Quick post

First Part

Commenting on UP CM Mayawati decision to order closure of Reliance Fresh outlet after protest by SP backed trader union, Gautan Chikermane had wondered why there was no lobbying in support of Reliance by political parties as entry of retail giants benefit farmers who constitute a bigger vote bank than traders. I was going to write a post explaining the absence. However as it turns out that lobbying in support has already started (via Rohit).

In an interesting turn to the controversy over the closure of the Reliance Fresh stores by the UP government, farmers of Lucknow and nearby districts have taken up the cudgels to fight for the cause of the retail industry in UP. Reliance sources its fruits and vegetables from these farmers.
The Bhartiya Kisan Union (Ambavat faction) today submitted a memorandum to Chief Minister Mayawati and the district magistrate of Lucknow, demanding an immediate reopening of the Reliance stores in Lucknow and other places in UP.
The memorandum said the farmers of Lucknow and nearby were incurring huge losses due to the closure of the Reliance stores.
The BKU has also submitted a memorandum to the DM, Unnao, 65 km from Lucknow, demanding opening of the Reliance stores by August 31. Else, they would launch an agitation against the government.
The farmers protesting against the closure of the retail stores staged a demonstration in front of the Collection Centre opened by Reliance at Gosainganj, 15 km from Lucknow, on the day of Raksha bandhan.[Business Standard]

Perhaps politicians from TamizhNadu could take a hint. Kerala is of course out of question.

Second Part

Rohit on another post , which was response to this article by Pratap Bhanu Mehta, comments,

Finally, Gaurav in his comment has talked about resolution. I would argue that apart from fixing the grand narrative of state failure, little else can be done. A non-violent society may not necessarily be the ideal one; absence of violence might merely signify that traditional structures of control–whether ruling elites or societal norms–continue to hold sway. A rapidly changing society on the other hand where old social structures are being broken down and new ones to replace them have not been erected as yet would continue to exhibit violence till a new equilibrium has been found. In the interim, perhaps the best that can be done is to attempt to moderate the violence; any attempt to stifle its expression which would necessarily take the form of rejection of the new might be counter-productive. I recognize that this might be a controversial point and a debate would be useful.

This is for most part correct, however I would like to rephrase in my words. Our first premise is that the society as it exists presently is not to our liking. We would like to see a different version. This is common, however the version we aspire to bring are going to be disparate, and as such source of difference.

Second any transition will be resisted by the entrenched, this is a given. Hence a certain amount of disharmony and even breakdown of order is expected in transition. However two things must be remembered. First that while progress may imply breakdown, breakdown as such doesn't imply progress. Is breakdown India witnessing an indicator of better things to come ? It is hard to say. Second while the breakdown is to be expected, nevertheless efforts must be made to minimize it, as any breakdown in order is in effect damages the foundation of society.