THE ALLURE OF THE TRANSNATIONAL

19 Pages·2007·0.09 MB·English

CA
THE ALLURE OF THE TRANSNATIONAL: Notes
on Some Aspects of the Political Economy of Water
in India
ANANTHAKRISHNANAIYER
UniversityofMichigan–Flint
On August 12, 2006, the State of Kerala in southern India imposed a ban
on Coca-Cola and Pepsi products in the state. However, just a month later, on
September 22, 2006, the High Court in Kerala voted to remove the ban. These
shiftsinpositionbystateinstitutionsarejustthelatestinwhathasbeenalong-drawn-
outand,intheviewofmanycommentators,titanicstrugglepittingtheresidentsofa
smallimpoverishedcommunity,Plachimada,againstoneoftheprominentsymbols
ofcorporateimperialismandglobalization—Coca-Cola.
Myintentioninthisarticle,whichisveryexploratoryandquiteincomplete,
istousethePlachimadastruggletolayoutsomeofthekeyissuesthatithighlights
about the nature of transnational corporations, globalization, and the situation in
India. However, I want to also suggest that this story hides a much bigger issue
thatafocusontransnationalcorporationsinIndiapersedoesnotaddress.There
is a much more important and ongoing story in India, the agrarian crisis, which
although related to aspects of neoliberal globalization in India, has to be treated
and analyzed on a different level. I argue that the Plachimada struggle, like the
struggles of other rural communities confronting various forms of water privati-
zation, also needs to be analyzed as part of the unfolding agrarian crisis and not
simplyasacaseofavaliantcommunitystrugglingagainsttherapaciouspracticesofa
transnationalcorporationlikeTheCoca-ColaCompany.AnalysisofthePlachimada
strugglewithinthiswiderframeworkholdsimplicationsforacademicsandactivists
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY,Vol.22,Issue4,pp.640–658.ISSN0886-7356,onlineISSN1548-1360.(cid:2)C 2007by
theAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.Allrightsreserved.Pleasedirectallrequestsforpermissiontophotocopyorreproduce
articlecontentthroughtheUniversityofCaliforniaPress’sRightsandPermissionswebsite,http://www.ucpressjournals.com/
reprintInfo.asp.DOI:10.1525/can.2007.22.4.640.
ALLUREOFTHETRANSNATIONAL
alike,andIhopemybriefexpositionwillraisesomequestionsfordiscussionand
debate.
BOTTLEDWATERININDIA
The Coca-Cola Company’s return to India after a hiatus of 16 years was
linked to the broad package of liberalization reforms that were steadily intro-
duced from the mid-1980s onward.1 The opening up of the Indian economy
and associated policies of deregulation and privatization affected vast sectors of
the economy, including key sectors like banking, power, and water. The Coca-
Cola Company, PepsiCo, and other water giants like Suez, Vivendi, and Bechtel
soon made their arrival into what was a burgeoning and highly profitable water
market that covered everything from the outright privatization of urban water
suppliesandwastewatermanagementtojointcontractswithcitiesandpublicsec-
tor entities for improving and managing water infrastructure and water delivery
to industries and consumers. The growing demands by urban middle class resi-
dents for better infrastructure and service provision also smoothed the way for
increasedprivatizationofsectorsthathadpreviouslybeenhandledbygovernment
entities.
Thesoftdrinkandbottledwaterindustryalsoheldpromiseofmassiveprofits
becauseofthegrowthofasizeableurbanmiddleclassinthe1990s,andbothThe
Coca-ColaCompanyandPepsiCosoughttocapturethismarket.Softdrinksales
havezoomedandIndia’smarketnowstandsataround$2billionayear;quiteafew
studies predict that in the next few years, India and China will soon eclipse the
United States in soft drink consumption. The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo
control80percentofthesoftdrinkmarketandaccountfor40percentofthebottled
watermarket.Bythelate1990sandearly2002,thebottledwaterindustryinIndia
wasgrowingrapidly.Accordingtooneestimate,itgrewatanastonishingrateof
25percentayear,makingIndiathetenthlargestconsumerofbottledwaterinthe
world(Bhushan2006).
