutrition thing.

3. A minimum stress life is invaluable to health and wellness.

4. We need to start embracing herbs and their medicinal qualities more.

5. There is no more powerful force in the universe than nature, and if we abide by its laws then we’re on the right track.

Upon boarding my rickety boat back to the mainland, I waved goodbye to a few of the tribes people, and began thinking about this simplistic and deeply spiritual way of life. I’d shared meals, laughs, rituals and ceremonies with these people and I was supremely grateful for what I’d experienced. It was primal living at its greatest and I really hope that McDonalds doesn’t find it’s way there!

Thanks for reading,

Steve

*”Medicine Man” and myself

http://barefoothealth.me/what-living-with-an-amazonian-tribe-taught-me-about-nutrition/

Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can

Earlier this year media outlets around the world announced that February had broken global temperature records by a shocking amount. March broke all the records too. In June, our screens were covered with surreal images of flooding in Paris, the Seine bursting its banks and flowing into the streets. In London, floods sent water pouring into the tube system right in the heart of Covent Garden. Roads in south-east London became rivers two metres deep.

With such extreme events becoming more commonplace, few deny climate change any longer. Finally, a consensus is crystallising around one all-important fact: fossil fuels are killing us. We need to switch to clean energy, and fast.

This growing awareness about the dangers of fossil fuels represents a crucial shift in our consciousness. But I can’t help but fear we’ve missed the point. As important as clean energy might be, the science is clear: it won’t save us from climate change.

What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we’re doing with fossil fuels

Let’s imagine, just for argument’s sake, that we are able to get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% clean energy. There is no question this would be a vital step in the right direction, but even this best-case scenario wouldn’t be enough to avert climate catastrophe.

Why? Because the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 30% comes from a number of causes. Deforestation is a big one. So is industrial agriculture, which degrades the soils to the point where they leach CO2. Then there’s industrial livestock farming which produces 90m tonnes of methane per year and most of the world’s anthropogenic nitrous oxide. Both of these gases are vastly more potent than CO2 when it comes to global warming. Livestock farming alone contributes more to global warming than all the cars, trains, planes and ships in the world. Industrial production of cement, steel, and plastic forms another major source of greenhouse gases, and then there are our landfills, which pump out huge amounts of methane – 16% of the world’s total.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

 Jeffrey’s Bay wind farm in South Africa. Photograph: Nic Bothma/EPA

When it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’s what we’re doing with it. What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels: raze more forests, build more meat farms, expand industrial agriculture, produce more cement, and fill more landfill sites, all of which will pump deadly amounts of greenhouse gas into the air. We will do these things because our economic system demands endless compound growth, and for some reason we have not thought to question this.

 Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries

Jason Hickel

 

Read more

Think of it this way. That 30% chunk of greenhouse gases that comes from non-fossil fuel sources isn’t static. It is adding more to the atmosphere each year. Scientists project that our tropical forests will be completely destroyed by 2050, releasing a 200bn tonne carbon bomb into the air. The world’s topsoils could be depleted within just 60 years, releasing more still. Emissions from the cement industry are growing at more than 9% per year. And our landfills are multiplying at an eye-watering pace: by 2100 we will be producing 11m tonnes of solid waste per day, three times more than we do now. Switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow this down.

If we keep growing at 3% a year, that means that every 20 years we need to double the size of the global economy

The climate movement made an enormous mistake. We focused all our attention on fossil fuels, when we should have been pointing to something much deeper: the basic logic of our economic operating system. After all, we’re only using fossil fuels in the first place to fuel the broader imperative of GDP growth.

The root problem is the fact that our economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption. Our politicians tell us that we need to keep the global economy growing at more than 3% each year – the minimum necessary for large firms to make aggregate profits. That means every 20 years we need to double the size of the global economy – double the cars, double the fishing, double the mining, double the McFlurries and double the iPads. And then double them again over the next 20 years from their already doubled state.

