For a student of democratic politics, India offers a stunning sample for observation and analysis. The diversity is simply incredible, with innumerable number of regional parties leaving several ways to get to power. That the Congress consistently won a single party majority in this playing field is testament to the power of the Nehru/Gandhi family. In recent years though, an absolute majority has been nothing more than a fancy dream for most, with coalition governments being the only feasible option. This is unlikely to change in the coming elections or in years to come.
With elections quickly approaching, coalition formations have begun in full earnest and this year offers some tantalizing possibilities. The ruling UPA was expected to take a hit after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in some state elections, but swept to power in Rajasthan and Delhi. The BJP, while having made progress since its disastrous showing in the last general election, does not appear to have the momentum it wanted going into the last two months before the election. We have at least 10 individuals with some kind of claim on the Prime Ministership, and nobody has any idea which coalition is going to come to power this time around.
The Left Front pulled out of the UPA and now has nowhere to go really since it is ideologically opposite in every way with the BJP and its allies. Railway Minister and India's most famous politician Lalu Yadav has made momentous proclamations of the Left and Congress being 'natural allies', but this has mostly fallen on deaf ears.The Left has currently allied itself with Jayalalitha's AIADMK. She and her party in turn allied with the BJP in the last go around and were chiefly responsible for its drubbing with their unbelievable score of 0 seats in Tamil Nadu. Her rival Karunanidhi and his DMK are anything but happy with the ruling UPA (thanks to the situation in Sri Lanka) and might like to reconsider their alliances for the elections.
In UP we have Mayawati and her Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), temporarily pally with Congress and co., but with strained relations of late. She is sure to be the head of any third front that emerges, but as to who will comprise this third front we are quite clueless. The BSP is known to have no particular ideological bias, so one cannot rule out a deal with the Left (Imagine Maya and Jaya vying for power!). Her chief rival Mulayam Singh Yadav and his Samajwadi Party stepped in to support the UPA government when the Left pulled the plug, but have since conducted talks with Sharad Pawar and his Nationalist Congress Party(NCP) for an alliance for the election.
Sharad Pawar in turn is known to be on very good terms with Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray. Shiv Sena of course is known for its alliances with the BJP and other right wing groups. We also have Sanjay Dutt joining the Samajwadi Party, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat asking the BJP to consider him, Anil Ambani and Ratan Tata recommending Gujarat CM Narendra Modi for Prime Ministership and our current Prime Minister's failing health to consider. To top it all off, Congress spokesperson, the legendary Abhishek Singhvi, has recommended George Bush for the Bharat Ratna and has claimed responsibility on behalf of UPA for the success of Slumdog Millionaire.
As is evident, there is no shortage of excitement in our vast and thriving democracy. Things are only sure to heat up further. If you can keep up with this mad, mad world out there, you are a true student indeed!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Hillary, where art thou?
Current Madam Secretary and former First Lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton is on her first overseas tour as America's top diplomat. Having visited Jakarta and Tokyo, she is now on her way to Beijing. There is one Asian capital though that is conspicuously missing from her schedule, New Delhi. The reasons for not making time for this visit are yet unclear and the move is being widely criticized.
New Delhi's absence from Hillary Clinton's itinerary is slowly giving rise to concerns that the Obama administration does not have India high up on its list of foreign policy priorities. These fears would not be unfounded. After the overtures of the Bush administration and the goodwill it managed to garner in India, Obama should make all efforts to take this relationship forward, regardless of Democrats who don't favor the Nuclear Deal between the two countries. It would only be the obvious next step in Indo-American relations.
America and India have grown ever closer with similar foundational ideologies and political and strategic values. As I have written here earlier as well, there are almost no pitfalls to a deeper strategic alliance between the two countries. They have only to gain by allying further. India is sure to be one of America's most important allies in the years to come and Obama should have made a better start to his relationship with India.
Sending an envoy (Holbrooke) alone does not cut it, to a country Obama assured was going to be an important ally of America's during his term. Holbrooke was appointed primarily for the Afghanistan and Pakistan problem and the Kashmir issue (on which India has time and again resented third party intervention) was lumped in with his more important duties. He is not the man to take Indo-American relations forward in a broad and meaningful manner.
Hillary Clinton is well known in India from her time as First Lady of the US and is said to be quite fond of the country. Having her visit as a follow up to Holbrooke's visit would have given the Indian government as well as the public opinion here just the indications it was looking for for a new, dynamic relationship between the two countries. She would have assured America's sustained cooperation on counterterrorism efforts as well as other strategic, cultural and commercial aspects of the relationship. To an easily skeptical Indian public, this would have been an excellent way to get the ball rolling.
India has been for years looking for greater cooperation from the US on counterterrorism efforts. Mere sympathy will not do any more. It does not want to be lectured on the Kashmir problem any more either. It wants the US to keep its borders open to its citizens looking for work. America by all indications will become the largest exporter of arms to India in the next few years. In all other investment indicators as well, the US is sure to lead.
All of this cannot be achieved at a low level of talks any more. To a country aspiring to be on par with China, America cannot get by placing India alongside Pakistan anymore. The Republicans understood this. India should be on Obama's top 5 foreign policy priorities. The Democrats' typical foreign policy towards India is one of distrust and patronizing. This is incongruous in today's age. The earlier Obama understands this the better. Hillary should have visited New Delhi. It would have been a significant follow up to the nuclear deal between the two countries. She's missed her chance and the seeds of concern have been sown. Let us hope this is righted as soon as possible. It is in both countries' interests.
New Delhi's absence from Hillary Clinton's itinerary is slowly giving rise to concerns that the Obama administration does not have India high up on its list of foreign policy priorities. These fears would not be unfounded. After the overtures of the Bush administration and the goodwill it managed to garner in India, Obama should make all efforts to take this relationship forward, regardless of Democrats who don't favor the Nuclear Deal between the two countries. It would only be the obvious next step in Indo-American relations.
America and India have grown ever closer with similar foundational ideologies and political and strategic values. As I have written here earlier as well, there are almost no pitfalls to a deeper strategic alliance between the two countries. They have only to gain by allying further. India is sure to be one of America's most important allies in the years to come and Obama should have made a better start to his relationship with India.
Sending an envoy (Holbrooke) alone does not cut it, to a country Obama assured was going to be an important ally of America's during his term. Holbrooke was appointed primarily for the Afghanistan and Pakistan problem and the Kashmir issue (on which India has time and again resented third party intervention) was lumped in with his more important duties. He is not the man to take Indo-American relations forward in a broad and meaningful manner.
Hillary Clinton is well known in India from her time as First Lady of the US and is said to be quite fond of the country. Having her visit as a follow up to Holbrooke's visit would have given the Indian government as well as the public opinion here just the indications it was looking for for a new, dynamic relationship between the two countries. She would have assured America's sustained cooperation on counterterrorism efforts as well as other strategic, cultural and commercial aspects of the relationship. To an easily skeptical Indian public, this would have been an excellent way to get the ball rolling.