TheIndianbottledwatermarketishighlylucrativeforaverysimplereason—
producing bottled water is cheap in India. Natural mineral water is still quite
expensiveandoutofthereachofmanyIndians,althoughlocalbrandsnowcompete
with the likes of Evian and Perrier. However, most of the bottled water sold in
India is primarily groundwater that has been treated and purified. Any entity, be
itapersonorcorporationthathasaccesstogroundwatercanremoveasmuchof
it as they want, and the costs of extracting water in India are next to nothing. If
we keep in mind that the currency exchange rate hovered around 45–50 Rupees
641
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 22:4
(1 Rupee = 100 paise) to $1 between 2000 and 2006, you get a more graphic
pictureofthecostsofbottlingwaterinIndia,asexplainedbyBhushan:
TakeforinstancethecaseofCoca-Cola’sbottlingplantindrought-proneKala
Dera near Jaipur. Coca-Cola gets its water free except for a tiny cess (for
dischargingthewastewater)itpaystotheStatePollutionControlBoard—a
littleoverRs.5,000ayearduring2000–02andRs.24,246in2003.Itextracts
halfamillionlitresofwaterveryday—atacostof14paiseper1,000litres.So,
aRs.10perlitreKinleywaterhasarawmaterialcostofjust0.02–0.03paise.
...However,waterisnotthatcheapintheUnitedStates,hometoCoca-Cola
andPepsiCo.TheaveragecostofindustrialwaterintheU.S.wasRs.21per
1000litresinthelate1990s.ItwasRs.90/1000litresintheUnitedKingdom
and Rs. 76/1000 litres in Canada. Treatment and purification accounts for
thenextmajorcost.Eventhestate-of-the-arttreatmentsystemwithreverse
osmosis and membranes, the cost of treatment in a maximum of 25 paise
a litre (Rs.0.25/litre). Therefore, the cost of producing 1 litre of packaged
drinking water in India, without including the labour cost, is just Rs.0.25.
Inanutshell,inmanufacturingbottledwater,themajorcostsarenotinthe
productionoftreatedandpurifiedwaterbutinthepackagingandmarketing
ofit.[Bhushan2006]
WaterinIndiaisliterallyfreeandhighlylucrativeforprivatecorporations.Thus,
access to cheap groundwater and the low cost of extracting it in combination
with low labor costs and state and local governments falling over each other to
attract“foreigninvestment,”allplayaroleinfacilitatingtheentryoftransnational
corporationsintothewaterindustry.Thisisthebackgroundtobetterunderstand
TheCoca-ColaCompany’sentryintoPlachimadain1998–2000.
PLACHIMADA’SSTRUGGLEAGAINSTCOCA-COLA
Plachimada, like many other localities of India where The Coca-Cola Com-
pany has set up bottling plants, is a deeply impoverished region located in the
southern state of Kerala. The majority of the population is made up of landless
orland-poorlowercastes,Muslims,andAdivasis(thegovernmentusesacolonial
category—ScheduledTribes;ananthropologicallyappropriatetermwouldbein-
digenous,althoughthatisacontestedterm).2PriortothearrivalofTheCoca-Cola
Company,Adivasisinthestatewereinvolvedinadecadelongstruggleforrestora-
tion of land rights guaranteed under various clauses of the Indian Constitution.
Struggleshadbeengoingonsinceindependence,especiallyowingtothefactthat
642
ALLUREOFTHETRANSNATIONAL
successivegovernmentsinKerala,includingthoseledbytheCommunistPartyof
India—Marxist (CPI–[M]), had not paid any attention to the desperate situation
faced by Adivasis in the state (Bijoy and Ravi Raman 2003; Ravi Raman 2002,
2004). Adivasi movements that sprang up demanding rights to land and political
autonomy faced a combination of willful ignorance on the part of the state, and,
onoccasion,armedrepressionfromlandlordsandpoliceforces.Althoughthestate
ofKeralafinallyagreedtoprovideuptofiveacresafamilyandtorespectcommu-
nityself-governancein2001,ithasyettofollowthroughontheseaccords(Bijoy
2006; Ravi Raman 2004). This decade of struggle for Adivasi rights to land and
self-governance played a crucial role in the mobilization against The Coca-Cola
Companythatfollowed.