FacebookTwitterPinterest

 Current projections show that by 2040 we will more than double the world’s shipping miles, air miles, and trucking miles. Photograph: Feature China/Barcroft Images

Our more optimistic pundits claim that technological innovations will help us to de-couple economic growth from material throughput. But sadly there is no evidence that this is happening. Global material extraction and consumption has grown by 94% since 1980, and is still going up. Current projections show that by 2040 we will more than double the world’s shipping miles, air miles, and trucking miles – along with all the material stuff that those vehicles transport – almost exactly in keeping with the rate of GDP growth.

 The pope v the UN: who will save the world first?

Jason Hickel, Martin Kirk, Joe Brewer

 

Read more

Clean energy, important as it is, won’t save us from this nightmare. But rethinking our economic system might. GDP growth has been sold to us as the only way to create a better world. But we now have robust evidence that it doesn’t make us any happier, it doesn’t reduce poverty, and its “externalities” produce all sorts of social ills: debt, overwork, inequality, and climate change. We need to abandon GDP growth as our primary measure of progress, and we need to do this immediately – as part and parcel of the climate agreement that will be ratified in Morocco later this year.

Advertisement

It’s time to pour our creative power into imagining a new global economy – one that maximises human wellbeing while actively shrinking our ecological footprint. This is not an impossible task. A number of countries have already managed to achieve high levels of human development with very low levels of consumption. In fact Daniel O’Neill, an economist at the University of Leeds, has demonstrated that even material de-growth is not incompatible with high levels of human well-being.

Our focus on fossil fuels has lulled us into thinking we can continue with the status quo so long as we switch to clean energy, but this is a dangerously simplistic assumption. If we want to stave off the coming crisis, we need to confront its underlying cause.

எனக்கு வலிமை இல்லை

எனக்கு வலிமை இல்லை
---------------------------
நிஸார் கப்பானி
தமிழில்: ரவிக்குமார்

உன்னை மாற்றுகிற உனது பாதைகளை விளக்குகிற வலிமை
எனக்கில்லை
ஒரு பெண்ணை ஒரு ஆண் மாற்றிவிடமுடியும் என்பதை ஒருபோதும் நம்பாதே
அத்தகைய ஆண்கள் நடிப்பவர்கள்
தனது விலா எலும்புகளிலிருந்து பெண்களை உருவாக்கியதாக எண்ணுகிறவர்கள்
பெண் ஆணின்  விலா எலும்பிலிருந்து உருவாக்கப்படவில்லை
நீரின் ஆழத்திலிருந்து மேலெழும்பும் மீனைப்போல
நதியிலிருந்து பிரியும் ஓடையைப்போல
ஆண்தான் பெண்ணின் கருப்பையிலிருந்து உருவானவன்
ஆண்தான் பெண்ணின் விழிகள் எனும் சூரியனைச் சுற்றிவருகிறான்
ஆனால் ஒரு இடத்தில் நிலைத்திருப்பதாய் நினைத்துக்கொள்கிறான்

உன்னை அடக்கவோ பழக்கவோ உனது இயல்பூக்கங்களை ஆற்றவோ
என்னால் இயலாது
அது முடியாத வேலை
உன்மேல் எனது அறிவைப் பிரயோகித்தேன்
மூடத்தனத்தை சோதித்துப் பார்த்தேன்
எதுவும் பலன் தரவில்லை
வழிகாட்டலோ வசீகரமோ எதுவும்பயன் தரவில்லை
நீ இருப்பதுபோல
புராதனமாகவே இரு

***
உனது பழக்கங்களை என்னால் உடைக்கமுடியாது
முப்பது ஆண்டுகளாக
முன்னூறு ஆண்டுகளாக
நீ இப்படித்தான் இருக்கிறாய்
புட்டியில் அடைபட்டிருக்கும் புயல்
பெண்ணின் உடலொன்று இயல்பாக
ஆணின் வாசனையை அறிகிறது
இயல்பாக அதைத் தாக்குகிறது
இயல்பாக வெற்றிகொள்கிறது