India has been for years looking for greater cooperation from the US on counterterrorism efforts. Mere sympathy will not do any more. It does not want to be lectured on the Kashmir problem any more either. It wants the US to keep its borders open to its citizens looking for work. America by all indications will become the largest exporter of arms to India in the next few years. In all other investment indicators as well, the US is sure to lead.
All of this cannot be achieved at a low level of talks any more. To a country aspiring to be on par with China, America cannot get by placing India alongside Pakistan anymore. The Republicans understood this. India should be on Obama's top 5 foreign policy priorities. The Democrats' typical foreign policy towards India is one of distrust and patronizing. This is incongruous in today's age. The earlier Obama understands this the better. Hillary should have visited New Delhi. It would have been a significant follow up to the nuclear deal between the two countries. She's missed her chance and the seeds of concern have been sown. Let us hope this is righted as soon as possible. It is in both countries' interests.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Question of Domestic Security
With bombs going off in Indian cities at regular intervals, increasing violence from fringe groups on the extreme left of the political spectrum, destabilizing protestations from secessionist groups in neglected states and after the shock and awe of the attack on Mumbai last November, domestic security concerns have become essential to which way urban Indians, at least, may cast their vote. A rational decision will not be easy to make for these voters.
No definite and comprehensive internal security agenda has been put forward by any political party even after November 26, 2008. The rhetoric from leaders on all sides of the political spectrum has consisted of the same vitriol against foreign terrorists trying to destabilize the country, without much Parliamentary debate on coming up with practical policy proposals. After a shake up at the top of the Home Ministry in late November, certain new measures have been taken by the Congress led UPA government.
Firstly, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) has been hurriedly amended along the lines of and despite the failure of previous anti-terrorist laws such as POTA in achieving their intended goal. The new amendment is a clear instance of the Indian state's knee jerk reactions to questions of national security. The UAPA as it stands now is more draconian than any previous anti-terrorist law as it allows authorities to detain suspects for 180 days, the definition of who is a terrorist or anti-state actor remains ambiguous, suspects cannot appeal for bail and most importantly the law can be blatantly misused by the executive and security forces as there is no independent body (including the judiciary) which will monitor its use. Secondly, a Multi Agency Centre has been set up by the Home Ministry to share intelligence twenty-four hours and across the country's various intelligence gathering agencies. Thirdly, the ministry has urged all states to increase the manpower of their individual police forces as many positions lie vacant and also allocate a senior level officer to only gather local intelligence. Fourthly, NSG hubs are being created in all the four metros; Indian Reserve Battalions are being raised in various states along with counter insurgency and anti-terrorism schools. Fifthly, a Coastal Command is being set up to protect the country's large and vulnerable coastline from illegal penetration.
The Congress-led UPA's reaction to crude bombs blowing off in Indian cities last year was largely one of confusion and indifference. After the Delhi blasts, we saw the encounter and arrests at Jamianagar, post which no concrete results from an investigation have been made public. After Mumbai, the UPA reacted precisely in the manner in which the BJP-led NDA had chosen to react after the attack on Parliament during its tenure. Both have offered a draconian, anti-terrorist law as a palliative and some shuffling around of departments and officials in the central and state home ministries. Based on the reactions we have seen from both the major coalitions, it will not be preposterous to say that at the central level, we will have no major difference in outlook towards domestic security from either camp.
The NDA may position itself as hawkish on security, yet under their tenure we were no better off than we are now on the question of domestic safety. What may turn out to be a more prudent approach while deciding on which side to vote for if domestic security is a major concern for the voter, would be to keep a look out for who is tipped to be the Home Minister and National Security Adviser under either government. A capable, rational and indefatigable leader in-charge of domestic security may be a better bet than voting along party lines this time around. If you fear the BJP will remain soft on right-wing, vigilante groups such as the Bajarang Dal, then the Congress may lapse in to a deep slumber regarding national security in order to not disturb the status quo.
A few important issues to take note of while deciding would be:
External terrorist threats are essential to monitor, yet more people die in India each year due to clashes between groups born within our borders. The next government must have a comprehensive program to bring fringe violent groups in to a dialogue with the Indian state to curb down this violence. A million mutinies at home only make us weaker and less coordinated as we try to tackle the threat from beyond our borders.
Secondly, the strengthening of domestic security forces in terms of providing better training, equipment, allocation of funds and human resource management. Our internal security agencies need a complete revamp, so look out for candidates with a plan to tackle the same.
Voters must emphasize that political parties address these broad issues in their campaigns. Or else, simply based on historical precedent, we will not receive a concrete agenda and policy from either coalition. In the coming days of the election campaign, watch out for which side addresses the issues outlined above comprehensively, so we all may feel safer and more secure.
No definite and comprehensive internal security agenda has been put forward by any political party even after November 26, 2008. The rhetoric from leaders on all sides of the political spectrum has consisted of the same vitriol against foreign terrorists trying to destabilize the country, without much Parliamentary debate on coming up with practical policy proposals. After a shake up at the top of the Home Ministry in late November, certain new measures have been taken by the Congress led UPA government.
Firstly, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) has been hurriedly amended along the lines of and despite the failure of previous anti-terrorist laws such as POTA in achieving their intended goal. The new amendment is a clear instance of the Indian state's knee jerk reactions to questions of national security. The UAPA as it stands now is more draconian than any previous anti-terrorist law as it allows authorities to detain suspects for 180 days, the definition of who is a terrorist or anti-state actor remains ambiguous, suspects cannot appeal for bail and most importantly the law can be blatantly misused by the executive and security forces as there is no independent body (including the judiciary) which will monitor its use. Secondly, a Multi Agency Centre has been set up by the Home Ministry to share intelligence twenty-four hours and across the country's various intelligence gathering agencies. Thirdly, the ministry has urged all states to increase the manpower of their individual police forces as many positions lie vacant and also allocate a senior level officer to only gather local intelligence. Fourthly, NSG hubs are being created in all the four metros; Indian Reserve Battalions are being raised in various states along with counter insurgency and anti-terrorism schools. Fifthly, a Coastal Command is being set up to protect the country's large and vulnerable coastline from illegal penetration.
The Congress-led UPA's reaction to crude bombs blowing off in Indian cities last year was largely one of confusion and indifference. After the Delhi blasts, we saw the encounter and arrests at Jamianagar, post which no concrete results from an investigation have been made public. After Mumbai, the UPA reacted precisely in the manner in which the BJP-led NDA had chosen to react after the attack on Parliament during its tenure. Both have offered a draconian, anti-terrorist law as a palliative and some shuffling around of departments and officials in the central and state home ministries. Based on the reactions we have seen from both the major coalitions, it will not be preposterous to say that at the central level, we will have no major difference in outlook towards domestic security from either camp.
The NDA may position itself as hawkish on security, yet under their tenure we were no better off than we are now on the question of domestic safety. What may turn out to be a more prudent approach while deciding on which side to vote for if domestic security is a major concern for the voter, would be to keep a look out for who is tipped to be the Home Minister and National Security Adviser under either government. A capable, rational and indefatigable leader in-charge of domestic security may be a better bet than voting along party lines this time around. If you fear the BJP will remain soft on right-wing, vigilante groups such as the Bajarang Dal, then the Congress may lapse in to a deep slumber regarding national security in order to not disturb the status quo.