MuchofthePlachimadastrugglehasbeenwellpublicized;here,Ionlyoutline
somekeyelements.3TheCoca-ColaCompanyacquired34.64acresin1998andin
2000receivedalicensefromthelocalPerumattypanchayat—thesmallestunitof
governanceinruralIndia—andpermissionfromthestategovernmenttoproduce
softdrinkstothetuneofhalfamillionlitersaday.ThePerumattypanchayatitself
coversseveralvillagesandcommunities,includingAdivasiones,andiscontrolled
by the local landholding and political elite who sought to reap the benefits from
investmentina“backward”zone.DespiteAdivasieffortstoasserttheirownrights
of governance and claim political autonomy, at the moment of The Coca-Cola
Company’s entry into the region, they were still under the control of the wider
panchayat.
Productionsoonbegan,andby2000–01,TheCoca-ColaCompanywasex-
tractinganywherefrom500,000to1.5millionlitersofgroundwateraday(ittakes
roughly3litersofgroundwatertomake1literofsoftdrinkor1literofbottled
water).Withinaspaceoftwoyears,thewatertableloweredconsiderablyandthere
wasevidencethatgroundwaterinthesurroundingareaswascontaminated.Local
farmers and peasants, who hired the bulk of the local landless population were
especiallyhard-hitinthenexttwoyears.4 InanarticlepublishedintheStatesman
newspaper,ArjunSenwrote:
Threeyearsago,thelittlepatchoflandinthegreen,picturesquerollinghills
of Palakkad yielded 50 sacks of rice and 1,500 coconuts a year. It provided
workfordozensoflabourers.ThenCokearrivedandbuilta40-acrebottling
plant nearby. In his last harvest, Shahul Hameed, owner of a smallholding,
couldmanageonlyfivesacksofriceandjust200coconuts.Hisirrigationwells
haverundry,thankstoCokedrawingupto1.5millionlitresofwaterdaily
643
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 22:4
throughitsdeepwellstobottleCoke,Fanta,Sprite,andthedrinkthelocals
callwithoutirony,“ThumbsUp.”[Ranjith2004:57]
In addition to the losses faced by farmers like Hameed, there was also mounting
evidencethatTheCoca-ColaCompanywasdumpingitswastesludge,latershown
to be highly toxic, in nearby farmlands and also giving it away free to farmers as
fertilizer.
EarlyAdivasiprotestsweresquelchedbypanchayatofficials,butbyApril2002
an organized resistance began. All the political parties in the State opposed the
peacefulprotest,butassupportgrewforthestruggleacrosstheStateandspread
tootherpartsofIndia,theCPI–(M)gotinvolvedandusedthePlachimadastruggle
asaplatformtorailagainstthepoliciesoftherulingcenter-rightallianceinKerala
andthearroganceofU.S.imperialism.5ByJuly2003,thetoxicnatureofthesludge
inthefieldsbecamehighlypublicizedthroughBBCradionewscasts,andtheKerala
StatePollutionControlBoard,afterconfirmingthis,demandedthatTheCoca-Cola
Company stop dumping sludge and that the company recover all waste material
fromthenearbyfields.
TomakemattersworseforTheCoca-ColaCompanyandPepsiCo,theCenter
forScienceandEnvironment(CSE)inNewDelhi,whichhadcarriedoutananalysis
ofsoftdrinksinandaroundNewDelhi,publishedareportin2003pointingoutthe
highlevelsofpesticidesintheproducts.By2004,theIndianParliament,althoughit
didnotofficiallycondemnthesoftdrinkgiants,wasnonethelessconcernedenough
aboutthedigestivesystemsofIndianpoliticiansthatitbannedCoca-ColaandPepsi
products in its cafeterias and clubs. Several schools in New Delhi followed suit.
