How Does an Asian Commons

Mean

Lawrence Liang Prashant Iyengar

Jiti Nichani

2

TableofContents 1. Introduction2. Violence,DispossessionandtheEnclosuresMovementinEurope3. How does an Asia Commons mean: Notes towards a Genealogy of theCommonsinAsia4. MappingtheEnclosuresMovementinAsia5. TheUncannyLightnessofBeinganAsianCulturalCommons6. Conclusion

3

IntroductionAwalkthroughthelexicaljungleofintellectualpropertyrevealsarangeofstrangecreatures lurking invariousnooksandcorners.Apatenthere, a trademark thereandcopyrightsspringingthreatsattrespasserswarningthemnottostrayintothedomainofprotectedproperty.OntheothersideoftheIPjungleliestheenchanted,albeitmythicalcommonsinwhichoneisallowedthefreedomtoroamandsamplethepleasuresoftheforestswithouttheriskoflegalaction.Theinvocationofthesemetaphorsofjunglesmayseemselfindulgent,butwebelievethattheyservemorethanadecorativevalue, as thismonograph seeks to returnus inhabitantsof thedigitalcommonstothelandsandforests,wherethetwinstoriesofthemakingofpropertyandthedestructionofthecommonsbegins.Wewillnavigatethisjourneyviahistory,keepingonefootfirmlywithinthecontemporary,sothatthepastmayrevealourpresenttousinclearerlight.Philosophershavewarnedus thatwhenawordorphrasebecomessocommonlyusedastorequirenoexplanationorsubstantiation,thenwehavetobeallthemorecarefulwhileusingit.Inrecenttimeswehaveseenthedramaticriseinthecareerof one such word in debates on the politics of information and knowledge, thecommons. The idea of the commons has entered the debate on copyright in asignificantmanner to signify adomainof collaborationand creationunhingedbytheusualrestrictionsplacedbycopyright1.Theaggressiveexpansionofintellectualpropertyintoeverydomainoflifehasbeenthe cause of concern for a number of people. Academics and scholars haveresponded to this problem in various ways. Recent scholarship on intellectualpropertyhasbeenmarkedbytheinvocationofthemetaphorofthecommonsandthe public domain, and the threat that it faces from this limitless expansion ofintellectualproperty.Moreoftenthannotthecommonsisallegorizedasamythicalideal governed by principles of sharing, access and collaboration,whichwas lostafter the first enclosuresmovement. The argument proceeds to caution against asimilarenclosure,thesecondenclosuresmovementintherealmoftheinformationecology that threatens to privatize every aspect of information and knowledgetherebythreateningcreativityandaccesstoknowledge.Thereseemstobeaconsensusthatweallknowwhatwearespeakingofwhenwespeak of the commons, and the task of this monograph will be to examine andquestionourcommonplaceassumptionsaboutthecommons.When we participate in the making of the digital commons we rarely ask thequestion of why it is that the metaphor of the commons has emerged as thedominantmetaphoragainsttheperceivedprivatizationofknowledgeandculture.When probed a little further, an entire set of questions are raised: How did thecommonscometobechosenas themostappropriatemodeofdescribingasetofcollaborative practices of sharing that refuses to secede to the logic ofCommodification of knowledge? Inwhatmanner for instancedoes it differ from 1AfewexamplesofituseincludeCreativeCommons,ScienceCommons,AsianCommons,DigitalCommonsetc.

4

other ideas such as the public domain? Is the commons synonymous with theabsenceofpropertynorms?Cantherebeanautomatictranslationofthehistoryofthe commons in land to theworld of intellectual property? It is to carve a spacethroughwhichwecancollectivelynavigatethisratherdenseworldofthecommonsthatwehavewrittenthisprimeronthecommonsforthecommoner.There arevariousways inwhichan introduction to the commons canbewrittenandthemostobviouswaywouldbetointroducetheideaoftheknowledge/culturecommons and examine how they have been threatened by the expansion of theglobal IP regime. Thiswould be followed typically by an introduction to variousinitiativesthatseektocounterthehegemonyofintellectualpropertyandcreateanalternative normative paradigm, one that promotes freedom and access toknowledgeandcultureinthenameofthecommons.Itwould,inotherwordsserveasanintroductiontothevariousissuesatstaketothelayperson.By now, this aspect of the story is familiar enough, and has been documentedextremelywell2.Webelieve that therewouldbenopurposeserved in reiteratingthe story, and we instead take this opportunity to introduce a set of criticalquestions anddirections inwhich future researchon thenature of the commonsmayproceed.Wehavethereforechosentotakeaslightlydifferentroutetotellourstoryof thecommons.Ratherthanassumeonesinglestoryforthecommonsthatexists,ouraimhasbeentoexpandthepossibilitiesofengagingwiththecommonsandwiththehistoryofthecommoner(aphrasethatthehistorianPeterLinebaughusestorefernotjusttolaypersonsbuttoinhabitantsofthecommons).Oneofourattemptshasbeentoframethequestioninsuchamannerthatitenablesthecomingtogetherofexistingapproachestotheproblemofintellectualpropertyalongwithgenealogies,disciplinesandvoicesthatarenotnormallyseenashavingatakeonquestionsofintellectualproperty.OnewayofopeningupthedebateonIPmaybe to throw itbeyond thequestionof informationand the intangiblesalone,andtoinsteadexamineotherhistoriesandroutes,whichwillenableustoreturntothequestionofintellectualpropertydifferently.Thusratherthanexaminingthequestionof intellectualpropertyasadisjunctureof thecontemporary,weseethepossibilities of looking at it through various continuums; some that navigatethroughthechequeredhistoriesofproperty,othersthatengagewiththehistoriesofspectralfigureshoveringaroundthecommons.Anexampleof suchacontinuumfor instance lies in theprocesses throughwhichnew languages of property are claimed, and have historically sought to beinstituted.Theexpansionofintellectualpropertyisastorythatcontinueswiththeexpansion of property rights in general. Contrary to common assumptions thatproperty is a universal and eternal facet of history, property is in fact a social 2 Seeforinstance,LawrenceLessig,FreeCulture:HowBigMediaUsesTechnologyandtheLawtoLockDownCultureandControlCreativity(NewYork:Penguin,2004),RosemaryCoombe,TheCulturalLifeofIntellectualProperties:Authorship,AppropriationandtheLaw(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1998),YochaiBenkler,TheWealthofNetworks,http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Download_PDFs_of_the_book,LawrenceLiang,PrimeronOpenContent,http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FOSS_Open_Content

5

artefact that has to be actively created over a period of time and consolidatedthrough various social and legal processes. But once property norms areestablished, they go on to define a larger universe of behaviours and set theboundariesbetweentheprescribedandtheprohibited.Themakingofpropertyrequires theestablishmentof the languageofownership,andthegrantofexclusiverights.Theydeterminetheextentandrangeofrightsthataccruesfromsuchownershipandfinallyalsodefineasetofpracticesthatwouldbeconsideredaninfringementwhichissuppressedbytheviolentforceofthelawintheformofcriminalsanctionsandpunishments.An examination of the making of property necessarily brings us to the olderhistoriesofhowthecommonscametobeenclosedthroughthecreationofpropertyrights.This 'enclosures'movement,whichweshallexamine ingreaterdetail,wasaccompanied by a large scale escalation of violence and dispossession of people.Our concern with contemporary expansions of intangible property is alsomotivated by the equal violence and dispossession that they are capable ofunleashing.Ifwethereforetakethehistoryofexclusion,trespassandencroachmentnotmerelyas linguistic inheritances from the history of the commons, but as conceptuallinkages that unite the worlds of the tangible and intangible, historical andcontemporary,wemaybefurnishedwithasetofconceptualresources,whichareotherwiseunavailableatanysingularentrypointintothedomain.Themakingofproperty isalsoaproject that is fraughtwith tensionand fragility.Propertyassertsitsmightbytranslatingthetermsofknowledgepracticesintoitsown logic using the same coercive language of exclusion and trespass, buildingnewer fences, boundaries and walls that marked the experience of the firstenclosures movement. Fences, boundaries and walls which marked the binariesbetweentheowner/trespasser,legal/illegal,occupier./encroacherfacearesoughtto be redefined in terms of access costs, access restrictions, royalty payments,infringementclaimsandmonopolyrights.Ourconcernwith intellectualpropertystems fromtheways inwhichclaimsoverproperty over the word of intangibles ideas, expressions and creativity areeffectivelydrawingnewboundariesandfencesaroundadomainthatwasrelativelyfreeforpeopletouse.Theintroductionofadiscourseonpropertyentailsnotjustthecreationofanewsystemof legalrightsandobligations,butalso inthereworkingofexistingsocialrelations. It introduces new forms of sociality via the terms of possession andexclusionwherenonemayhaveexistedearlier.Ideasofpropertyandpersonhoodalsogohandinhandasevidencedintheworkof JohnLocke, themost influentialtheoristofproperty3.ItisalsoLockewhoprovidesthemodelwhichdeterminesthe 3See,EtienneBalibar,MyselfandMyown:OneandtheSame?,inBillMaurerandGabrieleSchwab,AcceleratingPossession:GlobalFuturesofPropertyandPersonhood,(NewYork:ColumbiaUniv.Press,2006)

6

corephilosophyofcopyright.A language of property is also totalizing in the sense that it overwrites all otherlanguagesofsocial relationswhichmayhaveexisted. If for instanceacommunityhadvariousnormsthroughwhichitdealtwithquestionsofthecontrolovernaturalorculturalresources,thesecannotcoexistwithapropertyclaim.Theintroductionof property transforms diverse practices by rendering them illegitimate or byerasing them from the official memory of a community. We shall see manyexamplesoftheseinourchapteronthehistoryofthecommonsinAsia.Oneofthemostimportantreasonsthenforrecallingahistoryforthecommonsistoalsolookatthewaysinwhichpeoplenegotiatedandmanagedtheirrelationstoland, to culture and to each other, without a property regime. We began byassertingthattheCommonsismorethanaromanticmetaphorthatisusefulforthecontemporary. It is vital forus tounderstand the commonsnot only through thelensofhistory,buttoexaminethephilosophicalchallengesthatitthrowsuptotheregimeofproperty.Weareinterestedinthepracticesofthecommonsthatcanhelpusrethinkideasofowning,possessionandmanagementofresources.Weneedinother words, an allegorical reading of the commons, which can alert us to newmodesofbeingin,andrelatingtotheworldofknowledgeandculture.C.B.Macphersonhasstatedthatthemeaningofpropertyisnotconstant.Theactualinstitutionandthewaypeopleseeit,andhencethemeaningtheygivetotheword,allchangeovertime.Thechangesarerelatedtochangesinthepurposesinwhichsociety or the dominant classes in society expect the institution of property toserve.One interestingexampleof this isslavery.Fora longperiodof time, itwasseen as being perfectly legitimate and moral to be able to own human beings.Today slavery is considered morally reprehensible and humans are no longerregardedaslegitimateobjectsofpossession.Consequently,institutionalizedslaverynolonger"fits"withinourmodemconceptualizationofpropertyandisdeemedanillegalformofownershipbymostcultures.Andyet,mostpeoplewouldbeshockedby the suggestion that theremay beways of going about theworldwithout theconceptofproperty,atleastinthemannerinwhichitisapplied.WhenJohnLocketheorizedthestateofnature,oneofthemostimportantinsightsthat he drew onwas the idea that the state of nature lacked a regime of privateproperty. And itwas this lack of private property, for Locke, that resulted in theunpredictablenatureoflifesincetherewasnoruleoflawwhichregulatedsociety.It is important to remember that Lockes state of nature was not merely animaginary one. While writing about the state of nature, he really had in mindpracticesofindigenousandaboriginalpeopleinBelizeandGuyana.UnderEnglishcommonlaw,landthatwasalreadyoccupiedorinpossessionofanothercouldnotsimply be taken by force. But Locke helped redefine the concept of propertyownershiptoovercomethelegalbarstoappropriationofthelandinthepossessionoftheAboriginalsandtofacilitatethecolonialpurposeoftheEuropeansettlers.4 4 MaryCaldbick,Locke'sdoctrineofpropertyandthedispossessionofthePassamaquoddy,PhDDissertationsubmittedtoTheUniversityofNewBrunswick,1997,TaraLetwiniuk,JohnLocke:TheDevonshireFarmerandtheDispossessionoftheAmerndiansofBelizeandGuyana,PhDDissertationsubmittedtotheUniversityofToronto,1998