A few important issues to take note of while deciding would be:
External terrorist threats are essential to monitor, yet more people die in India each year due to clashes between groups born within our borders. The next government must have a comprehensive program to bring fringe violent groups in to a dialogue with the Indian state to curb down this violence. A million mutinies at home only make us weaker and less coordinated as we try to tackle the threat from beyond our borders.
Secondly, the strengthening of domestic security forces in terms of providing better training, equipment, allocation of funds and human resource management. Our internal security agencies need a complete revamp, so look out for candidates with a plan to tackle the same.
Voters must emphasize that political parties address these broad issues in their campaigns. Or else, simply based on historical precedent, we will not receive a concrete agenda and policy from either coalition. In the coming days of the election campaign, watch out for which side addresses the issues outlined above comprehensively, so we all may feel safer and more secure.
Monday, February 16, 2009
No Deal for Swat...Please!
The Zardari government perplexes me. To my mind there seems little doubt that this is the only unequivocally secular entity in the Pakistani political realm, and hence has no internal qualms with tackling the Taliban menace. Moreover, the Zardari government has gone to great lengths, to try and draw the attention of the public and the intelligentsia to the barbaric reign of terror being unleashed upon the people of Swat by the Taliban and the political outfit they work under in Swat, the TNSM. So therefore, I wonder, why this new agreement with these jihadis? How is this wise?
The government is claiming this to be a big victory. Under the agreement Sharia law is being formally established as the law in the Swat and Malakand region, provided the TNSM helps establish stability there, and also supports a new local administration which will be established in Swat, operating under Sharia law, with the consensus of all players in Swat. The TSNM's militant wing, the Swat Taliban, has also agreed to a 10-day ceasefire and to cease burning down schools. This agreement may I add, has almost no chance of working.
This is not the first attempted peace agreement in Swat. In 2008 a deal was struck with the TNSM, requiring them to “hold the local government…in high esteem, work for the peaceful implementation and enforcement of Sharia law, condemn attacks on the government, and cooperate with the government to establish the law and restore peace." We see, here that this is not the first time we’ve offered them Sharia law as an olive branch. The logic of the Pakistani government would seem to be that, under the new system, the TNSM will get their demand for Sharia law, but this will be Sharia law, to the extent it falls within the limits of the Pakistani constitution, as this region would still be part of the Pakistani state. Hence, this would not be much more than a change in appearance, as all that will happen is, in exchange for peace, judges within these areas, will move from having the title ‘Judge’ to having the title ‘Qazi’, a nominal difference at best. They have attempted this kind of compromise before, and it will not work.
This is because these people do not have any interest in falling under the control of the state and constitution of Pakistan. These are not simple clerics, who feel their religious imperative urges them to establish an Islam-based legal system in Pakistan. This is an armed revolutionary movement bent on control and establishment of their own system under their own supervision.
Moreover, they’ve seen this tactic from the Pakistani government before, and they are wise to it. Sufi Mohammad, the leader of the TNSM has already made clear, that the condition must be added that Sharia court decisions in Swat cannot be verified by or appealed in the courts of the rest of the state judicial system. This, of course, means that without any supervision or provision for appeal, the courts will run based on whatever law the strongest group within Swat, that being the TNSM/Taliban, chooses. The constitution would be irrelevant. This, of course, is a condition that the Pakistani government would never be willing to accept. If it does, they would effectively be partitioning Swat from Pakistan. If it doesn’t, well, the TNSM/Taliban will claim that the government is not committed to true Sharia, and not committed to following with their deal, just as they claimed in the last peace agreement of 2008, and thus will be “compelled” to take up their arms once more, and the terror will resume.
Only this time, it will prove to be even worse. With this level of acceptance from the government, these Jihadis will gain more public legitimacy than ever before. With the government itself accepting their fight as a struggle for Sharia, and further, publicly declaring their demand for Sharia legitimate through this deal, the government is allowing them to shape the public appearance of this conflict. So, when this agreement will fall through, as it inevitably will, the TNSM and Taliban will be able to use the public legitimacy their cause is being given, to blame the government for betraying their legitimate cause of Islamic law, and further fuel public opinion in the rest of Pakistan against the government. Many feel one of the main reasons the government is being driven to this agreement is that the government itself is incurring massive losses and yet does not even have the support of a public mandate for fighting the Taliban militarily. Therefore, they are driven to other solutions. However, this option is doomed to failure. The agreement will not only fall through soon enough, but the agreement will give the Taliban and the TNSM’s position further legitimacy, and give them an opportunity to turn the public opinion even further against the government’s armed solution.
I implore President Zardari to abandon this unwise strategy. You have tried these tactics before. They have not worked. In fact from Musharraf’s countless failed peace deals, to the failed treaties last years, the state has always been weakened further in relation to these terrorists in these deals. Watch their activities. Listen to their rhetoric. They have no real interest in compromising with the government. They have no intentions of subordinating to, or even coexisting with, the Pakistani state. For them, such agreements are only stepping stones towards further legitimacy and further control, and only help ease their path towards the dominant position they wish to take, piece by piece, over the whole of this tottering nation, Pakistan.
The government is claiming this to be a big victory. Under the agreement Sharia law is being formally established as the law in the Swat and Malakand region, provided the TNSM helps establish stability there, and also supports a new local administration which will be established in Swat, operating under Sharia law, with the consensus of all players in Swat. The TSNM's militant wing, the Swat Taliban, has also agreed to a 10-day ceasefire and to cease burning down schools. This agreement may I add, has almost no chance of working.
This is not the first attempted peace agreement in Swat. In 2008 a deal was struck with the TNSM, requiring them to “hold the local government…in high esteem, work for the peaceful implementation and enforcement of Sharia law, condemn attacks on the government, and cooperate with the government to establish the law and restore peace." We see, here that this is not the first time we’ve offered them Sharia law as an olive branch. The logic of the Pakistani government would seem to be that, under the new system, the TNSM will get their demand for Sharia law, but this will be Sharia law, to the extent it falls within the limits of the Pakistani constitution, as this region would still be part of the Pakistani state. Hence, this would not be much more than a change in appearance, as all that will happen is, in exchange for peace, judges within these areas, will move from having the title ‘Judge’ to having the title ‘Qazi’, a nominal difference at best. They have attempted this kind of compromise before, and it will not work.
This is because these people do not have any interest in falling under the control of the state and constitution of Pakistan. These are not simple clerics, who feel their religious imperative urges them to establish an Islam-based legal system in Pakistan. This is an armed revolutionary movement bent on control and establishment of their own system under their own supervision.