Middle-classschoolstudentsprotestedinthestreetsofmetropolitanareasagainst
thepesticidecontentofthedrinks.AnewspaperarticleintheGuardianonNovember
2, 2004 further fanned the flames. On the basis of interviews among farmers in
thestatesofAndhraPradeshandChattisgarh,JohnVidal(2004)pointedoutthat
farmersinthesestateswereactuallyusingCoca-Colaasapesticidetokillcotton
pestsbecauseCoca-ColawasmuchcheaperthanproductspeddledbyMonsantoor
DowChemicalsanditwasdoinganadmirablejobinriddingthepestpopulation.
Whetherthiswasanisolatedincident(asTheCoca-ColaCompanyclaimed)ornot,
thearticlefurtheraddedammunitiontothegrowingconcernsanddebatesoverthe
safetyofsoftdrinks,ingeneral,andCoca-ColaandPepsi,inparticular.
Thegatheringstormsurroundinghighpesticidecontentinsoftdrinksavidly
consumedbythemassofmiddle-andworking-classIndians,however,meantthat
theissueofgroundwaterandtheagrariancrisisinPlachimada,theoriginalimpetus
644
ALLUREOFTHETRANSNATIONAL
fortheresistance,wassoonmarginalized.Indeed,inKeralaitself,wherethelocal
panchayatcanceledTheCoca-ColaCompany’slicensein2003becauseofground-
waterdepletionandthediresituationfacingfarmers,thehighcourtadmonishedit
foroversteppingitsboundsofauthority.However,thehighcourtremainedfocused
ontheissueoftoxicsludgeinthewastecontentofthedischargesfromthebottling
plant.Becausethewastecontentissueremainedunresolved,bylate2004eventhe
highcourtconcurredwiththepanchayat’srefusaltorenewTheCoca-ColaCom-
pany’slicense.Theseesawbattleoverwater,sludge,pesticides,properjurisdiction
and rights of governance continued for the next two years as the panchayat, the
courts,andtheKeralaStatePollutionControlBoardtriedtoresolvetheissue.The
Adivasis,andtosomeextentthepanchayat,remainedfocusedontheissueofcom-
munitywaterrights;thestatepollutioncontrolboardandthecourt,onthetoxic
sludge.Aseveredroughtin2004inKeralacomplicatedmattersasPlachimadawas
declareda“waterimpoverished”zonein2005.By2005,thePlachimadasituation
wasbeingreplicatedasthestruggleoverwaterandirrigationrightsspreadtoother
ruralcommunitiesacrossthecountry(ThaneinMaharashtra;MehdiganjinUttar
Pradesh;SivagangainTamilNadu;amongothers),whichledtoseveralagitations
anddemonstrationsagainstTheCoca-ColaCompany(Ranjith2004:65–70).The
Coca-ColaCompanybegancontemplatingmovingoutofPlachimadaandrelocating
somewhereelsewhileofferingsomeformofcompensationtothoseaffectedinthe
locality.
Last, the CSE, at the behest of the Indian Parliament, undertook and pub-
lishedamorecomprehensivestudyinAugust2006outliningthedangerouslevels
ofpesticidesinIndiansoftdrinks,includingthepresenceofbannedsubstanceslike
Malathion.Thestudywasrejectedas“unscientific”bytheIndiannationalgovern-
mentandascientificlaboratoryinLondon,evenasthenationalgovernmentwas
still trying to figure out a strategy to address the “pesticide” issue. However, the
studyopeneduppossibilitiesforactionatthelevelofindividualstates.Thenewly
electedLeftDemocraticFrontinKerala,leadbytheCPI–(M),movedquicklytoban
Coca-ColaandPepsiproductsonAugust12,2006andthiswasfollowedbyseveral
otherstates.However,inlessthantwomonths,onSeptember22,thehighcourtin
Keralarevokedthestategovernmentban.Thehighcourtcitedtwolegalreasons:(1)
becausethiswasanissueofadulteration,onlythenationalgovernmenthadaright
tobantheproduct(therearenoestablishednationaladulterationstandardsinIndia
even though a high-level committee was set up to establish standards a few years
ago);and,(2)becausetherewasnoevidencethatthiswasalife-threateningsituation
ortheoutbreakofanyhealthepidemic,thestategovernmenthadoversteppedits
645
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 22:4
authority(Bijoy2006).ThestruggleinPlachimada,itseems,willlikelycontinue
until and unless The Coca-Cola Company leaves in search of other groundwater
sources.