***
ஒரு ஆண் தன்னைப்பற்றிச் சொல்வதை ஒருபோதும்நம்பாதே
அவன் சொல்வான் கவிதைகளை உருவாக்கினேனென்று
குழந்தைகளை உருவாக்கினேனென்று
பெண்தான் கவிதைகளை எழுதுகிறாள்
ஆண் அவற்றின்கீழ் தனது பெயரைப் பொறித்துக்கொள்கிறான்
பெண்தான் குழந்தைகளைப் பெறுகிறாள்
ஆண் மகப்பேறு மருத்துவமனையின் பதிவேட்டில் தந்தையென்று தனது பெயரை எழுதிக்கொள்கிறான்

***
உனது இயல்பை மாற்றும் வலிமை எனக்கில்லை
எனது புத்தகங்கள் உனக்குப் பயன்படாது
எனது நம்பிக்கைகள் உன்னை சமாதானம் செய்யாது
நான் சொல்லும் ஆறுதல் நன்மைபயக்காது

நீ அராஜகத்தின், பைத்தியத்தின் ராணி
நீ யாருக்கும் சொந்தமில்லை
அப்படியே இரு
இருளில் வளரும் விருட்சம் நீ
ஒளியோ நீரோ உனக்கு வேண்டாம்
நீ சமுத்திரத்தின் இளவரசி
எல்லா ஆண்களையும் நேசிப்பாய்
எவரையும் நேசிக்கமாட்டாய்
எல்லோருடனும் படுக்கையைப் பகிர்வாய்
எவரோடும் படுக்கமாட்டாய்
நீதான் பெதூய்ன் தொல்குடிப்பெண் அத்தனைபேரோடும் போவாய்
கன்னியாய் மீள்வாய்
அப்படியே இரு

ANARCHISM IN INDIA

In the introduction to Democracy and Power, the Delhi Lectures of Noam Chomsky (Three Essays Collective), Jean Drèze examined the curious absence of Anarchism from Indian revolutionary traditions. Unlike the disdain shown both by Right and the Leninist left, Drèze attempts to extricate anarchist politics and ideas from the web of misinterpretations and create a space for anarchist ideas in the matrix of Indian resistance cultures. You can get Democracy and Power, the Delhi Lectures of Noam Chomsky with an introduction byJean Drèze, directly from Three Essays Collective

In India as elsewhere, anarchist thought is widely misunderstood. As Bhagat Singh, one of the few Indian revolutionaries who had explicit anarchist leanings, put it: “The people are scared of the word anarchism. The word anarchism has been abused so much that even in India revolutionaries have been called anarchist to make them unpopular.”

How and why the anarchist tradition came to be comprehensively sidelined in India is not entirely clear. The fact is that very few left leaders, writers or activists in India think of themselves as anarchists. And yet it seems to me that many of them have drawn inspiration from anarchist thought in one way or another, and that we would greatly benefit from a more explicit recognition of this anarchist influence – actual and potential.

Bhagat Singh (27th September 1907 – 23 March 1931)

There are varieties of anarchist thought (some are pretty weird), just as there are varieties of socialist thought; my concern here is with what one might call cooperative anarchism or libertarian socialism. This is more or less the opposite of what anarchism is often claimed to mean by those whose aim, as Bhagat Singh put it, is to make revolutionaries unpopular. This aim is typically achieved by portraying anarchists as impulsive bomb-throwers who want to destroy the state through violent means.[1] Resistance to state authority and oppression is certainly one of the core principles of anarchism. It is also true that many anarchists believe in the possibility of a state-less society, and perhaps even in the need for a violent overthrow of the state. But anarchist thought certainly does not start from there. In fact, as Chomsky has argued, it is even possible for a committed anarchist to lend temporary support to some state institutions vis-à-vis other centres of power: “In today’s world, I think, the goals of a committed anarchist should be to defend some state institutions from the attack against them, while trying at the same time to pry them open to more meaningful public participation – and ultimately, to dismantle them in a much more free society, if the appropriate circumstances can be achieved.”[2]