Moreover, they’ve seen this tactic from the Pakistani government before, and they are wise to it. Sufi Mohammad, the leader of the TNSM has already made clear, that the condition must be added that Sharia court decisions in Swat cannot be verified by or appealed in the courts of the rest of the state judicial system. This, of course, means that without any supervision or provision for appeal, the courts will run based on whatever law the strongest group within Swat, that being the TNSM/Taliban, chooses. The constitution would be irrelevant. This, of course, is a condition that the Pakistani government would never be willing to accept. If it does, they would effectively be partitioning Swat from Pakistan. If it doesn’t, well, the TNSM/Taliban will claim that the government is not committed to true Sharia, and not committed to following with their deal, just as they claimed in the last peace agreement of 2008, and thus will be “compelled” to take up their arms once more, and the terror will resume.
Only this time, it will prove to be even worse. With this level of acceptance from the government, these Jihadis will gain more public legitimacy than ever before. With the government itself accepting their fight as a struggle for Sharia, and further, publicly declaring their demand for Sharia legitimate through this deal, the government is allowing them to shape the public appearance of this conflict. So, when this agreement will fall through, as it inevitably will, the TNSM and Taliban will be able to use the public legitimacy their cause is being given, to blame the government for betraying their legitimate cause of Islamic law, and further fuel public opinion in the rest of Pakistan against the government. Many feel one of the main reasons the government is being driven to this agreement is that the government itself is incurring massive losses and yet does not even have the support of a public mandate for fighting the Taliban militarily. Therefore, they are driven to other solutions. However, this option is doomed to failure. The agreement will not only fall through soon enough, but the agreement will give the Taliban and the TNSM’s position further legitimacy, and give them an opportunity to turn the public opinion even further against the government’s armed solution.
I implore President Zardari to abandon this unwise strategy. You have tried these tactics before. They have not worked. In fact from Musharraf’s countless failed peace deals, to the failed treaties last years, the state has always been weakened further in relation to these terrorists in these deals. Watch their activities. Listen to their rhetoric. They have no real interest in compromising with the government. They have no intentions of subordinating to, or even coexisting with, the Pakistani state. For them, such agreements are only stepping stones towards further legitimacy and further control, and only help ease their path towards the dominant position they wish to take, piece by piece, over the whole of this tottering nation, Pakistan.
Congress' Repartee
Alarmed and dismayed by Krishna Advani's aggressive self promotion, the bumbling UPA has chanced upon a golden opportunity to redeem itself in time for a comeback. As I write, UPA odd job man, the right honorable Pranab Mukherjee has begun delivering his plans for a brief shopping spree in the next few months.
Euphemistically called a Budget, Mukherjee has been called upon by his superiors to avail of this useful instrument of governance to appeal to the populace by telling them how great they are for voting UPA the last time. With elections just a few months away, the UPA has started slowly in its javelin throws with Advani and co. Having Pranab as Finance Minister is a masterstroke intended to bung it right back in to the contest.
Appearing in this position for the first time in the lifetimes of all the authors on this site, Mukherjee is sure to have a ball in his second coming. Last seen in similar surroundings in 1984, Mukherjee has returned in order to make a distinct point. That the UPA government has within its ranks, people younger than Advani, who have governed 25 years apart. In the geriatrics world, this is like being Michael Dell.
Today's symbolism should not go unnoticed. A quarter century of ineptitude later, Mukherjee is going strong. With all the sops he will hand out today, Advani should know he has a fight on his hands.
Euphemistically called a Budget, Mukherjee has been called upon by his superiors to avail of this useful instrument of governance to appeal to the populace by telling them how great they are for voting UPA the last time. With elections just a few months away, the UPA has started slowly in its javelin throws with Advani and co. Having Pranab as Finance Minister is a masterstroke intended to bung it right back in to the contest.
Appearing in this position for the first time in the lifetimes of all the authors on this site, Mukherjee is sure to have a ball in his second coming. Last seen in similar surroundings in 1984, Mukherjee has returned in order to make a distinct point. That the UPA government has within its ranks, people younger than Advani, who have governed 25 years apart. In the geriatrics world, this is like being Michael Dell.
Today's symbolism should not go unnoticed. A quarter century of ineptitude later, Mukherjee is going strong. With all the sops he will hand out today, Advani should know he has a fight on his hands.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
To Vote or Not To Vote..
Exercising your right to vote for the first time must feel liberating and empowering. Millions of Indians will be first-time voters in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. The issues that determine their vote will be of interest to political pundits, academicians, soothsayers and the public at large.
The expected large number of young voters in this year's elections will have grown up in a post-Partition, post-Emergency, post-Liberalization era. They essentially do not carry any scars from the trauma of Partition, they did not form their political ideas around the time of the Emergency and in its immediate aftermath and they have spent the majority of their years in a state deregulating the economy and cutting red tape. Instead, these voters have grown up in an age dominated by politics of caste and religion, an age of cellular phones, the Internet and cable TV, an age of soaring aspirations and growing disparities.
What will be the foremost issues determining the nature of their vote? Is there a clear choice for the first time voter between the different mainstream parties or coalitions for that matter on issues of ideology, economy, security, foreign policy, or do we see overlaps that will put the voter in a conundrum?
Please post individual issues you feel young voters will have on their minds as comments to this post. We can expand on them in future posts and write about where the major parties stand on them.
The expected large number of young voters in this year's elections will have grown up in a post-Partition, post-Emergency, post-Liberalization era. They essentially do not carry any scars from the trauma of Partition, they did not form their political ideas around the time of the Emergency and in its immediate aftermath and they have spent the majority of their years in a state deregulating the economy and cutting red tape. Instead, these voters have grown up in an age dominated by politics of caste and religion, an age of cellular phones, the Internet and cable TV, an age of soaring aspirations and growing disparities.
What will be the foremost issues determining the nature of their vote? Is there a clear choice for the first time voter between the different mainstream parties or coalitions for that matter on issues of ideology, economy, security, foreign policy, or do we see overlaps that will put the voter in a conundrum?
Please post individual issues you feel young voters will have on their minds as comments to this post. We can expand on them in future posts and write about where the major parties stand on them.
Stating the Obvious
Breaking News: After 76 days since the Mumbai attacks, the shocking truth is revealed that “some part of the conspiracy” behind the November attacks did indeed take place in Pakistan.
Needless to say the entire of Pakistan has been caught blind-sided by this revelation. Pakistan? Terrorism? Is that even conceivable? Isn’t terrorism an entirely Zionist Jewish phenomenon, along with other such cataclysmic conjurations as imperialism, Hitler, money, women’s rights and malaria? What about Amar Singh, who Zaid Hamid claimed with such authority, was the real perpetrator? Could Zaid Hamid, a man who has presented us with such astounding truths as the Zionist plan to destroy the nuclear family, actually be mistaken? For the Pakistani media, this is all unthinkable. From Zaid Hamid to Shaikh Rashid to Aslam Beg, civilian, political and military "experts" alike have pitched in their two cents in a media campaign to absolve Pakistan entirely of any responsibility in this, or indeed any terrorist attack. Alas, the truth however has no doubt shaken their convictions to the core. Or, perhaps, using their well-honed skills of logic and reasoning that they employ in their daily rants, they could successfully convince an alarmed Pakistani population that truth itself is a Zionist conspiracy, and must be avoided at all costs. I look forward to their next move.