PLACHIMADAWITHINTHE(G)AMBITOFINDIAN
GLOBALIZATION
ThereareseveralimportantissuesraisedbythePlachimadastruggle.Itcer-
tainlyraisessomeseriousquestionsaboutthestrugglesovergovernance,decision-
making authority, and local and state power. The Plachimada case also highlights
theinadequacyofIndia’sarchaicwaterlaw,formedunderBritishrule,whichpretty
muchgivesprivatepropertyownersoflandrightstoallthewaterundertheirland,
evenif,onpaper,thestateclaimseminentdomainoverallresources.Thestruggle
also highlights the crisis of poor rural farmers and their rights to water, an issue
finallyacknowledgedbytheKeralagovernmentandhighcourtin2006inresponse
tothedroughtof2004.
However, what has attracted the most attention, especially among the mass
media and India’s cosmopolitan and political elites have been two separate yet
related issues. The first, of course, has to do with the high level of pesticides
in soft drinks. This was the single most important issue that galvanized sections
of the political elite and the urban middle class, who are otherwise quite recep-
tive to corporate globalization, but who were horrified that their children were
drinking contaminated sodas. This outrage has led to the banning of soft drinks
inmanyschoolsaroundthecountry.Theincreasingfocusofincidencesofobesity
in the metropolitan Indian middle class, as in the United States, has also led to
loud calls for reducing soft drink consumption. The second issue, although sup-
port for this is more muted, has been a strong denouncement of transnational
corporations like The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo and associated but tar-
getedattacksoncorporateglobalization.Thishasgalvanizedsegmentsofboththe
right- and the left-wing parties in India. Along with environmental and commu-
nity activists, they add their voices to the debates and concerns about growing
transnational corporate control of the planet’s water resources (see, e.g., Barlow
andClarke2002;BunkerandCiccantell2005;InternationalConsortiumofInves-
tigativeJournalists2003;Kysar2005;Shiva2002,2005).Theseissuesarecertainly
importantandhaveplayedacrucialroleingalvanizingactivistsaroundthecountry
and linked them to struggles against The Coca-Cola Company in other coun-
tries.However,theresulthasbeenarathernarrow“packaging”ofthesituationin
Plachimada.
646
ALLUREOFTHETRANSNATIONAL
ThestruggleinPlachimadaisthusseveredfromissuesrelatingtoland,agrarian
struggles,andconcernssurroundingwaterandirrigationintheIndiancountryside,
and instead is reframed, relocated, and reconfigured into the broader discourses
anddebatessurroundingglobalization’simpactonIndia.Thisisofcourseunder-
standableatonelevelbecausetherehasbeenahighdegreeofconvergenceinthe
languages and discourses of policymakers, corporate elites, the mass media, aca-
demics,andactivistsinIndiaaselsewhere.Thesearethediscoursesdominatedby
thesymbolicallyloadedkeywordsofourtime—corporateglobalization,transna-
tionalcorporations,transnationalnetworksofgovernance,transnationalnetworks
of struggle, time–space compression, and so forth. The mass media in India and
the West, along with “experts” such as best-selling author and journalist Thomas
Friedman, focus attention on the Indian stock markets, information technology,
explosiveeconomicgrowth,andthegrowingpurchasingpoweroftheurbanIndian
middleclass.
Similarly,theacademicliteratureonIndia,includingthoseofseveralanthropol-
ogists,isdominatedbyissuesrelatedtomassmedia,informationtechnology,con-
sumptionandshopping,culturalidentitypolitics,newsubjectivities,andtransna-
tionalisminitsvariousincarnations(see,e.g.,Appadurai2002;Breckenridge1995;
Favero2003;Lukose2005;Mankekar1999;Mazzarella2003;Mirchandani2004;
Ramamurthy2003).Theyallhaveinvariouswaysmadeimportantcontributionsto
ourunderstandingofsomeofthepolitical,economic,andculturalshiftsunderway
inIndiasincetheeconomicreformsofthe1980s.Intheprocess,theyhavehelpedto
refineconceptualandtheoreticaldebatesinanthropologyandothersocialsciences
abouttheunevennatureofglobalization;theimportanceoftransnationalimaginar-
ies;thegrowingimportanceofconsumption,media,andinformationtechnologies;
andtheimpactonwork,subjectivities,andconfigurationsofpower.Alloftheseare
certainlyimportantissuesandthereisnointentionheretosuggestthattheseissues
arenotdeservingofattentionorthattheseprocessesdonotneedtobeaccounted
for.
However,thishascomeataprice.AnythingthatisworthyofattentioninIndia,
atleastfromanacademicperspective,isabouttheworkingoutofglobalizationand
transnationalism.Althoughthisistrueononelevel(anythingthathappensisrelated
toglobalization),onanotherlevelitisnot:thereareissuespeculiartolocal,regional,
andnationaldynamicsinIndiathatneedtobeanalyzedinamannerquitedistinct
fromtheliteratureontransnationalismandglobalization.Thattheyare“connected”
insomewaytoglobalprocessesiswithoutdoubt;however,theresultcannotbean
obfuscationofthewidereconomicandpoliticalrealitiesofthesubcontinent.
647
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 22:4
Thisisevidentevenwhenonelookssomeatrecentimportantandperceptive
contributionstotheanthropologicalliteratureonIndia.Take,asanexample,the
recentarticlebyGuptaandSharma(2006)onthenatureof“neoliberal”governmen-
talityinpostcolonialstates.Thearticleisafascinatinganalysisofthe“contingent”
nature of neoliberal governmentality and demonstrates the variegated impact of
marketreformsatdifferentlevelsofthestate.Further,ithighlightsbothcontinuities
anddiscontinuitiesinthewaysinwhichthe“transnational”Indianstateaddresses
welfareanddevelopmentissuesindifferenttimeperiods(pre-andpostneoliberal
reforms) through deployment of various discourses and practices of governance,
paternalism,andempowerment.Intheprocess,especiallybydocumentingthecon-
tinuingcommitmentoftheneoliberalIndianstatetosome“version”ofwelfare,they
challengethecommonsensenotionthatneoliberalformsofrule,asexperiencedand
analyzedintheWest,necessarilyleadtoaretrenchmentor“cutbacks”onwelfare.
Althoughthisiscertainlyavaluableadditiontothegrowingliteratureonneoliberal
governmentality,onemustaskwhattheoveralleffectisintermsofitsanalysisofthe
Indianstate?IntheireffortstosituateIndianstateactionsandpolicieswithinaglobal
andtransnationalframework,somethingpeculiarresults:stateviolenceinitsmul-
titudinalforms,intheanalysisofneoliberalgovernmentality,disappears(seealso
Ghosh2006:525–527).Thisisastatethatregularlyimprisonsandkillsitscitizens
notonlyin“hotspots”likeKashmir,Gujarat,orAndhraPradeshbutalsoin“demo-
cratic”entitieslikeKerala.Furthermore,theroleofthestateinbuttressinglandlord
andcasteformsofruleoritsinvolvementinpatternsof“accumulationthroughdis-
possession,”todeploytheusefulphrasefromDavidHarvey(2003),iselided.