7

Traditional approaches to Locke's work have failed to appreciate the extent towhichhis theoryof landownership isconstructedaroundhisattemptstoresolvethe debate in England over the unique legal problems arising from Britishterritorialexpansionandthesettlers'needforlandinthenewworld.Locke,inhisdefenseofthedispossessionofnatives,constructedasetofargumentsintendedtodeflect claims thatEuropean rights to land in thenewworldwere limitedby theprioroccupationoftheAboriginals.Locke also remains one of the exemplar philosophers of the seventeenth andeighteenth century, a period inwhichmany of our ideas of selfhood emerges. Inmany ways, the question of personal identity was the primary question thatmotivatedLockes enquiry, andhis theories set the stage for thephilosophic andjuridical establishment of what Macpherson calls the theory of possessiveindividualism.5 While the question of personal identity troubled manyphilosophers even before Locke, itwas onlywith the publication of Lockes TwoTreatises on Government and Essay Concerning Human Understanding that youhavetheestablishmentofthemostcoherentargumentlinkingtheoriesofidentitytoproperty.ForLocke,consciousness isamentaloperationthatappropriatestheself to itself,wheretoappropriatemeansto identifywithortomakeapropertyof.Theuseofthewordownisbothasanadjective(myownthought)andasaverb(toconfess).The relationship between the self and the own is therefore dependent on acircularity whereby ideas of identity and identification on the one side andappropriation on the other continuously exchange their function and becomevirtuallyequivalent.Therelationshipbetweentheselfandtheownisdependentona self fulfillingprophesywhere what I canconsiderasme,myself ismyselfandmyselfissomethingthatIown,orthatImustown(confess)ismine,wasdoneorthoughtbyme,hasbecomemyownbecauseIappropriatedittomebydoingitorthinkingitconsciously.6If there is sucha strong linkbetween thehistoryofproperty and the creationofconceptsofpersonhood,itisarguablethenthatthehistoryofthecommonsisnotmerelyaninterestinalternativeregimesofproperty,butaquestforfundamentallydifferent ideasofpersonhoodaswell. JGAPococksaysthat ifpropertyisbothanextension and a pre requisite of personality then we should be aware of thepossibilitythatdifferentmodesofpropertymaybeseenasgenerallyencouragingdifferentmodesofpersonality.7Thismonographwillthusaddressthreecorethematicconcerns: 5 Macpherson,C.B.ThePoliticalTheoryofPossessiveIndividualism:HobbestoLocke.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1962.6 See,EtienneBalibar,MyselfandMyown:OneandtheSame?,inBillMaurerandGabrieleSchwab,AcceleratingPossession:GlobalFuturesofPropertyandPersonhood,(NewYork:ColumbiaUniv.Press,2006)7 JGAPockock,TangataWhenuaandEnlightenmentanthropology,NewZealandJournalofHistory,Vol.26,No.1(1992),2833

8

The first segment takes us through the history of the commons. We willattempttoanswerthequestionofwhythemetaphorofthecommonsisusedin contemporary debates on IP by linking the experience of pre propertyforms,aswellasprovidinganaccountofdispossessioncreatedbyproperty.ThenextsegmentposestheratherdifficultquestionofhowwecanprovideanaccountofthecommonsintheAsiancontext.GiventhedifferenthistoriesofEuropeandAsiawithrespecttoenclosures,itseekstoraisefundamentalquestions ofwhat itmeans tomake a claim of anAsian experience of thecommons.Inthethirdsegment,wewillattempttochartoutpossibledirectionsthataprojecton theorizingof thecommons inAsiawillneedto take.WewilldothisbysamplingthehistoryofthecommonsinlandinAsia,aswellaslookatthewaysinwhichanAsianculturalcommonsmaybethoughtof.Finally,wewillreturntothecontemporarydebatestoseehowanAsianCommonscancontributetotheglobaldebateonthecommons.

9

Violence,DispossessionandtheEnclosuresMovementinEuropeRecentintellectualpropertydebateshavewitnessedamanifoldexpansionofcatchphrases such as the ecommons, creative commons, network commons, digitalcommons and other such adaptations of the commons to describe a system ofcollaboration, access and exchange of information. Invoking thismetaphor of thecommonshashelpedcreateanalternativelanguagetothedominantdiscourseofintellectual property. However, very often, the contemporary invocation of thecommonsdoesnotreallycapturethehistoricalexperienceofthecommons,andweattempt to revisit the history of the commons to provide an account of thecommons,whichisattentivetoitstenuousrelationshipwithproperty,legality,andtheexperienceofdispossession.Butfirstweneedtobeginwithafewinstancesofthewaythatthecommonsisevokedincontemporaryscholarship.By the commons Imeana resource that is freenotnecessarily zero cost, but ifthereisacost,itisaneutrallyimposed,orequallyimposedcost.LawrenceLessig8Lessigdefinestheecommonsas:It is commonplace to think about the Internet as a kind of commons. It is lesscommonplacetoactuallyhavean ideawhatacommons is.ByacommonsImeanaresourcethat is free.Notnecessarilyzerocost,but if there isacost, it isaneutrallyimposed,orequallyimposedcost.Opensource,orfreesoftware,isacommons:thesourcecodeofLinux,forexample,liesavailableforanyonetotake,touse,toimprove,toadvance.Nopermissionisnecessary;noauthorisationmayberequired.9InLessigs invocation, the commons is equatedwith the ideaof freedom,and theuseofthecommonsistodescribewhatinthefreesoftwareworldhascometobedescribedastheessentialfreedom.Yochai Benkler, whose work focuses on a Commonsbased approached tomanagingnetworkeconomiesdescribesthecommonsasanewmodelofeconomicproduction in which the creative energies of large numbers of people arecoordinated (usuallywith the aid of the internet) into large,meaningful projects,mostly without traditional hierarchical organisation or financial compensation.10He defines the networked information economy as a nonmarket economy ofinformation,knowledgeandculture that flows throughsocietyoveraubiquitous,decentralisednetwork.And finally, the Creative Commons sees the commons as the cultural domain inwhichculturalresourcesareavailablefreelyforpeopletouse,modifyandshare. 8 LarryLessig,TheArchitectureofInnovation,51DukeL.J.1783,1788(2002).9 Ibid.10 Coase'sPenguinorLinuxandThenatureofthefirmapaperbyYochaiBenklerdefiningwhatCommonsBasedPeerProductionisandhowitworks.Thepaperalsoincludesalongstudyofwhatmotivatescontributors.

10

Aswehave stated inour introduction:Whenweparticipate in themakingof thedigital commonswerarelyask thequestionofwhy it is that themetaphorof thecommons has emerged as the dominant metaphor against the perceivedprivatization of knowledge and culture. We would like to restate some of thequestionsthatmotivateussuchas: HowdidthecommonscometobechosenasthemostappropriatemodeofdescribingasetofcollaborativepracticesofsharingthatrefusestosecedetothelogicofCommodificationofknowledge? In what manner for instance does it differ form other ideas such as thepublicdomain? Isthecommonssynonymouswiththeabsenceofpropertynorms? Cantherebeanautomatictranslationofthehistoryofthecommonsinlandtotheworldofintellectualproperty?The invocationof the commons in thedigital age is auseful startingpoint, but itwould be incomplete if we did not acknowledge the histories of the making ofpropertyanditssubsequenthistory.Thecontemporaryinvocationofthecommonsdonot seem toaddress the fundamentalquestionof theeffectof the languageofpropertyonexistingsocialrelations,onideasofownershipandonideasofcrime.Ourprimaryinterestinrevisitingthehistoryofthecommonsistoexplorethewaysinwhichpeopleimaginedformsofexistenceandrelationalitythatwereoutsideoftheimaginationofproperty,theviolenceunleashedbythegradualenclosureofthecommons, and how a large number of people dispossessed by the enclosuresmovement relied on the memory of the commons in future struggles for basicentitlements.Socialhistoriansofcrime,forinstance,haverigorouslyalertedustotheintertwinedhistoriesofpropertyandcriminalization.Itmaythereforebeinsufficientforustoinvokethecommonsonlyinallegoricalterms,anditmaybemorefruitfultolookatcurrent conflicts over intellectual property within a wider historical continuum,whichexaminesthenatureofcontestationoverthedefinition,thecontoursandtheenforcementofpropertyitself.Thefirstenclosureswhichresultedintheexpropriationofthecommonsfreedlargeterritories for capitalist agriculture, logging,mining, and speculation in land, andcreatedatthesametimeavastarmyofthedispossessedwhowerethenfreedtobecome wage earners in new industrializing areas at home or abroad, orcriminalizedthroughharshlawsthatimposedpenalservitudeinthecolonies.Theenclosure of the commons was therefore just the first step towards theconsolidationoftheruleofproperty,andthecareerofcapital.Linebuagh characterizes thehistoryof theperiod starting from the enclosures ofthecommonsinthefollowingmanner:

11

We can periodize the almost two and a half centuries covered here by naming thesuccessiveandcharacteristicsitesofstruggle:thecommons,theplantation,theshipand the factory. In the years 16001640, when capitalism began in England andspread through trade and colonization around the Atlantic, systems of terror andsailing ships helped to expropriate the commoners of Africa, Ireland, England,Barbados and Virginia and set them to work as hewers of wood and drawers ofwater.11The history of the commons can be traced to the early fifteenth century whennearlyquarterofallthecommonlandinEnglandandWalesbegantobeenclosedbymultipleActsofParliament.12The enclosuremovementwas characterisedbythe process of physical fencing of arable land with a hedge or wall, thereintransformingcommonlandsintopiecesofprivatelyownedproperty.Priortotheenclosuremovements,themajorityofthepopulationinEnglandlivedinnucleatedsettlementswhosefieldslyingopenwereusedincommon.Underthisoldsystem, twomain labouringmethodswerepracticed: the firstwasopen fieldfarmingwhere each farmerhad rights over individual landsbutdecisions aboutthetimingofploughing,sowingandharvestingwerecommunal.13Theotherwascommunalgrazingofflocksofsheepandherdsofcattleonthecommons.Sincethetwo activities conflicted with each other, frictions were resolved usually bycommunityaction.ThefollowingaccountbyVictorMagagnaprovidessomeinsightintotheprocess:Inopenfieldsystemthecoreofdailyliferevolvedaroundacomplexofcooperativepractices that integrated arable farming and animal husbandry. In open fieldvillages, the property rights of individuals, households and communities wereintermixedinapyramidoftenurialrightsanddutiesthatdefyanyreductiontoasimple dichotomy between private and public property. Household orhearthsweretheusualbearersofultimatepropertyrightstolandinthecommonfields and forests, but thewholemembership of the village had rights of controloverwhatspecifichouseholdscoulddowiththeirproperty.Individualproprietorswereboundby.. rulesofpropertyas trusteeship,andhouseholderscouldbeheldaccountableforviolatingtheirroleastrusteesofthevillage.Forexample,excessivegrazing of animals, chopping of wood, or enclosure without the consent ofneighbours and kin could result in penalties ranging from stiff fines to violentreprisals.Rightsofaccesstoahouseholdsarablestrips,forinstance,werecruciallymoulded by the patterns of exchange and coordination that existed among allvillagermembers.Eventhedecisionaboutwhenandwhattoplantwasshapedby 11 PeterLinebaugh,TheManyHeadedHydra:Sailors,Slaves,Commoners,andtheHiddenHistoryoftheRevolutionaryAtlantic.Boston:BeaconPress,2000.Seealso,PeterLinebaugh,TheLondonHanged:CrimeandCivilSocietyintheEighteenthCentury.London:Verso,2006.,PeterLinebaugh,TheMagnaCartaManifesto:TheStruggletoReclaimLibertiesandCommonsforAll.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2008.12 RojerJ.P.Kain,JohnChapmanandRichardR.Oliver,TheEnclosureMapsofEnglandandWales,15951918,Chapter1(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004).13 JohnGoodacre,CommonfieldsandopenspacesinanEnglishmidlandcounty,p.2