I could go on blasting Pakistan’s media and so-called intelligentsia and finding reasons to laugh at the fact that the Pakistani government has taken 76 days to state the obvious. However, put into context, this announcement is indeed quite significant.
There is, in all likelihood, little doubt within the circles of power in Pakistan, that India’s accusation backed by pretty much almost every other country, that the Mumbai attacks were planned and prepared in Pakistan, is an accurate one. This does not mean that other countries may not have been involved. And the Pakistan government’s current diffused responsibility strategy, blaming a wide network of states for involvement in the attack, although primarily being done in its own self-interest, may well have some truth to it. However, there is still the admission of responsibility by the Pakistani government of actions taken on its own soil. One look back at Pakistan history, and we have almost never admitted to Pakistan’s involvement in any such attacks in the past. Whereas, we have taken action against elements involved in attacks in India before, this action has been superficial at best, as it has never come with the open admission of these elements’ actual involvement in terrorism on Indian soil. Even that beacon of peace and reconciliation with India, Pervez Musharraf, would never have done so. The lack of such statements goes hand-in-hand with the lack of interest to actually target and rein in these terrorist elements working from within Pakistan.
The reason? The Army
The Pakistani army, in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks made clear their continuation of their position as protector to Jihadi outfits based in Pakistan, especially those that do not have ambitions or motives within Pakistan, and especially squared (just to give an idea of how special this relationship is) those whose destructive ambitions lie on the other side of the eastern border. Indeed you had leading officers from the army declaring the terrorists “patriots.” When the Pakistani government tried to cooperate with the Indian one, offering to send our ISI Director-General, the army refused. When one of Pakistan’s most senior cabinet members, national security adviser, Mahmood Durrani dared admit that the surviving terrorist Ajmal Kasab was indeed from Pakistan, there were very swift moves to have him removed from his post. After the attacks, the Pakistan army’s primary interest was in shifting troops to the eastern border with India, instead of hunting down any perpetrators. Indeed, the Taliban’s offer to help the Pakistani army in a war against India was not roundly renounced by the army. So, with the army taking such a resolute position against any acceptance of blame, and any real cooperation at all, and given the power the Pakistani army wields in Pakistan’s internal political structure, for the government to be able to make such an announcement, indicates a considerable shaking of the internal status quo within these power circles. Somehow the army must have compromised on its stance. Someone must have made them do so.
The person? Richard Holbrooke.
The Pakistani government’s statement comes on the heels of the new American special envoy’s first visit to Pakistan. And on his visit, Holbrooke visited not just the Pakistani civilian leadership, but also the military leadership, and, most significantly, he met with the Director General of the ISI, the wing of the army with the closest ties to the Jihadi outfits. The meetings were described as “frank,” by the government’s spokesman. In diplomatic terms, frank, is never a word for calm, affable and non-confrontational talks. Holbrooke, clearly came with an agenda. The pressure was applied; the American position was made clear. And the results are there for us all to see today. The army has been made to cave.
So, from this perspective this statement of the obvious by the government is very significant. The American government has clearly weighed in on the side of the civilian government, and is clearly taking an active interest in Pakistan’s internal power structure. Key arrests are already being made following up from that statement. There may finally be an opportunity for Pakistan’s leadership to take some concrete action against the Jihadi outfits. For this, we thank you Mr. Holbrooke. Let us hope this opportunity is not squandered.
Needless to say the entire of Pakistan has been caught blind-sided by this revelation. Pakistan? Terrorism? Is that even conceivable? Isn’t terrorism an entirely Zionist Jewish phenomenon, along with other such cataclysmic conjurations as imperialism, Hitler, money, women’s rights and malaria? What about Amar Singh, who Zaid Hamid claimed with such authority, was the real perpetrator? Could Zaid Hamid, a man who has presented us with such astounding truths as the Zionist plan to destroy the nuclear family, actually be mistaken? For the Pakistani media, this is all unthinkable. From Zaid Hamid to Shaikh Rashid to Aslam Beg, civilian, political and military "experts" alike have pitched in their two cents in a media campaign to absolve Pakistan entirely of any responsibility in this, or indeed any terrorist attack. Alas, the truth however has no doubt shaken their convictions to the core. Or, perhaps, using their well-honed skills of logic and reasoning that they employ in their daily rants, they could successfully convince an alarmed Pakistani population that truth itself is a Zionist conspiracy, and must be avoided at all costs. I look forward to their next move.
I could go on blasting Pakistan’s media and so-called intelligentsia and finding reasons to laugh at the fact that the Pakistani government has taken 76 days to state the obvious. However, put into context, this announcement is indeed quite significant.
There is, in all likelihood, little doubt within the circles of power in Pakistan, that India’s accusation backed by pretty much almost every other country, that the Mumbai attacks were planned and prepared in Pakistan, is an accurate one. This does not mean that other countries may not have been involved. And the Pakistan government’s current diffused responsibility strategy, blaming a wide network of states for involvement in the attack, although primarily being done in its own self-interest, may well have some truth to it. However, there is still the admission of responsibility by the Pakistani government of actions taken on its own soil. One look back at Pakistan history, and we have almost never admitted to Pakistan’s involvement in any such attacks in the past. Whereas, we have taken action against elements involved in attacks in India before, this action has been superficial at best, as it has never come with the open admission of these elements’ actual involvement in terrorism on Indian soil. Even that beacon of peace and reconciliation with India, Pervez Musharraf, would never have done so. The lack of such statements goes hand-in-hand with the lack of interest to actually target and rein in these terrorist elements working from within Pakistan.
The reason? The Army
The Pakistani army, in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks made clear their continuation of their position as protector to Jihadi outfits based in Pakistan, especially those that do not have ambitions or motives within Pakistan, and especially squared (just to give an idea of how special this relationship is) those whose destructive ambitions lie on the other side of the eastern border. Indeed you had leading officers from the army declaring the terrorists “patriots.” When the Pakistani government tried to cooperate with the Indian one, offering to send our ISI Director-General, the army refused. When one of Pakistan’s most senior cabinet members, national security adviser, Mahmood Durrani dared admit that the surviving terrorist Ajmal Kasab was indeed from Pakistan, there were very swift moves to have him removed from his post. After the attacks, the Pakistan army’s primary interest was in shifting troops to the eastern border with India, instead of hunting down any perpetrators. Indeed, the Taliban’s offer to help the Pakistani army in a war against India was not roundly renounced by the army. So, with the army taking such a resolute position against any acceptance of blame, and any real cooperation at all, and given the power the Pakistani army wields in Pakistan’s internal political structure, for the government to be able to make such an announcement, indicates a considerable shaking of the internal status quo within these power circles. Somehow the army must have compromised on its stance. Someone must have made them do so.
The person? Richard Holbrooke.