Iamsuretheauthorsdidnothavetheintentionofobscuringsuchelementsof
the“neoliberal”and“transnational”Indianstate’spatternsofgovernance,butthey
certainly contribute to a certain kind of conceptual framework that ignores the
widerpoliticalandeconomicrealitiesofIndia.Surely,theregularuseorthreatto
usestateviolencedoesplaysomeroleinachieving“compliance”tostateprograms
andcontributestobroaderhegemonicprojectsatlocal,regional,andnationallevels
(see,e.g.,Hansen2001;Shah2006;Simpson2006;Sundar2006).Asstatedearlier,
itisnotmyintentiontosingleoutthisarticlefortargetedcriticismbuttoarguethat
itcontributestoamuchbroader“globalized”framework,whichalthoughcertainly
generative of exciting academic debates nonetheless, does so at the expense of a
discussion of the wider economic and political realities of contemporary India.
This is the trouble with much of the recent dominant literature on the Indian
situationthatIhavealludedto—withitsstressontheglobalandthetransnational
andsubsequenterasureofuncomfortableaspectsoftheIndiansituationthatdonot
648
ALLUREOFTHETRANSNATIONAL
neatly fit into our analytical frameworks. As one commentator recently pointed
out,theoveralleffectofsuchframeworks“representsanideologicalmovetoplace
undertheoreticalerasuretheseexcludedaspectsofcontemporaryhistoricalreality”
(Turner2002:75).Tobetterunderstandthis,letusbrieflylookatsomeaspectsof
thepoliticaleconomyofcontemporaryIndiansituation.
“THEOTHERINDIAOFTHE88%”
India’svastmajoritiesdonotliveinurbanareas.Themegacitiesaccountfor
12percentofthepopulation.Alongwithsmallerurbanareaslocatedintherural
hinterland, this accounts for 30 percent of the country’s population. The urban
middle class, depending on one’s definition, is somewhere in the realm of 250
millionindividuals,althoughevenhereonehastobecareful.Thevastmajorityof
themearnbetween70,000and200,000rupeesayear,whichtranslatestoabout
$1,800–$5,000 a year.6 In the Indian context, this does translate into important
purchasingpower;surelytheissueofbottledwater,softdrinks,andotherpatterns
ofcommodityconsumptionisfirmlyrelatedtothisgroup.Letustakethe“strategic”
informationtechnologysector,theenginesofIndia’sglobalizationandthe“villains”
responsibleforU.S.worriesaboutoutsourcing,andincreasinglythefocusofcutting
edgeanthropologicalresearch.Thissector—isabout1.2millionpeople,lessthan
0.05percentoftheIndianworkforce(Joshi2004).Althoughithascontributedtothe
GDPandexportearnings,ithasalsohighlightedsomeproblemswiththisparticular
“growthstrategy”andreinforcedthe“digitaldivide”inIndia(Parayil2006).These
“information professionals” along with the rest of the urban middle class that is
tiedtocorporatecapitalandtheservicessectorinIndiadoplayanimportantrole
in shaping the dynamics of neoliberal globalization in India. However, this India
is still tied to and connected in multiple ways to the other India, what Barbara
Harriss-Whitecalls“theIndiaofthe88%”(2005:3).
This is rural India, with its numerous small and big towns, including some
largecities,thatmakesofthebulkofthepopulation.Thisisalsotheheartofthe
Indianeconomy,muchofitinformalwithcombinationsofcapitalist,semicapitalist,
andnoncapitalistproductionforms.Mostofthepopulationislandlessorlandpoor
whoaredirectlyandindirectlytiedtoandexploitedbythedominantgrouping—
the“intermediateclasses.”7 Thisisaheterogeneousgroupingthatincludesaloose
allianceofmiddleandrichpeasants,smallmanufacturersandsmallagrariancapital-
ists,merchants,moneylenders,andwealthypettycommodityproducers(Ahmad
1996:45;Harriss-White2005:43).Thisgrouphasformedahegemonicbloc,inthe
Gramsciansense,inIndiasince1947.Ithasformedallianceswithurbancorporate
649