12

thegrouppracticesofthevillage,andacultivatorwhowasfoolishenoughtoplantwhenhis neighbours grazed ran the risk of having his crops eatenby the villageflock.14It is clear from Magagnas account that the commons was not the zone oflawlessnessofpopularimagination.Thereexistedacomplexsetofnormsthroughwhichpeoplegovernedtheirrelationtolandandnaturalresources.Incontrasttothis, one of themost cited theorists of the commons Garret Hardin provided anaccountoftheTragedyoftheCommons,inwhichhearguesaboutthedepletionofthe commonswas caused by the absence of private property.He argues that theexploitationofpublicresourcesbyagrowingpopulationcausesthetragedyofthecommons. He based his argument on the selfish nature of individuals, who areinherently driven by the singular interest ofmaximising their own consumption,devoidofanyinjurycausedtoanother.CollectivelossisfarsmallerthantheindividualgainHardinHardinusedtheanalogyofthepasturestohighlighthispointwherehedescribeshowlocalherdsmenusethecommonvillagepasturestograzetheircows,withtheunderstanding that by adding animals towork on the land, the value of the landincreasesreapinggreaterprofits.However, italsogeneratesnegativeeffectssuchas overgrazing the land, therein affecting the prosperity of the villages. Hardinunderlines that the collective loss is far smaller than the individual gain for thefarmer,makingthevillagesusceptibletothetragedyofthecommonseachmanislocked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit in aworldthatislimited.Freedomofthecommonsbringsruintoall.15Hardinsthesishasbeenrefutedbyanumberofscholars,andweshallalsoexploreitsclaimsinasubsequentchapteronthecommonsinAsia.OnedoesnotgetasenseinHardinsanalysisofthematerialexperienceoftheenclosuresmovement.Centralto the experience of the enclosure of the commons is the experience ofdispossession. When lands which were available to all for agriculture and forgrazingareconvertedintoprivateproperty,whathappenstothepeoplewhoreliedonthecommonnessofthelandfortheirlivelihoodandsustenance?InhisdiscussionofExpropriationofAgriculturalPopulationinCapital,KarlMarxcites Bacons account, of the enclosures movement in England which is worthreproducinghere:Inclosures at that time (1489) began to bemore frequent,whereby arable land(whichcouldnotbemanuredwithoutpeopleandfamilies)wasturnedintopasture,whichwaseasilyridbyafewherdsmen;andtenanciesforyears, livesandatwill(whereuponmuchoftheyeomanrylived)wereturnedintodemesnes.Thisbredadecayofpeople,and(byconsequences)adecayoftowns,churches,tithesandthelike.16 14 VictorV.Magagna,CommunitiesofGrain:RuralRebellioninComparativePerspective15 Davis,PhilipM.TheTragedyoftheCommonsRevisited:Librarians,Publishers,FacultyandtheDemiseofthePublicResource,TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress.16 Marx,Karl,Capital,Vol.I..Chicago:CharlesH.KerrandCo.1906.Trans.Samuel,andEdwardAvelingMoore.Ed.FrederickEngels.LibraryofEconomicsandLiberty.6May2008.

13

MarxalsocitesanaccountbyaDr.Price,whichisinstructiveontheeffectsofthisenclosure:Whenthislandgetsintothehandsofafewgreatfarmers,theconsequencemustbe that the little farmers will be converted into a body of men who earn theirsubsistencebyworking forothers, andwhowill beunderanecessityof going tomarketforalltheywant..Therewill,perhapsbemorelabour,becausetherewillbemorecompulsiontoit..Townsandmanufacturerswillincrease,becausemorewillbedriventotheminquestofplacesandemployment.Thisisthewayinwhichtheengrossingof farmersnaturallyoperates. ..Upon thewhole, the circumstancesofthe lower ranks ofmen are altered in almost every respect for theworse. Fromlittleoccupiersofland,theyarereducedtothestateofdaylabourersandhirelings;and,atthesametime,theirsubsistenceinthatstatehasbecomemoredifficult.17DuringtheMiddleAgesinEngland,feudallordsbegantoevictsmallfarmersfromtheir lands,denyingthemaccesstothecommons.So landthatwasonceheld incommonorwasopenorunfencedbutheldinseveraltyslowlybegantodisappearas a result of themanifold changes in the economic and social conditions of thetime.Theimpressionweareleftwithafterthisaccountisofcommunitiesthathavea rather loose notion of private property, but a corresponding strong notion ofcollective or shared entitlements which the entire community may draw uponequally.RobertGray,apublicist,recalledatimewhen,thecommonsofourcountrylayfreeandopenforthepoorecommon[er]stoinjoy,fortherewasroomeenoughintheforeveryman,sothatnomanneededtoencroach[on] or inclose fromanother,whereby it ismanifest, that in thosedayeswehadnogreatneedto followstrangereports,or toseekewildadventures, forseeingwehadnotonelysufficiencie,butanoverflowingmeasureproportionedtoeverieman..18Theenclosuresmovement,begantorevealhowthetrendofappropriationwassetoff against the accumulation of capital, transforming land and labour intocommodities. The enclosure of common grazing land involved two processes: apropertyreorganisationmovementan(fieldandmeadowland),andareclamationmovement (common andwaste), in otherwords, themaking of property itself.19Andfinallyaconversionofthedispossessedintowagelabour.Enclosures,DispossesionandViolenceLinebaugh and Rediker beginwith an invocation of the twinmyths of themanyheadedhydraandofHerculesstaskofslayingthehydraasawayofthinkingaboutthechallengesfacedbytheworldofcapital,asitseekstoreproduceitselfendlessly,acrossborder,domainsof life,havingthesovereignauthorityof lawasitseternalcompanion. The slaying of the hydra was the second of the twelve labors of .17 Ibid18 PeterLinebaughandMarcusRediker,TheManyHeadedHydra(London,Verso,2000)19 SeeSupranote5,p3

14

Hercules.Confrontedwiththemonstrous,manyheadedHydra,awatersnakewithnine toahundredheads,Hercules found thatassoonashecutoffonehead, twogrewinitsplace.WiththehelpofhisnephewIolaus,helearnedtouseafirebrandto cauterize the stump of the beasts neck. Thus they killed the Hydra. Herculesdipped his arrows in the blood of the slain beast,whose venom thus gave to hisarrowstheirfatalpower.Usingtheallegoryofthehydraasthevariousobstaclesthatcapitalfacesfromthe18th century to the present, Linebaugh starts from the material organization ofmanythousandsofworkersintotransatlanticcircuitsofcommodityexchangeandcapitalaccumulationandthenproceedstolookatthewaysinwhichtheytranslatedtheir cooperation into anticapitalist projects of their own. The first enclosureswhich resulted in the expropriation of the commons freed large territories forcapitalist agriculture, logging,mining, and speculation in land, and created at thesame timeavastarmyof thedispossessedwhowere then freed tobecomewageearners in new industrializing areas at home or abroad, or criminalized throughharshlawsthatimposedpenalservitudeinthecolonies.Thosedispossessedfromthe landalsobecamethebulkof theworkforce for thenewenginestransportingcommodities across continents, the Ship. Sailors and ships linked the mode ofproductionandexpanded the international capitalist economy.The shipwasalsothesiteforthecomingtogetherofdiverselabours,fromdifferentethnicities,boundtogetherbyapidgintongue.Thesolidarityofthismotleycrew,likemanyothersofthe erawas forged around a commonality of their situation of dispossession andtheirlabour.LinebaughandRedikerdocumentindetailtheverydifficultconditionsunderwhichthesesailorsworked,thedangersthattheywereconstantlyexposedto,whileatthesame time creating the conditions for a solidaritywhichwould challenge smoothflowofcapital.Thefirstpiratesinasensewereoftentheoutcastofthelandwhowould mutineer against the conditions of their work, and create an alternativeorderchallengingthedivisionoflabourandofcapital.Thus summarizing the characteristic of themultitude or the hydra of the era ofearlycapitalism,LinebaughsaysthatItwas landless,exploited. It lostthe integumentofthecommonstocoverandprotectitsneeds.Itwaspoor,lackingproperty,moneyormaterialrichesofanykind.Itwasoftenunwaged,forcedtoperformthepaidlaboursofcapitalism.Itwasoftenhungry,withuncertainmeansofsurvival.Itwasmobie,transatlantic.Itpoweredindustriesofworldwidetransportation.Itlefttheland,migratingfromcountrytotown, fromregiontoregion,acrosstheoceans,andfromoneislandtoanother.Itwasterrorized,subjecttocoersion.Itshidewascallousedbyindenturedlabour,galleryslavery,plantationslavery,convicttransportation,theworkhouse, the house of correction. Its origins were often traumatic: enclosure,capture, and imprisonment left lastingmarks. It was female andmale, of all ages.(indeed,theverytermproletarianoriginallyreferredtopoorwomenwhoservedthestate by bearing children.) It included everyone fromyouth to old folks, from shipsboystooldsalts,fromapprenticestosavvyoldmasters,fromyoungprostitutestooldwitches. Itwasmultitudinous, numerous, and growing.Whether in a square, at amarket, on a common, in a regiment, or on amanofwarwith banners flying and

15

drums beating, its gatheringswerewondrous to contemporaries. It was numbered,weighed, andmeasured.Unknownas individuals or byname, itwas objectifiedandcounted for purposes of taxation, production, and reproduction. It was cooperativeandlaboring.Thecollectivepowerofthemanyratherthantheskilledlaboroftheoneproduced itsmost forcefulenergy. Itmovedburdens, shiftedearth,andtransformedthelandscape.Itwasmotley,bothdressedinragsandmultiethnicinappearance.LikeCaliban,itoriginatedinEurope,Africa,andAmerica.Itincludedclowns,orcloons(i.e.,country people). It was without genealogical unity. It was vulgar. It spoke its ownspeech, with a distinctive pronunciation, lexicon, and grammar made up of slang,cant, jargon, and pidgintalk fromwork, the street, the prison, the gang, and thedock. Itwas planetary, in its origins, itsmotions, and its consciousness. Finally, theproletariatwasselfactive,creative;itwasandisalive;itisonamove.20The history of commoning would be incomplete without addressing paralleldevelopmentsthattookplaceinthesociety.RedikerandLinebaughsaccountofanalternativetotheimaginationofpropertyhighlightedthatanyformofresistancetothe enclosuremovement amounted to high treason. Therewere several statutesthatwereenactedagainstthecrimesofrobbery,burglaryandstealing,whichweretargetedatthedispossessed.AccordingtoA.L.Bier,vagabondswerelikeahydraheadedmonsterpoisedtodestroythestateandsocialorder.21InEnglandforinstance,thesuccessfulexpropriationofthecommonsensuredthattherewasenoughidlelabouravailabletobeexpropriatedasmaritimelabourandthisobtainedthroughthetwinstrategiesoflawandterror.TheuseofPressGangsand martial laws which provided for death penalties as the punishment forresistancehasbeendocumentedbysocialhistoriansofpropertyandcrime.Aseriesoflawsthatwerepassedtoensurethatthiseffortwassuccessful.Someoftheseincludedthe:NavigationAct1651Articlesofwar1652NavigationAct1660outliningcommoditiesNavigationAct1673enforcementoftradeThequantityshippedhaddoubledoveraspanoffiftyyears.In1629merchantshadshipped115,000tonsandby1686theyhaveshipped340,000tonsofcommodities.In 1633 they had 50 ships and 9500 sailors and by 1688 173 shipswith 42,000sailors. This massive expansion in the world of maritime trade and commodityproduction and circulationwas also accompanied by an equallymeteoric rise inlawsthatcriminalizedsociallife.TheArticlesofwarof1652forinstanceimposeddeathpenaltyin25outof39clauses.Thefirstpiratesinasensewereoftenthe outcastofthelandwhowouldmutinyagainsttheconditionsoftheirwork,andcreateanalternativeorderchallengingthedivision of labour and of capital. In fashioning their hydrachy, these buccaneers 20 SeeSupra.Note11at33221 Ibid.toSupraNotep18

16

oftendrewfromthememoryofutopiascreatedbypedants,whereworkhadbeenabolished, property redistributed, social distinctions leveled, health restored andfood made abundant. By expropriating a merchant ship (after a mutiny of acapture), pirates seized themeans ofmaritime production and declared it to thecommonpropertyofthosewhodiditswork.Ratherthanworkingforwagesusingthe toolsand largermachinery(theship)ownedbyamerchantcapitalist,piratesabolishedthewageandcommandedtheshipastheirproperty,sharingequally intherisksofcommonadventure.Thus, the introduction of propertywas central to themaking of the figure of thetrespasser and the criminal. Emerging from the history of the enclosure of thecommons, the idea of the trespasser has shown remarkable resilience andadaptability to the changing ideas of property and value. The trespasser and thelanguage of trespass has resurfaced in recent times in the context of theinformationeraalongwithotherfamiliarfiguresfromthehistoryofpropertysuchas thepirate, the copier etc. The expansionof intellectual property also relies onsimilarstrategieswherevariouscategoriesofillegalityaremobilized,bothtojustifyintellectualpropertyaswellastoargueforstrongerenforcementregimes.Andyetthe resurfacing of the trespasser is necessarily complicated by the fact that theyalsobringwiththemresidualmemoriessuchasthatofthecommons.ComparingthehistoryofthecommonswiththestoryofIPinthecontemporary,theRaqsMediaCollective says that thehistoryof the commonsandofdispossessionandviolenceholdsanimportantlessonforusinterestedinlookingattheconditionoflifeunderthesignofintellectualproperty.Intellectualpropertyisthenewsignofvalue in the contemporary.Embodied indifferent commodities ranging from filmandmusictosoftwareandbrandedclothes,thisnewclusterofcommodities,madeup of culture and information, is also brought into the world through transcontinentalnetworksofnew indentured labour,made invirtualvessels thatpasseachotherintheglobalworkingnight,onthehighseasofdata.TheyarguethatThesetallshipsofourtimesthatflymanyflagsofconveniencearethe software sweatshops, the media networks, the vast armadas of the cultureindustries and the lifestyle factories. They produce high value primarycommodities, stars, stories, sagas, software, idols, lifestyles, and other ways oforderingmeaninginanincreasinglychaoticworld.Typically,eventhoughtheysellthe fantasies of place and identity in an increasingly enmeshed world, they areproduced in a global everywhere, and delivered through electronic pipelineseverywhere, and when necessary more or less instantaneously, throughtelecommunication networks. Their ubiquity, and their global reach is also thehallmarkof theirgreatestvulnerability; for like theirprecursors, the cargoof thetall ships of the neweconomy is just as vulnerable to attacks of piracy. Thenewelectronic pirates are located in the precise interstices of the global cultureeconomy,whicharethenodesthatmakethenetworkviableinthefirstplace.Ifwecannotimagineaglobalmediaindustrywithoutthetechnologythatmadepossiblethe phenomenon known as peertopeer networking on intranets, then it isprecisely the same technologyon the Internet that renders any attempt topolicethedistributionchannelsofmediacontentintheinterestsofproprietaryagenciesalmost impossible. Just as the piracy of the past disturbed the equilibrium

17

composed of slavery, indentured labour, the expropriation of the commons, thefactorysystemandpenalservitude,theelectronicpiracyofthepresentisdestinedtowreck the culture industry either bymaking the economic and social costs ofpolicingcontentprohibitive,orbyusheringinadiversityofnewprotocolsofusage,distributionandreproductionofculturalandintellectualcontentthatwillmakethewhole enterprise of making vast sums of money out of the nothing of data andcultureadifficultbusiness.22We have chosen to take this detailed route through the history of commons tocelebratethepossibilityofformsoflifewhichwerenotgovernedonlybythenormsofproperty,butequallytobearwitnesstothescaleofviolencethatwentintothemaking of a rule of property. We also need to be alert to the fact that like theexperienceofthepast,themakingofalanguageofintellectualpropertywillalsobegoverned by the dispossession of people, the acceleration of social conflicts overlawandcrime.TheCommonsandthePublicDomainWecannowreturntotracethelegalhistoryofthecommons,aswellastheotherconcept popularly used in IP debates, the Public Domain. By the end of theseventeenthcenturyformsofnonexclusiveorcommonpropertyslowlystartedtodecline as a result of the enclosure movement.23 But despite the enclosuresmovement,therestillexistedolderRomanlawprinciplesofnonexclusivepropertyor the publicwhichcontinued toexertan influenceon theEnglishcommon law.Carol Rose says that though Roman law did not develop the categories of nonexclusivepropertyindetailtheriseofcivilsocietyandthemodernstateaffordedanopportunity for theclassical texts todiscuss thembroadlyunder the rubricofthecommons.Concepts such as res communes [things open to all by their nature] and respublicae[thingsbelongingtothepublicandopentothepublicbyoperationoflaw]served as an antidote to the idea of exclusion/exclusive property itself. But theburgeoning market space only emphasized the notion of individual ownership,weakeningtheinfluenceoftraditionalpostulatesofRomanlaw.24Whilethenotionofthepublicandtheprivategoesbacktotheseventeenthcentury,thedivisionofthingsintocorporealandincorporealiscoincidentwiththedivisionofobjects into tangibleand intangible categoriesunderRoman law tradition.ThedifferencebetweenthemwasbroughttotheforefrontonlywhenEnglishpropertylawrecognizedthevariousformsofincorporealpropertysuchasdebtsandchosesinaction,orintellectualproperty(jurainrepropria)claims.There are thus two distinct histories of the commons. The first consists of the 22 RaqsMediaCollective,ValueanditsOtherinElectronicCulture:SlaveShipsandPrivateGalleons,DIVE,ed.ArminMedosch,FACTLiverpool,200323 DanielR.Coquillette,MossesfromanOldManse:AnotherLookatSomeHistoricPropertyCasesabouttheEnvironment,64CORNELL.L.REV.761,807809(1979).24 CarolRose,Romans,Roads,AndRomanticCreators:TraditionsofPublicPropertyintheInformationAge.LawandContemporaryProblems66(1&2).

18

commonsandthe enclosuremovementor thedisappearanceof the open fields,and the second ideaof thepublicdomain, emerged fromprinciplesof publicnessunderRomanlaw.Whiletheformerconsiderthecommonsasastateorconditionof preproperty, the latter is an exception that is carved out from property forpublic purpose offering to us a dual trajectory to understand the notion of thecommons.JamesBoylecomparesthehistoryofIPtothehistoryoflandintheUK,wheretheliteraryworkwasconsideredasakindof landedestate.Implicitlywovenintothestory of the enclosure or landed property also lies the twin narrative about thebirth of copyright where all literary material that was once free has beencirculated via control mechanism restricting its outreach and circulation. Eventhough today it may sound paradoxical, the protection under the IP regimewasprimarilydesignedtoprotectthecommonstoboostinnovationandcreativity.The second enclosuremovement or the enclosure of the intangible commons ofthemindwasatermusedbyJamesBoylethatreferredtothenewlydevelopedsetofpropertyrights(incorporeal)grantedasareturnontheinvestmentoftimeandmoneyofthecreator.25Boylesworkmostexplicitlylinksthehistoryoftheenclosuresmovementwiththedevelopments in IP law.He questionswhether the terms that justified one couldjustify the other. It is argued that there are no traditional claims over the digitalcommons, as demanded by the victims of the first enclosure movement information is principally very different from the notion of property inland(immoveable property), primarily due to its the nonrival and nonexcludable character. Therefore, unlike a scarcity of the physically ownedproperty, there cannot be a paucity of ideas or information, as once they areintroduced,ideascanberecycledandreusedwithoutreducingoriginalpossessionofit.26JamesBoylewentontoexemplifythecommoncharacteristicssharedbyenclosuremovements,statingthatprotectingnewsubjectmatterforlongerperiodsoftime,criminalizing certain technologies, making it illegal to cut through digital fenceseveniftheyhavebeentheeffectofforeclosingpreviouslylawfulusesandsoon.27Drawing fromBoyleswork ,the second enclosuremovement, it appears that thedigital commonshas reviveda thinkingofpublicdomainonceagain.Hecites theexample of the environmentmovement of the 1950s as an analogy to point outhow today we are witnessing a gradual disappearance of the public domain.Accordingtohim,ariseinprivatepropertyclaimswithinalinearscientificsystemthattreatstheworldasasetofcausesandeffectscontrolledbythemarket,forcedthe environment to steadily disappear from the debate on conserving public 25 JamesBoyle,Fencingoffideas:enclosureandthedisappearanceofthepublicdomain,Daedalus,Vol.131,2002.26 Boyle,James.LawandContemporaryProblems:JamesBoyle,TheSecondEnclosureMovementandtheConstructionofthePublicDomainLaw&Contemp.Probs.66.Winter/Spring(2003):33.(atp.41)27 Ibid..

19

resources. Similarly, theexpansionist tendencyof the IP regulations,built aroundthenotionoforiginality,ownershipandlayeredprotectionsispushingforwardtheagenda which supports the shrinking of the public domain, urging its ownreinvention. Theideaofthepublicdomaintakestoahigherlevelofabstractionasetofindividualfights over this chunk of the genome, that aspect of computer programs, this claimabout theeaningofparodyor theownershipof facts. Justas theduckhunter fundscommoncausewith thebirdwatcherand the salmongeneticist by coming to thinkabout the environment, so an emergent concept of the public domain could tietogether the interests of groups currently engaged in individual struggles with nosenseofthelargercontext.28Given this background, let us examine themeaning of the public domain,whilstattempting to clarify the conceptual confusion between the oftenexchangeablecategoriesofthe commonsandthe publicdomain.Arethecharacteristicsofthecategoriesuniversal intheirapplication,orarethesemetaphorschallengedaswemovealongalteringgeographiesoftheworld?Thescholarshiponthepublicdomain in the IPdebatecanbetracedto the initialwritingsofDavidLange(1983).AccordingtoLangeinthisfirstarticle,RecognisingthePublicDomain,therecognitionofnewIPinterestsshouldbeoffsettodaybyequallydeliberaterecognitionofindividualrightsinthepublicdomain.29Butwhatdoes this mean? Although Langes article set momentum to the thinking on thesubjectofpublicdomain through theanalysisofvariouscases,hedidnot furtherexpoundonthetheoryordefinitionofthepublicspherespecifically.Nonetheless,fromthenonwards,othertheoristshaveattemptedtothrowlightonthearea,yetrestrictivelydevelopingitasanimmediatealternative.The term public domain was derived from the French term domaine publicmeaning property unlikely to private ownership, but its relevance has beendiverseandelasticthroughtheyears.30In theUS, the term found in a judicialpronouncementwhenRalphBrown&BenKaplanmadereferencestoitwithregardtoapatentcasein1966,TheCongress in the exercise of the patent powermaynot overreach the restraintsimposedbythestatedconstitutionalpurpose.Normayitenlargethepatentmonopolywithout regard to the innovation, advancement or social benefit gained thereby.Moreover, Congressmay not authorize the issuance of patentswhose effects are toremove existent knowledge from the public domain, or to restrict free access tomaterialsalreadyavailable.31In the more recent writing of Lange, he expands on the concept of the Public 28 Ibid29 DavidLange,RecognisingthePublicDomain,44LAW&CONTEMP.PROBS.147(Autumn1981)30 Wikipediacheckpublicdomainvisitedon27/01/08.31 GrahamvJohnDeereCo.,383U.S.1,56(1966)

20

Domain,referringtoitasarecognisableplaceofrefugeforcreativeendeavourinits own rights; a sanctuary conferring affirmative recognition/protection againstthe forces of private appropriation that threaded such expression.32 Can themetaphor of the public domain be associated to a wilderness, a commons, asanctuary,ahome?WhileBoyleagreeswiththisanalogy,DavidLangeaffirmsthatthepublic domainneeds to be reimagined in termsof a distinct status, as if itwereastatuslikecitizenship,butacitizenshiparisingfromtheexerciseofcreativeimaginationratherthanasaconcomitantofbirth.33Thepublicdomainshouldbethenunderstoodas anaffirmativesourceofentitlementscapableofdeployment,as, when and where required, against the encroachments upon the creativeimaginationthreatenedbyintellectualproperty.34Thisconceptionunderminestheneed forarethinkingon the ideasof thecommons/publicdomainasopposedtothe ownership of property in an attempt to move beyond the traditionalargumentsofnetworkcommons.What remains still unclear is whether the terrain of the public domain can beenvisioned into clearly a defined compartment for all practical purposes? Forexample,accordingtoPamelaSamuelson,whoalsobelievesthatthepublicdomainisthatsphereinwhichcontentisfreefromintellectualpropertyrights,itisalsoaspherewheretheboundariesarestillblurredanduncertain.35Citingtheexampleofthe open source movement, she argues that most information and content thatappears to be outside the public domain in theory is seemingly inside in effect,while some works rest on the periphery. Therefore, however necessary andimportant itmay appear tomap out the layout of the public domain, it is still acontentiousassessmenttosaytheleast.InwritingsonIntellectualproperty,thereisatendencytouseofthetermspublicdomainandthecommonsasthoughtheyweresynonymous.Butitisimportanttobearinmindthetwodistincthistoriesthatinformtheconcept,becausecentraltothedistinctionbetweenthetwoisthequestionhowyoudealwiththequestionofproperty.Ourreadingofthecommonsplacesitoutsideofformalpropertyregimes,whilethepublicdomainmaybeseenasexceptionscarvedoutofprivateproperty.

32 DavidLange,ReimaginingthePublicDomain,66Law&Contemp.Probs.463(Winter/Spring)33 Ibid.34 Ibid.35 PamelaSamuelson,MappingtheDigitalPublicDomain:ThreatsandOpportunities.66LAW&CONTEMP.PROBS.147(Winter/Spring2003)

21

HowdoesanAsiaCommonsmean?NotestowardsagenealogyoftheCommonsinAsiaIn an episode in Lewis Carrols Alice inWonderland, theMadHatter approachesAliceandsaysPray,canyoutellmewhattheansweris.Alicesaysthatshedoesntknowtheanswer.Towhich,theMadHatterthensays,Inthatcase,canyoutellmewhatthequestionis.Thisepisodealertsustotheimportanceof formulatingourquestions clearly before we seek answers. In the rather accelerated world ofinternet time, it seems as though the virtues of slowness advocatedbyNietzscheareathingofthepast.Ourexperienceofthepresentisoneofconstantcrisis,andasactivistsandscholarswearealsopromptedtorespondwithurgencytothecrisis.The crisis to the flows of knowledge and culture caused by the expansion ofcopyrighthasresultedinthecreationofthecommonsasthesymbolicalternative,asymbolthatissoughttobeextendedindifferentdomains.Oneofthesehasbeentosee the idea of the Asian commons as a solution to the specific problem ofrestrictions on knowledge and culture in Asia. Heeding the Mad Hatters andNietzcheswarnings,wewillattempttoreadthequestionofAsiaCommonsalittleslowlyandtrytobeclearabouthowanAsiancommonsmeansbeforeweattempttotheorizeitsrelevanceintheglobaldebate.BeginningwiththeAsiaCommonsworkshopinBangkokin2006,therehasbeenamovetowardsexaminingwhatanAsiancommonscanlooklike,andhowtheAsiancommons canaddadistinctiveperspective to the globaldebate from theworldsmostpopulousregion.Thissegmentofthemonographarguesthatwhiletheremaybe a lot of value in thinking through the idea of an Asian Commons, the moredifficulttaskmaybetothinkthroughwhatexactlythisAsiancommonsiswithoutreverting to any easy cultural relativism, or falling into the trap of being nativeinformants of a global concept. We have already traversed a fair distance inchartingoutthehistoryofthecommonsandtheenclosuremovementinthewest,anditisclearthatthereisnosinglehistorythatcanencompasstheentirestoryofthecommonseveninEurope.Butbeforeweevenbegintoexaminetheideaofthecommons in Asia,we have to dealwith the rather tricky question of how dowethinkthroughtheideaofAsiaitself.Inthe1950sUmesawaTadao,aJapaneseintellectualandtheoristofAsiawasinameetingwherehewashavingaconversationwithaPakistaniintellectualwhosaidto Tadao, We are all Asians. Tadao writes that he was completely taken bysurprise, and he felt that the identity claim of being an Asian was merely aconceptual play, lacking in either substantial content or affective support. Heassertedthatthiscouldonlybeacertaindiplomaticfiction36.Thisstoryforusalludestothecomplexityanddifficulties involvedinmakinganyclaims in the name of Asia or Aisanness. This is further complicated when weattempttografttheideaofthecommonsuponAsia,giventhespecifichistoryofthecommons. It isnotentirelyclear tous,as towhatkindsofclaimsarebeingmadewhenwespeakofAnAsianCommons.

36 UmesawaTadao(1967)AnEcologicalHistoriographyofCivilization,citedin,SunGe,HowdoesAsiamean,Part1,InterAsiaCulturalStudies,Volume1,Number1,2000

22

Primafacie,thephraseAsiaCommonshasamisleadingintelligibilityaboutit,anditseemstosignifytheideaofwhatacommonsinAsiameans.Butonprobingtheideaalittlefurther,weimmediatelydiscoverthatthephraseimaginesthecomingtogetheroftwocategories,whicharedistinctintermsoftheirhistories,aswellastheir epistemological status, and it seems less intelligible than it initially looked.TheinvocationofAsiatoelucidateahistoricalandculturalidealikethecommonsposes a number of conceptual problems and questions. So we need to begin bymappingoutthevariouswaysinwhichanAsianCommonsininvoked:i.AsianCommonsaspartofGlobalCommonsIn the narrowest sense of the term Asia Commons is an extension of the globalcommonsmovement,whichactsasanantidotetotheexpansionisttendencyoftheglobal IP regime. In particular it can be seen as an expansion of the CreativeCommonsinitiative.AndthisindeedseemstobeoneofthewaysinwhichtheAsianCommonsisusedbyanumberofpeople.It isclearthat, inthisusage,neithertheterms Asia nor the terms commons actually have any substantive content. Theformer is understood to be geographic category, and the latter a reference to anexistingmovement.TheideaofAsiancommonsinsuchausageendsupbeingnomore than thedemonstrationof theway that the commonsworks in theworldsmostpopulousregion.OnecouldreplaceAsiawithAfrica,orLatinAmerica,andtheimport would be the same. In other words, there is no real sense of any issuesspecifictothehistoryofthecommoninAsiathatareraised.ii.AsianHistoryoftheCommonsThesecondwayofthinkingabouttheCommonsistolookatthevarioushistoriesofthe commons and themaking of property inAsia. As theAsian equivalent of thehistoryofthecommonsortheenclosuresmovementthiswouldentailahistoryofthemakingofprivatepropertyandthestoryoftheenclosuresindifferentpartsofAsia.Butaswehavealreadydemonstratedinthepreviouschapter,thebynowfamiliarstory of the commons and of the enclosure movement encompassing a widecanvassofthemakingofprivateproperty,emergedinthespecifichistoricalcontextoflandinEurope.DowehavetheequivalentofthehistoryofthecommonsinAsiaat all, and if notwhat are the differences, andwhat genealogieswill we have toprovide before we begin to build a theory of the commons in Asia? For a largenumberofAsiancountriestheenclosuresofthecommonsisnotconcomitantwiththehistoryofthewestbutintrinsicallytiedwiththeexperienceofcolonialism.AsaresulttherecanbenoeasymappingofthehistoryofthecommonsontoAsiaandthetaskofprovidingahistoricalaccountofthecommonsinAsiawouldentailcharting out different histories of the commons. It entailsmapping out practicesaround the management of land and natural resources, and the invocation ofhistorieswherelandhasnotbeeninthepossessionofindividualbutcommunities.It is also important to remember that the commons has not been completelyrelegatedtotheannalsofhistory,andinmanypartsofAsiaitisindeedstillaliving

23

practice.Inthenextchapter,weshallbelookinginsomedetailattheprocessesoftheenclosuresinafewAsiancountries.Thecommonshasnotbeencompletelyrelegated to theannalsofhistory,and inmanypartsofAsiaitisindeedstillalivingpracticeiii.TheAsianCulturalCommonsFinally, the third way of thinking about the commons may be to specificallyunderstandtheculturaltraditionsandpracticesthathaveshapedthemakingofacommon cultural tradition or common cultural consciousness that is specificallyAsian in nature. One of the ways at looking at the formation of Asian Culturalcommonswill be to examine thehistoriesof informal cultural flowsand thewaythatculturalpracticeshavespreadthroughdifferentpartsofAsia.Wewillexaminethisinsomegreaterdetail,aswellaslinkittothewaythatinformalculturalflowsareenabledinthecontemporarybypiracy.TheQuestionofAsianKnowledgeAllthreeapproachesseemtomakeaclaimforAsianness,albeitinvaryingdegrees,andfordifferentpurposes.Thesecondtwoclaimsinparticulararemadetowardsadifferentepistemologicalbasisof thecommons inAsia.Theyareclaimsaboutthespecificity of Asian knowledge and practice. We need to therefore examine themanner in which these claims are made, and their links to older histories anddebatesontheideaoftheAsianknowledge.Inthesocialsciences,therehasbeenconsiderablethoughtpaidtothequestionofhowAsiaisconfiguredintheworldofknowledgeproduction.AftertheimportantworkofEdwardSaidandtheimpactofOrientalismonagenerationofpostcolonialhistorians and cultural theoreticians, scholars have argued for the importance ofseeingAsianot merely as adiscursive inventionof thewest, nor as anobject ofwesternknowledgebutasasubjectofknowledgethroughwhichAsianknowledgegetstobecountedasknowledgeatall.For the longest time, Asia existed only as an abstract other of Europe with nohistorytoclaimforitself(oratleastthatwhattheEuropeanshistorianswouldlikeustobelieve).Everysinglecategoryoftheexperienceofpoliticalmodernitycanbetraced to a European history rights, secularism, public sphere etc. It is thisdominance of Europe in the 18th and 19th century history that accounts for theemergenceofvariousconceptsthatwetakeforgrantedasuniversalideas.The capacity of Europe to universalize itself and of European knowledge toestablishitselfasauniversalknowledgecreatestheriskofcreatingmetacategoriesof knowledge that shapes the experience of others and renders their ownexperiences unavailable to them. Dipesh Chakrabarty, a leading historian of thesubalternstudiesmovementarguesthatThedominanceofEuropeasthesubjectofallhistories isapartof the muchmoreprofound theoretical conditionsunder

24

whichhistoricalknowledgeisproducedinthethirdworld37.HefurthersaysthatAlthoughcategories thatwereoncesubject todetailed theoreticalcontemplationand enquiry now exist as practical concepts, bereft of any theoretical lineageembeddedinquotidianpractices38ThisclaimbyDipeshChakarbartythatthehistoryofcolonialismanditsapparatusof knowledge production has ensured that Europe emerges as the site of theproductionoftheoreticalconceptswhicharethentestedagainstarangeofregionalexamples. This is evidenced for instance in EdmundHusserls statement in 1935where he pointed out that only Europe possessed the capacity to produce atheoretical insight (theoria or universal science) while all other histories arematters of empirical research that fleshed out a theoretical skeleton that isessentiallyEuropean.While thinking about the commons as a conceptual category through which weexploretheexperienceofcountriesinAsia,onecannotbeinnocentofthishistoryofthe unequal exchange between Europe and Asia in the creation of intellectualdiscourse. The demand for a different history of the commons is not merely anattemptatrevisionisthistorybuttoarguethatthesphereofthecommonsisitselfinformedbyvariousculturalhistoriesofknowinganddoingofwhichtheEuropeancommonsisoneinstance.IfwereturntothethreewaysinwhichtheCommonscanbe thought of in Asia, then it is clear to us that in the first instance, we will berecycling the idea that Asia has no theory to offer, and is at best an empiricalcategory.TheimportancethereforeofthesecondtworoutesistobuildatheoryofAsia,ataskthatwewillseerequiresalotmorework,beforeevenapartialtheorycanbeoffered.The taskofbuildinga theoryof the commons is significant to theextent thatoneproducesa theoryofknowledgeandculture that responds to theglobaldebateon itsown terms. Inotherwords, it producesa theoryof itself butalsooftheworld.Itisabundantlyclearthattheideaofthecommonsandthepublicdomaincannotbeanassumedsphereofneatandeasyconsensus.Inhisbook,ProvincializingEurope,ChakarabrtyarguesforaprojectwhichseekstoprovincializethehistoryofEurope.Bythishemeansthatweneedtoseewhetherwesternknowledgeasaknowledgeproducedwithinatemporalandspatialhorizoncalled the west, and not necessarily as universal knowledge whose claims touniversalityremainunchallenged.Thereisofcourseaparadoxhere,whichliesinthefactthatifEuropehasalreadysuccessfully universalized itself as a meta category of experience, how does onethenprovincializeEuropefromthemargins.CanEuropebeprovincializedmerelythrough a claim of cultural difference? If we are claiming that as a result of thehistorical differences between Europe and Asia, there is a mismatch betweentheoriesproducedinEuropeandtheAsianexperience, thenthefirst taskthatwewill have to undertake is to create a theory for what constitutes the Europeanexperience. 37 DipeshChakrabarty,ProvincializingEurope:PostcolonialThoughtandHistoricalDifference.(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.2000)38 Ibid.

25

VivekDhareshwar,writingaboutwhatitmeanstocreateatheoryofnonwesternexperiencemakes itclear thatwesterntheoriesarerejectednotbecausetheyarewesternbutbecausetheyfailtobetheories.Inotherwords,therejection,farfromexcluding or negating the western experience (which would be a symmetricalinversion of the negation of the experience of the nonwestern cultures by thewestern theories), would have to first make that experience theoreticallyintelligible.HesaysthatTheconstructionofthemetatheoryofwesterntheoriesisatthesametimeanattempttodescribeortheorizeourselves.Wecannotattemptthelatterwithoutundertakingtheformer.Itisonlywhenwebegintodescribeortheorize our own experiences that valorizing the present can become a viablepoliticaltask.(The'we'and'our'indexes,Ihavereasontohope,notonlytheplaceIcomefrom39.WesterntheoriesarerejectednotbecausetheyarewesternbutbecausetheyfailtobetheoriesIt is clear that aproject attempting todescribe anAsianCommons caneasily fallprey to the other side of the project of provincializing Europe, namely a crudeculturalrelativism. InthecontextofAsia,wehavethis formofculturalrelativismused in an instrumental manner by the invocation of Asian values v. westernvaluesdebate.TheAsianvaluesapproachwaspopularizedbyMahtirMohammadand others, primarily as defence against any form of criticism, whether of theviolationofhumanrightsorofmismanagementofpublicmoneybyinstitutionsofgovernance. Itattemptstomakeaclaimofculturaldifference,andrenders itasaquestionofdifferentwaysofdoingthingsanddifferentoutlook,withoutevermakingitclearastowhattheauthorityorthebasisoftheclaimis.Thefamiliarandtiredbinariesofwestern/nonwesternhaveplayedverylittlerolein theproductionofnewtermsthroughwhichwecollectively theorize theworld.Instead, they have become a lazy excuse for the inability to have interculturaldialogue and debate. Thus if we aremaking a claim for a cultural and historicaldifference,wewillhavetodomorethanclaimaninapplicabilityofatheorybecauseitemergesfromthewest.It isusefultorecallDhareshwarsinjunctionthatwedonot reject western theories because they are western, but because they are nottheories. Dipesh Chakarabrty, while describing the project of provincializingEurope argues The idea is to write into the history of the modernity theambivalences,contradictionsandtheuseof force,andthetrajectoriesandironiesthatattend it. Ifweweretoreplace modernitywiththeword commons inthisstatement,itwouldbeequallyinformativeandtelling.The central question for us to answer iswhat role does a concept like theAsianCommonsplayintheshapingofanintellectualdebate?WhatarethewaysinwhichtheprojectofanAsiancommonsrevealstheinherentproblemsintheoriesofIPaswell as of the commons. In the early days of the IP debate, youwould often find 39 VivekDhareshwar,ValorizingthePresent,CulturalDynamics10(2)211231.See,Balagangadhara,S.N."TheHeatheninHisBlindness":Asia,theWest,andtheDynamicofReligion.Leiden:E.J.Brill,1994.

26

referencestothefactthatIPisawesternideawhichdoesnothaveanyresonanceinnonwesternsocieties.WhatisoftenmissingfromtheseclaimsisthequestionofWhat then?, after making the claim that IP is not endemic to non westernsocieties.Ifwesterntheoriesofownershipofknowledgeandculturedonotrelatetoanonwesterncontext,thenwhattheoriesofknowledgeandculturedowehaveasalternatives?Whatweneed then fromaproject suchas theAsiancommons isnotsomuchacelebratoryaccountofthespreadofaparticularpracticeofculturalproduction;ratherwhatisneededisacomplicatingaccountofwhatitmaymeantobeacommonsitself,andhowindeeddoesanAsiancommonsmean?HavingestablishedthemotivationsbehindtheestablishmentofanAsianCommons,wecannowlinktoolderdebatesonthequestionofAsiaitself.AsiaandtheWestAnexaminationoftheintellectualhistoryoftheideaofAsiarevealsthattherecanbenoconsiderationofAsiawithoutareferencetothecomplicatedrelationshipthatAsiahashadwiththeideaofthewest.InanimportantconceptualmappingofthehistoryoftheAsianquestion,ChinesescholarSunGesays

The question of Asia, like the question of modernity, resists any attempt toprovideaclearexplanationpartlybecauseitisloadedwithinterconnectedissuesfrommanyfacets.Asiaisnotonlyapoliticalconcept,butalsoaculturalconcept;itisnotonlyageographicallocation,butalsoameasureofvaluejudgment.TheAsiaquestionitselfdoesnotbearanynecessaryrelationtothequestionofhegemonyand counter hegemony, although the attempts to tackle this question havebrought into play considerations of hegemony of the East and theWest. Thequestion itself does not entail nationalism, although the theme of nationalismhasbeenconjuredinthecourseofdiscussingthisquestion.Anotherreasonwhythe question of Asia is difficult to explicate is that it is hardly a question ofsubstantialization,namely, bywayofascribing to it unequivocalgeographicalattributes.Quitecontrarily,itisofteninvokedinthediscussionofquestionsthatbear no direct relation, or are even in stark opposition, to any geographicalconsiderations.Foralonghistoricalperiod,Asiahasnotbeentreatedasaselfcontainedgeographicalconcept,buthasonlybeenputforwardideologicallyinopposition to Europe. The discussion of Asia involved not only the question ofEurocentrism,butalsothequestionofhegemonywithintheEast.Asdifficultasit is to sort out the question of Asia, it remains anunderlying thread runningthrough the intellectual history in the modern world. Hence, we still have tograpplewiththequestionofAsiaasonethatconstitutesatotalityinitself.40

Asiaisnotonlyapoliticalconcept,butalsoaculturalconcept;The history of the debate onAsia as a category of intellectual experience can betraced to Japanese scholars in the turn of the 19th century. The Japanese wereunderstandablymostconcernedwiththequestionofwesterncivilization,andtheir 40 SunGe,HowdoesAsiameanPart1,InterAsiaCulturalStudies,Volume1,Number1,2000

27

ownstatusasanAsiancountry.GivenJapanspreeminentplaceintheglobalorder,there were competing strands of thought about how Japan should deal with thewest. Writing in 1885, Fukuzawa Yukichi for instance argued that Japan shoulddisassociate fromAsiaandalign itselfwithWesternEurope.His ideaof DatsuARon41 was an attempt at dislocating Japan temporally from Asia, and seeing itspointofreferencevisaviswesternmodernity.Fukuzawasawintheexperienceofwestern modernity, a pinnacle of human achievements, which outclassed therelative backwardness of its Asian counterparts. He saw no reason for JapanaligningwithAsia,andfeltthatifJapanweretoprogressthenitshouldfollowthelead of western Europe, and look forward rather than backward at tradition asmanycountriesinAsiawerewonttodo.Inasenseitwasanattemptatabandoningthewaitingroomofmodernity42thatAsiahadbeenconsignedtoexistin.ItisclearthatwhatanimatesFukuzawasratherdramaticdisavowalofAsiaistheexperienceofmodernity inEurope fromtheenlightenmentonwards. It isalsoanimportant attempt at reconfiguring the experience of time. Fukuzawa saw Japanexistinginatimezoneofeternaldeference,.ItwasunliketherestofAsiawhichhesawasbeingunderdevelopedandbackward,andatthesametimebeinganAsiancountry, itwassomehownevermodernenough in thewesternsenseof the term.The idea of disassociating from Asia was therefore simultaneously amove awayfrom the traditionsand culturalhistories associatedwithAsia, andanattempt tocreateonesownsenseoftimewhichismeasurednotbythepastbutbythefuture.In contrast to Fukuzawas desire to disassociate fromAsiawas another Japaneseintellectualwritingintheearlydecadeofthetwentiethcentury.OkakuraTenshin,oneofthemostinfluentialartcuratoroftheearlytwentiethcenturywroteinIdealsof the East of themoral and spiritual disintegration of Europe brought about bywesternmodernity.43Hearguedthatincontrasttothespiritualvacuousnessofthewest,Asiastillpossessedavastcivilizationalandculturalinheritancethatoughttobe united for the purposes of spiritual rejuvenation of the world. Tenshin alsobelievedthattheculturalhistoryofAsiawasacommonone:Asia isone.TheHimalayasdivide,onlytoaccentuate, twomightycivilizations,theChinesewithitscommunismofConfucius,andtheIndianwithitsindividualismoftheVedas.Butnoteventhesnowybarrierscaninterruptforonemomentthatbroad expanse of love for the ultimate and universal, which is the commonthoughtof inheritanceof everyAsiaticRace, enabling them toproduceall thegreat religions of the world, and distinguishing them from those maritimepeopleoftheMediterraneanandtheBaltic,wholovetodwellontheParticular,andtosearchoutthemeans,nottheend,oflife.44

41 Fukuzawa,Yukichi(1995)AnOutlineofaTheoryofCivlization,citedinIbid.42 The'waitingroom'ofhistoryisametaphorusedbyDipeshChakrabarty,in"ProvinicializingEurope"discussingtheimportanceforpeopleoutsideEurope,andthemetropolitanWest,ofsteppingoutsidethetrapofconsideringthemselvesforevertobe'waiting'forthearrivalofthecontemporarymoment,evenofmodernityitself.43 See,RustomBharucha,AnotherAsia:RabindranathTagoreandOkakuraTenshin.OxfordUniversityPress,USA,2006.44 OkakuraTenshin,TheidealsoftheEastwithspecialreferencetotheartofJapan,ModernJapaneseThoughtSeries,1976,quotedinSunGeatIbid.

28

OfcourseitmustbenotedthatforallhissensibilitiesaboutAsia,TenshinwasclearthatwithinAsia,JapanwastheonlycountrythatwascapableofrejuvenatingAsiasincealltheothermightycountries(China,India)werestrugglingunderthemightofwesterndomination.Hesawtheminasceneofdecay,andbelievedthat itwasthedutyofJapan,beingthemuseumofAsia,toignitethesparkofAsianrevival.ThethemesthatrunthroughFukuzawaandTenshins;workarethemesthat findthemselves resurrected in variousways through the history ofAsia. Andwhile itseemsthatFukuzawaandTenshinwerearguingtwocompletelydifferentpositions,thesimilaritiesthatunderlietheirworkandmotivationsareroughlythesame.Thecrisis animating both their work was the question of western civilization andwesternmodernityand,inparticular,howtorespondtothewestfromwithinAsia.BothFukuzawaandTenshinrelyonasymbolizationofAsia(inone,itemergesasasignofdecayandintheother,ofculturalrejuvenation).Butforboth,therealmsofAsiaexceedthephysicalspace,andoccupies insteadamindspaceorasocialandcultural imaginary from which they are able to make claims or Asianness.Interestingly, Tenshin spent a fewmonths at the school set up by RabindranathTagore inShanitiniketan.Tagorewasastaunchcriticofnationalism,andhisowntheorization of Asia emerged from his loathing of nationalism. While he finallyemerges as a curious representative or national icon by becoming the nationalpoet of India, his self perception was always that of a cosmopolitan intellectual(Vishwakobiorworldpoet).45ContrastingtheAsiaofTagoreandtheAsiaofTenshin,BharuchasaysthatHerewerunupagainst familiartropesbywhich `Asia isbeingconstructed,andintheprocess,separatedfromthe `restoftheworldmorespecially, `theWest . InOkakuras emphases,placedonthe `Ultimateandthe `Universal ,the `greatreligionsandthe `endof life,weencountermoreor lessthesamevalues and vocabulary as in Tagore s affirmation of an essentially spiritualideal that provides the foundations for `the common thoughtinheritance ofeveryAsiaticrace.Thespiritualisnotreligiousitislinkedtoanindependentandessentiallyimaginativequestfortheeternalsourcesoflifethroughwhichone canposit a `creative unity in theworld. This `unity can be achieved, inTagoreswords,by`realisingourownselvesintheworldthrough`expansionof sympathy; not alienating ourselves from it and dominating it, butcomprehendinganduniting itwithourselves inperfectunion.Sustaining thevisionsofOkakuraandTagore isaprofound faith inanessentially imagined`Asia , inwhich (asTagore fantasized itsutopianprehistory), `thewholeofeasternAsia fromBurmato Japanwasunitedwith India in theclosest tieof

45 RustomBharuchawritesofthefriendshipbetweenTenshinaandTagoreasawayofreflectingonanotherAsia.See,RustomBharucha,AnotherAsia:RabindranathTagoreandOkakuraTenshin.OxfordUniversityPress,USA,2006.

29

friendshipafriendshipmarkedbya`livingcommunicationofhearts,inwhich`no difference of languages and customs hindered us in approaching eachotherhearttoheart46The question of Asia has also been invoked by a range of other thinkers andpoliticalleadersincludingSunYatSen,WatsujiTetsuroandmorerecentlyChinesescholarWangHui.IntheSouthAsiancontext,KanakManiDixithasposedtheideaofusingthephrasesouthAsiaasasinglewordsouthasiatogesturetothesharedphysical and cultural geographies of the region. He also proposes in a playfulmannerarethinkingofthecartographyofsouthasia,proposingthatweseethemapofsouthasiabackwardsinsteadoftheusualmannerwhichweareaccustomedto,inwhichIndiaemergesastheoverwhelminggiantofsouthasia.

(Himal,SouthAsia) ItshouldbeclearfromourbriefdescriptionofthevariousattemptsatlocatingAsiaasanintellectualandculturalidea,thattheideaofAsiadoesnotconnoteasinglereferent.ThequestionthatarisesiswhichAsiaarewereferringtowhenwespeakofanAsiancommons?TherearevariouswaysinwhichAsiaemerges,includingthefollowingo Asanabstractentitycounteringthewesto Asaconcretegeographicalzoneo Asamindsettoamood

46 RustomBharucha,Underthesignof`Asia:rethinking`creativeunitybeyondthe`rebirthoftraditionalarts,InterAsiaCulturalStudies,Volume2,Number1,2001

30

o Asaunifiedcivilizationo AsaculturalidentityItseemscleartousthatgiventhediversehistoriesofthecommonsinAsia, thereexists thepossibilityof conceptual confusionswhenweattempt tousea singularideaofAsiaasourpointofreference.The possibility of conceptual confusions caused by the diversity of an Asiancommonscanhoweveralsobeseenasanopportunityratherthanahindranceinthinking about the commons in Asia. While it is tempting to resolve thesediversities anddiversehistories, anddraw themasa single threadwhichglossesover their differences,we believe that it is precisely the diversity and fluidity ofpractices in Asia that form the crux of an intellectual contribution of an Asiancommons.ThediversityandfluidityofpracticesinAsiathatformthecruxofanintellectualcontributionofanAsiancommonsThus,ratherthanlookingateitherAsiaorthecommonsasapregivencategory,ifwe were to see them as categories in the making, then the Asian commonsemergesasanopportunitytorevisitthequestionofAsiaviathecommons,andviceversa.Tobeable tosuccessfullysustain the intellectualdiversitynecessary foranAsiancommons also demands that we abandon the project of commonality, which weoften use when we speak of Asianness. Asia then becomes a simultaneous ofsimilarities and differences. In such a revised formulation, the history of thecommonsalsogetsreconfigured.Initspresentavatar,thequestionofland,forests,natural resources is regarded as a part of the history of the commons,while thequestionof ourdigital futures is seenas aquestionof contemporary significanceandoffutureimportance.OurdigitalfuturesisseenasaquestionofcontemporarysignificanceandoffutureimportanceThecomplextemporalitiesofcountriesintheAsiaregiondefytheeasybifurcationof the past and the present, as the continuance of forms of common propertyresourcesrevealstheexistenceofpracticesnotonlywithincollectivememorybutaslivingpractices.InasenseitcouldbearguedthattheideaofanAsiancommonsexistsasalimitedconcept;aconceptthatdoesnotfullyrevealitsowncontoursbutworksasalimitofwesternthoughtandexperienceaswell.Keeping this background in mind, we can now move towards mapping out agenealogyofthecommonsinAsia.We propose the following directions not as exhaustive ways of imagining theprojectofanAsiancommonsbutillustrativeideasoffutureresearchagendasandquestions,whichareworthpursuing.

31

1. GenealogiesoftheCommonsinLandinAsia2. AccountingfortheCulturalCommonsofAsia3. InformalCulturalFlowsandthemakingofAsiaBefore we proceed to the next segment, we would like to leave you with twoevocativeaccountswhichquestionsourcartographicandculturalassumptions,andhelps us through more literary forms, to imagine the possibilities of an Asiancommons.KanakManiDixit,Poroussocieties,sealedfrontiers:WhatwouldLalonFakirhavesaid?SouthasiaBeat:NepaliTimes,No.230,(1420January2005)Butseveralseeminglycontradictoryforceshavetransformedthedemographicmakeup here: openmigration, forced migration and prevented migration due toclosureoffrontiers.InsoutheastNepal,theroadsidecemeteriesareprimarilyoftheTibetoBurmanKiranthillmigrants,withmanyofthegravesornatelydesignedreplicasofmountaindwellings.Morethan120,000NepalispeakingLhotshamparefugeesarehuddledhere inrefugeecamps. Ithasbeen12yearssincetheywereoustedfromtheirnativeBhutan,andregionalgeopoliticsblocks their return. Thesyncretisticmixof cultures inNepals Jhapa isnowhere in evidence40kmawayas the crowflies inBangladesh.ThecemeterieshereareallMuslim:manyof theHindushaveleftsincePartitionandcreepingIslamisationmakesthemmorevulnerable.Onlytheplace names remind of the once uponatime demography: Rangpur, a dynamicmarketplacebeforethebordersweredrawnin1947isnowabackwater.TheNepalIndiaborderisopen,akindoffrontierthatdoesmostjusticetothesharedhistoryofallSouthasia.TheBangladeshIndiafrontierhasbeenclosedsincethe rise of East Pakistan, but remained porous for decades. Today, it is in theprocessofbeingsealed.IndiasfencebuildingfrenzytokeepoutBangladeshimigrantshasreachedChangrabanda.Tothesouthstretchesanimpregnablelineofbarbedwire,steelpillars,concreteandaserviceroad.Somecontractorshavemadegoodprofit.ThisisonealternativeforaSouthasianfuture,whereweakgovernmentsdependentonvotebankpoliticswill take the courseof least resistance.Butbuildinga fencewillonlymakesocietiesmorerigidintheirownidentitiesandcertitudes.Onewonderswhether sharplydefined frontierswill everwork in Southasia. Instead, is there alessontobetakenfromtheopenNepalIndiafrontierjustafewmilesaway?FromAmitavGhosh,Shadowlines

32

AfewmonthsafterIhadmademydiscoveryintheTeenMurtiLibrary,Ifound,atthebottomofmybookshelf, thetatteredoldBartholomewsAtlas inwhichTridibusedtopointoutplacestomewhenhetoldmestoriesinhisroom.Mayadebihadgivenittomemanyyearsbefore.Oneday,whenitwaslyingopenonmydeskinmyhostelroom,quitebychanceIhappened to find a rusty old compass at the back ofmydrawer. It had probablybeenforgottentherebythepersonwhohadlivedintheroombeforeme.I picked it up and, toyingwith it, I placed its point on Khulna and the tip of thepencilonSrinagar.KhulnaisnotquiteonehundredmilesfromCalcuttaasthecrowflies:thetwocitiesfaceeachotheratawatchfulequidistanceacrosstheborder.ThedistancebetweenKhulna and Srinagar, or so I discoveredwhen Imeasured the space between thepointsofmycompass,was1200miles,nearly2000kilometres.Itdidntseemlikemuch.ButwhenItookmycompassthroughthepagesofthatatlas,onwhichIcouldstillseethesmudgesleftbyTridibsfingers,IdiscoveredthatKhulnaisaboutasfarfrom Srinagar as Tokyo is from Beijing, or Moscow from Venice, orWashingtonfromHavana,orCairofromNaples.Then I tried to draw a circle with Khulna at the centre and Srinagar on thecircumference. I discovered immediately that themapof SouthAsiawouldnot bebigenough.IhadtoturnbacktoamapofAsiabeforeIfoundonelargeenoughformy circle. It was an amazing circle. Beginning in Srinagar and travelling anticlockwise, itcutthroughthePakistanihalfofPunjab,throughthetipofRajasthanand the edge of Sind, through the Rann of Kutch, and across the Arabian Sea,throughthesouthernmosttoeoftheIndianPeninsula,throughKandy,inSriLanka,and out into the Indian Ocean until it emerged to touch upon the northernmostfingerofSumatra,thenstraightthroughthetailofThailandintotheGulf, tocomeoutagain inThailand,runninga littlenorthofPhnomPenh, intothehillsofLaos,past Hue in Vietnam, dipping into the Gulf of Tonking, then swinging up againthroughtheChineseprovinceofYunnan,pastChungking,acrosstheYangtzeKiang,passing within sight of the Great Wall of China, through Inner Mongolia andSinkiang, until with a final leap over the KarakoramMountains it dropped againintothevalleyofKashmir. Itwasaremarkablecircle:morethanhalfofmankindmusthavefallenwithinit.Andso,fifteenyearsafterhisdeath,TridibwatchedovermeasItriedtolearnthemeaningofdistance.Hisatlasshowedme,forexample,thatwithinthetidyorderingofEuclideanspace,ChiangMaiinThailandwasmuchnearerCalcuttathanDelhiis;that Chengdu in China is nearer than Srinagar is. Yet I had never heard of thoseplacesuntil Idrewmycircle,and I cannot remembera timewhen!wassoyoungthatIhadnotheardofDelhiorSrinagar.ItshowedmethatHanoiandChungkingarenearerKhulnathanSrinagar,andyetdidthepeopleofKhulnacareatallaboutthefateofthemosquesinVietnamandSouthChina(amerestonesthrowaway)?Idoubtedit.Butinthisotherdirection, ittooknomorethanaweekInperplexityIturned back through the pages of the atlas at random, shutmy eyes, and let thepointofmycompassfallonthepage.ItfellonMilan,innorthernItaly.Adjustingmycompass to therightscale IdrewacirclewhichhadMilanas itscentreand1200milesasitsradius.Thiswasanotheramazingcircle.ItpassedthroughHelsinkiinFinland,SundsvallinSweden, Mold in Norway, above the Shetland Islands, and then through a great

33

empty stretchof theAtlanticOceanuntil it came toCasablanca. Then it travelledintothe Algerian Sahara, through Libya, into Egypt, up through the Mediterranean,where it touchedonCreteandRhodesbeforegoing intoTurkey, thenon throughtheBlackSea,intotheUSSR,throughCrimea,theUkraine,ByelorussiaandEstonia,backtoHelsinki.Puzzlingover this circle, I trieda little experiment.Withmy limitedknowledge, Itriedtoimagineanevent,anyevent,thatmightoccurinacityneartheperipheryofthat circle (or, indeed,muchnearer) Stockholm,Dublin, Casablanca,Alexandria,Istanbul,Kiev,anycityinanydirectionatallItriedtoimagineaneventthatmighthappen inanyof thoseplaceswhichwouldbringthepeopleofMilanpouringoutintothestreets.ItriedhardbutIcouldthinkofnone.None,thatis,otherthanwar.It seemed tome, then, thatwithin this circle therewere only states and citizens;therewerenopeopleatall.WhenIturnedbacktomyfirstcircleIwasstruckwithwonder that therehad reallybeena time,not so longago,whenpeople, sensiblepeople,ofgoodintention,hadthoughtthatallmapswerethesame,thattherewasaspecial enchantment in lines; I had to remind myself that they were not to beblamedforbelievingthattherewassomethingadmirableinmovingviolencetothebordersanddealingwithitthroughscienceandfactories,forthatwasthepatternof the world. They had drawn their borders, believing in that pattern, in theenchantmentoflines,hopingperhapsthatonceIfleyhadetchedtheirbordersuponthe map, the two bits of land would sail away from each other like the shiftingtectonic plates of the prehistoric Gondwanaland.What had they felt, Iwondered,chen they discovered that they had created not a separation, but a vetundiscovered irony the irony that killed Tridib: the simple fact that there hadneverbeenamomentinthe4000yearoldhistoryofthatmapwhentheplacesweknowasDhakaandCalcuttaweremorecloselyboundtoeachotherthanaftertheyhaddrawntheirlinessocloselythatI,inCalcutta,hadonlytolookintothemirrorto be in Dhaka; a moment when each city was the inverted image of the other,locked into an irreversible symmetry by the line that was to set us free ourlookingglassborder.

34

MAPPINGTHEENCLOSURESMOVEMENTINASIAInpreviouschapters,wehavedweltonhowpropertywastheinstrumentbywhichthecommonsbothinlandandininformationcametobeenclosedandparceledintodiscreteholdings.Whiletheanalysisandexamplesinprecedingchaptershavedrawn on an extensive catalog of European literature, we would like, in thischapter, to readjust our lens to focus on Asia. This chapter seeks address thefollowingquestions: 1) Studies on preenclosure European traditions with respect to commonmanagement of physical property emphasize both the efficacy of nonproprietary/commonsbasedownershippracticesaswellastheexperienceofviolencethataccompaniedtheseenclosures.Littleattentionhas,however,beenpaidtotraditionalcommonpropertyregimesinAsia.Ifexpropriationin Asiawas a result of imposition of European colonial property regimes,whatdidthisterrainlooklikepriortothat?2) Likewise, what are the traditions that were practiced with respect tointellectual and cultural production in Asia. In what way were theydisruptedbytheimpositionofIntellectualPropertyregimes? 3) Recently, attempts have been made to carve up a commons through deftmanipulationsoftheveryrightsgrantedbytheIntellectualPropertysystem.Through such instruments as open and creative commons licenses, thedirectionofappropriationissoughttobereversed. Ifpropertycanenclosethe commons, the logic seems to be to use property to create one. Theproblem with these licenses is that they end up creating Frankencommonses resurrections of the original, but uncannily devoid of theiroriginalvitality.Thischapterwill trytoharkbacktotherealcommonsarealm of communal caretaking as opposed to one of communalabandonment. A commons that is ritually and spiritually significant asopposedtoalegallysignifiedone.Eachofthesequestionsisdiscussedinsequenceinthefollowingsections.CommonPropertyResourcesinSouthAsia:WhitherTragedy?This section tries to identifyanddescribe commonproperty traditions inSouthAsiawith the objective of samplingdifferent practices of owning, possession andmanagement that may provide alternatives to conventional exclusionaryproprietary modes of thinking. This is not an exhaustive compilation since theterritory under consideration is vast and there are enormous variations therein.However,inkeepingwithouroverridingobjectshunninghistoriographyinfavourof genealogy we hope to unearth, in the few examples below, enough rawmaterialsforallegories.WhatweareattemptinginthesectionsthatfollowistolookforAsianequivalents(orvariants)oftheEnglishopenfieldsystemsandofanalogous(orheterologous)enclosuremovementsdescribedinsomuchdetailinpreviouschapters.Theideais towrite intothehistoryof thecommonstheambivalences,contradictionsand

35

theuseofforce,andthetrajectoriesandironiesthatattendit.Accounts from two regions the Indian subcontinent and Philippines areofferedinthesectionsthatfollow.India/Pakistan/BangladeshWith regard to the Indian context it would be instructive to heed Utsa Patnaiksreminder at the outset, that while in Europe, the disintegration of the serfpeasantry, resulting in the creationof a classofwage labourers,washastened bywholesaleevictionsandenclosures47,inIndia,bycontrast

a class of propertyless labourers existed as an integral part of the precapitalisteconomyandsociety:theywereinhereditaryservitudetothelandedfamilies, were forbidden to hold land, and were employed in agriculturalproductionand certain specific tasks considered tobeparticularlymenial inreturnfortheirmeresubsistence.48Thusour inquiry into commonproperty in India, at least,mustproceedwith theacknowledgmentofathresholdtraditionalexclusionofcertaincategoriesofpeoplefrom most basic entitlements including access to land. To an extent this wouldappear to be derailing our ambitious allegorical endeavor at the outset. If one istryingtomountachallengetotheIntellectualPropertysystembygesturingtothepracticesitsuppresses,itcertainlyseemslikerottenformtobeholdingupacastesequesteredcommonsasashiningbeaconofinclusiveness.However,evenhereonemaywitnessparallelstotheknowledge/culturaldomainintheway inwhich, for instance, levels of literacywhile itmay escape attention indiscussionsofIntellectualPropertyrightsassignments,infactplayadeterminativerole in defining the boundaries of the market for that particular IntellectualPropertygood.Thiscaveatisthereforeinthenatureofaplaceholdertoremindusthat both the commons as well as private property function within a constantframeworkofexogenousstructuralconstraintsonfreedoms.Weembarknowonananalysis of common property regimes in Punjab , Bangal (including Bangladesh),andKumaon.

CommonLandsinPunjabInherdenseanalyticalaccountofcommonlandsinPunjab49,MinotiChakravartyKaulprovidesadetaileddescriptionoftheregimesofsharedlanduseprevalentintheregion.Accordingtoher:PunjabhadthelargestacreageofuncultivatedbutcultivablelandinBritish