The Pakistani government’s statement comes on the heels of the new American special envoy’s first visit to Pakistan. And on his visit, Holbrooke visited not just the Pakistani civilian leadership, but also the military leadership, and, most significantly, he met with the Director General of the ISI, the wing of the army with the closest ties to the Jihadi outfits. The meetings were described as “frank,” by the government’s spokesman. In diplomatic terms, frank, is never a word for calm, affable and non-confrontational talks. Holbrooke, clearly came with an agenda. The pressure was applied; the American position was made clear. And the results are there for us all to see today. The army has been made to cave.
So, from this perspective this statement of the obvious by the government is very significant. The American government has clearly weighed in on the side of the civilian government, and is clearly taking an active interest in Pakistan’s internal power structure. Key arrests are already being made following up from that statement. There may finally be an opportunity for Pakistan’s leadership to take some concrete action against the Jihadi outfits. For this, we thank you Mr. Holbrooke. Let us hope this opportunity is not squandered.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Yes, We Could?
Strapping young agent of change Lal Krishna Advani has begun announcing all over the place his honest intentions of running for Prime Ministership of India. Taking a cue from his beloved contemporary Hussein Obama from across the world, our man has begun early, and in earnest. With such novel techniques that no one in India had ever heard of before, like advertising in the Pakistani media, in American blogs and others, the shrewd, youthful leader of the opposition is covertly insinuating himself into our collective minds.
A johnny come lately for most of his short life (he missed the boat circa 1965), he has finally got the break he was waiting for. Kept in the shadows of his venerable, slightly older(about to start pushing middle age)mentor AB Vajpayee, the young man was a quick study and showed signs of his statesmanlike qualities early on in his apprenticeship. Political irrelevance for the better part of half a century did not get him bogged down like his detractors believed. Steadily maturing, preparing himself for the first major challenge of his life, Krishna, as he shall soon come to be known, is now a role model for all budding kindergarten politicians.
Appearing to run on the most novel of all ideas in India, national security, he is a shoo in for the play pen at No. 7, Race Course Road. His theme is a supreme intellectual achievement in a land that has never been introduced to the idea in its 7000 year history. A juvenile priest, he has been a strict adherent to the Spartan philosophy of life, euphemistically called Hindutva. His cult has grown slowly over a few short years, much in keeping with dear Obama's across the Pacific. The similarities are striking. With few hair on their skull tops, these two modern day marvels have set their hearts on changing the world. India is lucky to have one of its own.
With all the enthusiastic zing of a child in a sweetshop, just like he did a few short years ago, Krishna is rearing to go. Having addressed concerns of his fellow incarnate Ram to the ignorant and impudent press, he is now free of trivial burdens and all set for the long haul. Minor threats like those of his stepbrother Shekhawat appear to have died down and he looks to be ready to launch his juggernaut for all to see and clap. India loves fresh faces and new ideas and Krishna will take full advantage, unlike all who have come before him. Appealing to minority groups like Hindus and the farmer community, his novel techniques are sure to garner surprise constituencies on D-Day.
Unfazed by resounding defeats in Rajasthan and UP, to name a few (defeats that would have been the last nail in the coffin for lesser mortals), he beams with a refreshing optimism. With beginner's luck and a newcomer's naivete, this young man will go rolling home. Home in this instance being the aforementioned play pen.
He is now counting on you, the wonderfully discerning voters, to provide that "shoo" that would get him across the finish line come auction day. Please help him in this endeavor by staying at home and watching him on TV alone as he thanks his infant sons Narendra Modi and Arun Jaitley for their birth that brought such untold joy into his life. As for India, she should be happy with her ability to constantly reinvent herself and allow for people of all ages and backgrounds to contest free and fair elections that are a testament to her enduring ideals and learned populace. Here comes Krishna. Yes! We could....
A johnny come lately for most of his short life (he missed the boat circa 1965), he has finally got the break he was waiting for. Kept in the shadows of his venerable, slightly older(about to start pushing middle age)mentor AB Vajpayee, the young man was a quick study and showed signs of his statesmanlike qualities early on in his apprenticeship. Political irrelevance for the better part of half a century did not get him bogged down like his detractors believed. Steadily maturing, preparing himself for the first major challenge of his life, Krishna, as he shall soon come to be known, is now a role model for all budding kindergarten politicians.
Appearing to run on the most novel of all ideas in India, national security, he is a shoo in for the play pen at No. 7, Race Course Road. His theme is a supreme intellectual achievement in a land that has never been introduced to the idea in its 7000 year history. A juvenile priest, he has been a strict adherent to the Spartan philosophy of life, euphemistically called Hindutva. His cult has grown slowly over a few short years, much in keeping with dear Obama's across the Pacific. The similarities are striking. With few hair on their skull tops, these two modern day marvels have set their hearts on changing the world. India is lucky to have one of its own.
With all the enthusiastic zing of a child in a sweetshop, just like he did a few short years ago, Krishna is rearing to go. Having addressed concerns of his fellow incarnate Ram to the ignorant and impudent press, he is now free of trivial burdens and all set for the long haul. Minor threats like those of his stepbrother Shekhawat appear to have died down and he looks to be ready to launch his juggernaut for all to see and clap. India loves fresh faces and new ideas and Krishna will take full advantage, unlike all who have come before him. Appealing to minority groups like Hindus and the farmer community, his novel techniques are sure to garner surprise constituencies on D-Day.
Unfazed by resounding defeats in Rajasthan and UP, to name a few (defeats that would have been the last nail in the coffin for lesser mortals), he beams with a refreshing optimism. With beginner's luck and a newcomer's naivete, this young man will go rolling home. Home in this instance being the aforementioned play pen.
He is now counting on you, the wonderfully discerning voters, to provide that "shoo" that would get him across the finish line come auction day. Please help him in this endeavor by staying at home and watching him on TV alone as he thanks his infant sons Narendra Modi and Arun Jaitley for their birth that brought such untold joy into his life. As for India, she should be happy with her ability to constantly reinvent herself and allow for people of all ages and backgrounds to contest free and fair elections that are a testament to her enduring ideals and learned populace. Here comes Krishna. Yes! We could....
In the world's largest democracy, circa 2009?...
1. On any given day, women in the world's largest democracy must refrain from stepping out to share an alcoholic beverage or in some cases even a chat with associates that belong to the opposite sex. If sighted, she is socially doomed for life as such 'fast' women destroy the moral fabric of a free state whose foundation was based on an exemplary struggle by and for the emancipation of men and women equally. Yet, in the world's largest democracy, it is a woman who is head of state and it is a woman who essentially controls its politics. This large democracy then must also be a land of hypocrites. "A woman is a mother, she is a wife, she is a sister", is an oft-quoted remark in this land. Is a woman just that? Is she not a human being? The minute she has an identity not associated with being some one's mother, some one's wife and somebody else's sister, this land of liberty, equality, fraternity erupts and goes in to a neurotic tailspin. The land of the free is also a land of the insecure.
2. There is a 52.2% chance that a woman in this country of GDP growth at 9% is not literate. The average amount a woman earns is one-fifth of what the men do. Yet each year, women outperform men in school-leaving exams across the country. Women in the poorest of villages are the reason why a healthy micro-credit industry thrives in this country.
3. The gargantuan democracy is obsessed with discussing the grandiose idea of India. Yet it misses, overlooks and sometimes suppresses the gross injustices meted out to the economically immobile and more tragically to its women, which ever income group they may belong to. If for the poor woman her daily bread and her physical security are major concerns, for the more fortunate it is the constant struggle to be able to make her own choices.
4. A woman here is not then just a mother, wife and sister. She is the one who must bear the scars of the trials and tribulations that a society calling it self democratic, fails to be so in practice.
5. A change in the condition must begin somewhere. We can hope and act such that tongue in cheek efforts such as these , combined with real emancipatory programs will one day allow women at every strata experience not just the idea, but a truly democratic India
2. There is a 52.2% chance that a woman in this country of GDP growth at 9% is not literate. The average amount a woman earns is one-fifth of what the men do. Yet each year, women outperform men in school-leaving exams across the country. Women in the poorest of villages are the reason why a healthy micro-credit industry thrives in this country.
3. The gargantuan democracy is obsessed with discussing the grandiose idea of India. Yet it misses, overlooks and sometimes suppresses the gross injustices meted out to the economically immobile and more tragically to its women, which ever income group they may belong to. If for the poor woman her daily bread and her physical security are major concerns, for the more fortunate it is the constant struggle to be able to make her own choices.
4. A woman here is not then just a mother, wife and sister. She is the one who must bear the scars of the trials and tribulations that a society calling it self democratic, fails to be so in practice.
5. A change in the condition must begin somewhere. We can hope and act such that tongue in cheek efforts such as these , combined with real emancipatory programs will one day allow women at every strata experience not just the idea, but a truly democratic India
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Agonies of a Sports Fan
"It's a depressing world out there these days, nobody will deny." So it says on a site not a million miles away from here. Those words are resoundingly true and sports can make things so much worse. Being a sports fan opens you to the world of hope, wishing that the team or player you support so dearly wins the battle that they're embroiled in. Victory brings unbridled joy, a feeling of euphoria that is matched by little in life. Its a different matter that it vanishes when the next battle appears over the horizon (a fortnight in Formula 1, a week in football and 2 days in a Grand Slam). Yet the lows are crushingly depressing and one wishes the earth would open up and swallow you whole.
Making an emotional investment in a sports team is most often unintentional. One watches the team or individual play, finds some aspect to connect with whether it is nationality, locality, spirit, style of play or as is the case with the 'glory hunter', the simple art of winning. Games (or races or matches) are watched and before you can say "Zinedine Zidane", you're addicted. Posters go up on the wall, discussions turn to debates to arguments to fisticuffs. A moment of madness where one day you took more than a passing interest turns into a life-long curse, the inability to stop supporting your losing team is Death by a Thousand Cuts. Spare a thought for Boston Red Sox fans who went 86 years without winning the World Series. Worse yet, spare a thought for Chicago Cubs fans, they are still to win their first in over a 100 years.
It is worse still to smell victory of the ultimate goal and watch it snatched away. I went to a pub with my friend the Arsenal fan for the 2006 Champions League final where they were playing Barcelona. Arsenal had their goalkeeper sent off after just 18 minutes and at that point there seemed little they could do to stop a rampaging Barcelona. But they scored before half time and played a solid game, threatening to score more. An inspired substitution led Barcelona to score in the 76th and 80th minutes to take the lead and the biggest title in club football. The sucker punch he felt was visible as he stood rooted to the spot, unable to comprehend how life could be so cruel. Perhaps 10 minutes gives you some time for it to sink in. What of Bayern Munich fans who led for 85 minutes against Manchester United in the 1999 final only to have 2 goals scored in the final 2 minutes of injury time. Could words put into perspective the hollowness they must have felt? No words could describe the joy I felt as my team overcame impossible odds to win. 10 years later I'm trying to understand my rivals' position.
Worse still is losing at home. The last race of last season, the Brazilian Grand Prix, was perfectly set up for a duel to the finish. The leader for much of the season, Lewis Hamilton, lined up 4th on the grid with the challenger, Felipe Massea, in pole position. Hamilton's 7 point lead seemed almost unassailable. Only an Act of God could have saved Massa. Sure enough, the heavens opened as they often do during Brazilian Grands Prix. The events that followed on the last lap, will be remembered forever. Conspiracy theories on how much Timo Glock was paid to slow so dramatically on the last lap for Hamilton to sneak away with the Championship in Massa's homeland will prove difficult to counter. How many Brazilians in the stands kept control over their emotions as they actually went through the incredible highs of the first Brazilian champion since the immortal Senna to the inevitability of defeat within minutes? How many hearts broke watching Massa weep uncontrollably on the podium, his flawless victory in the race turned meaningless by the loss of the Championship?
At least India's collapse to Sri Lanka in the 1996 Cricket World Cup Semi-Final was due to our ability to snap defeat from the jaws of victory. Or in this case, crumble when a challenge was posed. Tens of millions of television sets were turned off when Jayasuriya got Sachin. All hope was surrendered well before the Eden Gardens crowd decided to add some pizzazz to the occassion. But though we lost, we didn't reserve the despair that we do when we lose to Pakistan. As in the 1st Test Match at Chennai in 1999, when Sachin brought us to the brink of victory with a glorious century. Rarely has such a collective mass plumbed such depths, as all Indian cricket fans did that fateful evening when 4 were lost for 2. Losing to the most hated neighbour, who always has that patch of greener grass, is perhaps worst feeling. Derbies become legendary for the fighting spirit with which they are imbued, but to lose them means surrendering bragging rights to friends, work-mates, in some cases even siblings, for what could be an indefinite period of time if you're particularly unlucky (or if your team is particularly poor).
Yet for all sports fans, there can still be worse to come. For a supporter of a team that wins big and wins often, a loss can be so unexpected that its jarring. As a Manchester United fan, I go through this when my club refuses to turn up and loses to Debry County or Coventry City. Clearly, it is the same for some others. Said Joe Queenan, "New York [Yankee] fans whining about their sporting disappointments to the vast American public -- poor Don Mattingly never got to play in a World Series (boohoo) -- is like Romans whining to the Gauls just because they once lost a battle to Hannibal. No, it's like Julia Roberts complaining that her teeth are too big. No, it's like a billionaire complaining about his eczema; sorry about the scales, Mr. Big Stuff, but you've still got all that money." Queenan obviously misses the point. When your team loses, all previous victories no matter how grand, are washed away (Does anyone remember the Pats were 19-0 last year or do they remember the Giants winning the Superbowl?). It ruins the day, the week, maybe the year and in some desperately sad cases, the century. In fact, it is ruinous until an opportunity for redemption is secured and the ephemerality of victory can be tasted.
Making an emotional investment in a sports team is most often unintentional. One watches the team or individual play, finds some aspect to connect with whether it is nationality, locality, spirit, style of play or as is the case with the 'glory hunter', the simple art of winning. Games (or races or matches) are watched and before you can say "Zinedine Zidane", you're addicted. Posters go up on the wall, discussions turn to debates to arguments to fisticuffs. A moment of madness where one day you took more than a passing interest turns into a life-long curse, the inability to stop supporting your losing team is Death by a Thousand Cuts. Spare a thought for Boston Red Sox fans who went 86 years without winning the World Series. Worse yet, spare a thought for Chicago Cubs fans, they are still to win their first in over a 100 years.
It is worse still to smell victory of the ultimate goal and watch it snatched away. I went to a pub with my friend the Arsenal fan for the 2006 Champions League final where they were playing Barcelona. Arsenal had their goalkeeper sent off after just 18 minutes and at that point there seemed little they could do to stop a rampaging Barcelona. But they scored before half time and played a solid game, threatening to score more. An inspired substitution led Barcelona to score in the 76th and 80th minutes to take the lead and the biggest title in club football. The sucker punch he felt was visible as he stood rooted to the spot, unable to comprehend how life could be so cruel. Perhaps 10 minutes gives you some time for it to sink in. What of Bayern Munich fans who led for 85 minutes against Manchester United in the 1999 final only to have 2 goals scored in the final 2 minutes of injury time. Could words put into perspective the hollowness they must have felt? No words could describe the joy I felt as my team overcame impossible odds to win. 10 years later I'm trying to understand my rivals' position.
Worse still is losing at home. The last race of last season, the Brazilian Grand Prix, was perfectly set up for a duel to the finish. The leader for much of the season, Lewis Hamilton, lined up 4th on the grid with the challenger, Felipe Massea, in pole position. Hamilton's 7 point lead seemed almost unassailable. Only an Act of God could have saved Massa. Sure enough, the heavens opened as they often do during Brazilian Grands Prix. The events that followed on the last lap, will be remembered forever. Conspiracy theories on how much Timo Glock was paid to slow so dramatically on the last lap for Hamilton to sneak away with the Championship in Massa's homeland will prove difficult to counter. How many Brazilians in the stands kept control over their emotions as they actually went through the incredible highs of the first Brazilian champion since the immortal Senna to the inevitability of defeat within minutes? How many hearts broke watching Massa weep uncontrollably on the podium, his flawless victory in the race turned meaningless by the loss of the Championship?
At least India's collapse to Sri Lanka in the 1996 Cricket World Cup Semi-Final was due to our ability to snap defeat from the jaws of victory. Or in this case, crumble when a challenge was posed. Tens of millions of television sets were turned off when Jayasuriya got Sachin. All hope was surrendered well before the Eden Gardens crowd decided to add some pizzazz to the occassion. But though we lost, we didn't reserve the despair that we do when we lose to Pakistan. As in the 1st Test Match at Chennai in 1999, when Sachin brought us to the brink of victory with a glorious century. Rarely has such a collective mass plumbed such depths, as all Indian cricket fans did that fateful evening when 4 were lost for 2. Losing to the most hated neighbour, who always has that patch of greener grass, is perhaps worst feeling. Derbies become legendary for the fighting spirit with which they are imbued, but to lose them means surrendering bragging rights to friends, work-mates, in some cases even siblings, for what could be an indefinite period of time if you're particularly unlucky (or if your team is particularly poor).
Yet for all sports fans, there can still be worse to come. For a supporter of a team that wins big and wins often, a loss can be so unexpected that its jarring. As a Manchester United fan, I go through this when my club refuses to turn up and loses to Debry County or Coventry City. Clearly, it is the same for some others. Said Joe Queenan, "New York [Yankee] fans whining about their sporting disappointments to the vast American public -- poor Don Mattingly never got to play in a World Series (boohoo) -- is like Romans whining to the Gauls just because they once lost a battle to Hannibal. No, it's like Julia Roberts complaining that her teeth are too big. No, it's like a billionaire complaining about his eczema; sorry about the scales, Mr. Big Stuff, but you've still got all that money." Queenan obviously misses the point. When your team loses, all previous victories no matter how grand, are washed away (Does anyone remember the Pats were 19-0 last year or do they remember the Giants winning the Superbowl?). It ruins the day, the week, maybe the year and in some desperately sad cases, the century. In fact, it is ruinous until an opportunity for redemption is secured and the ephemerality of victory can be tasted.
The Privileges of a Sports Fan
It’s a depressing world out there these days, nobody will deny. Sports is one thing though that keeps our spirits high, gives us something to cheer about on occasion. It has all that we celebrate of life and more, allows us to live vicariously for those brief, but glorious few hours, and its highs and lows remain with us indefinitely, inspiring us and leaving us wishing for more.
That it did all this in last Sunday’s Australian Open Final is undeniable. Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer gave us another classic Grand Slam final and indeed we are quite privileged to see two such amazing athletes battle for supremacy of their sport.
Not since Borg-McEnroe have tennis matches been awaited with such bated breath and been the cause of so much speculation, expectation and intrigue. This is a rivalry for the ages, a titanic struggle between two ultimate athletes. That we might yet have a long way to go in this rivalry is a mouth-watering prospect for all of us.
Few will doubt that with his win, Rafael Nadal is now the best tennis player on the planet. He has got here the hard way, and it is truly a testament to his perseverance, his hard-earned, versatile all surface game, his unbelievable physical fitness and supreme mental toughness. When he first appeared on the scene, Federer was all the rage, with talk of invincibility and GOAT (greatest of all time) status. Nadal has, over a quick three years, put paid to those notions.
Nobody should doubt Nadal’s legitimacy as the premier player in the world today. He has beaten Federer more often than not, on all surfaces, and especially in the big matches. McEnroe once said he would chase Borg to the ends of the earth; Rafa has done much the same with Federer. As one sports writer put it, “Rafael Nadal is not the No. 1 because Federer is having an off year. He is not the No. 1 because a champion is fading. He is No. 1 because he has taken on and beaten the best, time and again on the biggest stages tennis offers.”
Soon after Federer embarked on his 4 year, hell on the loose tear through men’s tennis, it was almost inconceivable that we would ever get to this stage. There was talk of him reaching Margaret Court’s record of 24 Grand Slam titles. It was only a matter of time before he won the French Open and then he would surely be the greatest player this sport had ever seen. For his fans, they got all they wanted. Complete annihilation of his opposition in final after final. For neutral observers, apart from the aesthetic quality of his game, it was getting tedious. Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt were mere pretenders to Federer’s crown, a real challenger was needed and the world got one. Rafael Nadal fit that role perfectly. He raised the stakes for Federer and thereby legitimized his greatness by the sheer force of his challenge. Every victory over Nadal was hard earned for Federer and as the rivalry was becoming legendary, the prism with which we began to view Federer’s greatness was unalterably shifted.
It is unusual in a sport for one supreme talent to face another in his own generation. Typically, an extraordinary talent has a lopsided career with very few challengers. We wish we had seen or could see legitimate challengers to Michael Jordan, