John Robb does a fantastic job discussing bandh dynamics in this post. Bandh means “closed” in Hindi and in this case is used to describe various close-outs that occured in India over the last few weeks. In Punjab, it was a clear case of an “eye-for-an-eye”. The events go like this:
1984
Indira Gandhi orders the Indian Army to force their way into the Golden Temple to remove armed insurgents
As a result, she is assassinated in New Delhi by her two Sikh bodyguards
Gandhi loyalists being anti-Sikh riots that result in a lot of innocent deaths
2009
25th anniversary of Indira Gandhi’s prime ministership and assassination are celebrated
A week later, Sikh loyalists begin the one-day bandh and close down Punjab
I was in India for the Punjab Bandh and it was a ghost town that day. I still went out to run a few errands and a couple of shopkeepers were open to take advantage of th situation. At tremendous risk though, since the bandh initiators could have easily called them out and made trouble for the long run. The scary thing was my parents were driving in that day from New Delhi (which suffered its own bandh a week later) and buses, trains, roadways and such were the first to be blocked off by the boycotters. They got lucky and ended up cruising the empty streets, shaving an hour off their trip.
Robb describes the impact the best:
In short, it is pure global guerrilla. For example:
It exacts “taxes” on local businesses and individuals.
It promotes and participates in a thriving black market (which is made even more important due to suppression of “legitimate activity”).
It can rent the Bandh to politicians and businessmen for their own purposes. Competitive Bandhs from labor and politicians (aka non-violent strikes), are disrupted and can often turn violent when the Naxalites enforce their monopoly.
The last point – especially in essentially corrupt political environments such as in the East – is the scariest. Politicians renting out the black market and disguising it as a mercenary force gives little control to a “democratic” populace. When everyone agrees the wrong thing is OK, change management is nothing but showmanship.
The NYTimes article last week talked about President Obama’s attack on the health insurance industry. Here’s why it happened:
The report, issued by America’s Health Insurance Plans, concluded that premiums would rise 18 percent more under provisions of a Senate bill than they would otherwise in the next decade, to an average of nearly $26,000 for families and $9,700 for individuals in 2019.
Obama’s charged response:
“It’s smoke and mirrors,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, ‘Take one of these, and call us in a decade.’ Well, not this time.”
Rather than trying to curb costs and help patients, he said, the industry is busy “figuring out how to avoid covering people.”
“And they’re earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exemption from our antitrust laws,” he said, “a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing.”
More politics. The David and Goliath game continues and you’re never sure who represents which side. It’s as confusing as health care reform itself. I publish a newsletter to try to make sense of it anyhow.
Joe Paduda of Managed Care Matters clarifies the details of the exemption from anti-trust regulations here, and here is Jay Parkinson’s take on the issue.
This prize, which came as Obama contemplates a troop build-up in Afghanistan and hectors the international community on financial regulation and global warming, suggests that there is some reservoir of relief and amazement for America’s young president. The international gushing may seem absurd to us, as the schoolyard lionization of an older brother often seems funny to a sibling, but it can be used to our advantage. Leaders in allied countries no longer run against America, and now the Nobel Committee is attempting to welcome America back as the leader of the free world. And it didn’t cost us anything. Would that life told more jokes like that one.
That’s from Ezra Klein.
It’s signaling value is more important than the prize itself. Obama certainly doesn’t need another wall trophy.