If anarchist thought does not begin with the idea of a state-less society, let alone the violent overthrow of the state, where does it start from? It starts, I believe, from the same point as these lectures – a deep suspicion of all authority and a principled opposition to the concentration of power, whether it is the power of the state, the corporation, the church, the landlord or the head of a family. As Chomsky argues, this does not mean that all authority and power is illegitimate, but it does mean that if it cannot be justified, it must be dismantled.

Some people believe, against all evidence, that power becomes harmless if it is exercised on behalf of the working class. This is the basis of the hope that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” would pave the way for the withering away of the state and a state-less society. The dangers of this idea were exposed early on by anarchist thinkers such as Michael Bakunin, a contemporary of Karl Marx, who said: “I wonder how Marx fails to see that… the establishment of such a dictatorship would be enough to kill the revolution and distort all popular movements”.

Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator, social justice activist, and anarcho-syndicalist advocate.

The fact that anarchist thinkers predicted with great clarity what would happen in societies based on an apparent dictatorship of the proletariat is not the least reason why it is worth paying more attenion to them. Similarly, anarchist thought can help us to develop a healthy suspicion of various forms of vanguardism, including the notion that left intellectuals are the vanguard of the proletariat. This notion is of course a terrific deal for intellectuals, since it puts them in command. Vanguardism found a fertile soil in India with its long tradition of Brahminism, guru worship, and deference to authority in general. It is at variance with the spirit of anarchism, which includes a basic faith in people’s ability to take charge of their own lives and struggles.

(30 May 1814 – 1 July 1876) was a Russian revolutionary anarchist, and founder of collectivist anarchism

Indeed, anarchist thought and libertarian socialism are not limited to a fundamental critique of power and authority – far from it. They also build on constructive ideas about social relations and economic organization, including voluntary association, mutual aid, self-management, and the principle of federation. The basic idea is that a good society would consist, as John Dewey put it, of “… free human beings associated with one another on terms of equality”.

One of the most eloquent exponents of the power of free association and voluntary cooperation was Peter Kropotkin, the 19th-century anarchist and author of Mutual Aid. A zoologist and geographer by profession, Kropotkin spent many years in Siberia, where he observed countless examples of mutual aid among animals. Just to give one example, he observed how, just before the winter, large numbers of deer would gather from hundreds of miles around and congregate at the precise point of a river (the Amur) where it was narrow enough for a large herd to be able to cross it safely and reach greener pastures on the other side.[3] He concluded that cooperative behaviour is a plausible outcome of biological evolution – an idea that is being rediscovered today by evolutionary biologists and game theorists.

[December 9, 1842 – February 8, 1921) was a Russian geographer, economist, activist, philologist, zoologist, evolutionary theorist, philosopher, writer and prominent anarchist.

Kropotkin went on to study cooperation in human societies (which involves much more than biological evolution) and documented in great detail how mutual aid played a pervasive role at all stages of human history, despite being often repressed by the privileged and powerful. More than a hundred years after the publication of Mutual Aid, we have many more examples of human activities and institutions based on principles of voluntary association and mutual aid. Anarchist principles of political action have played an important role in the international peace movement, the environmental movement, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Arab Spring, the Chiapas uprising, the World Social Forum and the right to information movement in India. There have been vibrant experiments with workers’ cooperatives and self-management in Spain, Argentina, and Kerala, and also other examples of economic applications of anarchist principles such as the free software movement. In India, the social organization of many tribal communities is still based on a strong tradition of mutual aid and participatory democracy, evident for instance in institutions like exchange labour and Gram Sabhas.

Even the edifice of electoral democracy rests on a simple act of mutual aid, namely participation in elections: voting does not involve any personal gain for anyone, since a single person’s vote cannot influence the outcome of elections, and yet most people do vote, often losing a day’s wages and braving long queues, harsh weather or even physical danger. Without mutual cooperation, there would be no democracy, even in the most elementary form of electoral democracy. As this example illustrates, mutual cooperation does not necessarily require altruism or self-sacrifice; it can also build on simple habits of thought (specifically, habits of sociability and public-spiritedness) that an enlightened society should be able to foster.

Coming back to the left tradition in India, elements of anarchist thought can be found in one form or another in the life and writings of many Indian thinkers, even if they never thought of themselves as anarchists, and indeed were not anarchists. I have already mentioned Bhagat Singh, who had clear anarchist sympathies. Just to give one or two other examples, Ambedkar was not an anarchist by any means and yet we can find traces of anarchist thought in his writings, for instance his notion of democracy as a “mode of associated living” based on “liberty, equality and fraternity”. I think that many anarchists would also be proud of Periyar, who taught people to resist the oppression of caste, patriarchy and religion and have faith in themselves. Even some leading Marxist thinkers belong here: for instance, Ashok Rudra’s critique of “the intelligentsia as a ruling class” has some affinity with Chomsky’s analysis of the role of intellectuals in the modern world. Also within the Marxist tradition, here is something K. Balagopal (one of India’s most committed and thoughtful left activists) wrote around the end of his lifelong engagement with a variety of popular struggles:

“What seems to be required are ‘localised’ (both spatially and socially) movements that are specific enough to bring out the full potential and engender the full self-realisation of various oppressed groups, subsequently federated into a wider movement that can (in a free and democratic way) channelise the aroused energies into a broad movement.

(10 June 1952 – 8 October 2009) was an uncompromising human rights activist, mathematician and lawyer who was known for his work on the issue of civil liberties and human rights. He was a staunch civil liberties activist in Andhra Pradesh.

This is quite different from the Leninist notion of a single vanguard party that would centralise all knowledge within itself and direct (top down) the struggles of the suppressed masses. In such an effort, the suppressed masses would not even be half awakened to their potential. Even if such a party were to claim that it learns from the people, and even if [it] were to honestly try to do so, the very strategy would be inadequate. If there can at all be a single ‘party’ which would lead a movement for social transformation, it can only be a federally structured organisation, whose free and equal units would be the political units, centred on the self-directed struggles of various sections of the deprived.”[4]

This sounds to me like anarchist thought par excellence. As I have illustrated earlier, anarchist principles are alive not just in Indian political thought but also in social life and popular movements. None of this is to say that the time has come to embrace anarchism (or libertarian socialism) and give up other schools of thought. But greater openness to anarchist ideas would certainly bring some fresh air. For instance, I believe that anarchist thought could help us to think more clearly about the relation between caste and class, beware of all authoritarianism, enlarge our understanding of democracy, and open our eyes to the workings of power (for instance, patriarchy and caste discrimination) within our own movements. Last but not least, anarchist thought can inspire us to change the world without waiting for state power, and give us confidence that democratic struggles here and now can be, as Bakunin put it, “the living seeds of the new society which is to replace the old world”.

1.Bhagat Singh did throw a bomb once (in the chamber of the Central Legislative Assembly), but it was little more than a firecracker and the gesture was largely symbolic. There were no casualties.

2.Chomsky (1996), Powers and Prospects: Reflections on Human Nature and the Social Order (London: Pluto), p. 75. This statement must be read in the light of the distinction Chomsky makes between “goals” and “visions” (p. 70): “By visions, I mean the conception of a future society that animates what we actually do, a society in which a decent human being might want to live. By goals, I mean the choices and tasks that are within reach, that we will pursue one way or another guided by a vision that may be distant and hazy.”

3.Kropotkin, Peter (1902), Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (London: Heinemann), Chapter 2.

4.Balagopal, K. (2011), “Popular Struggles: Some Questions for Communist Theory and Practice”, in Ear to the Ground (New Delhi: Navayana), p. 375.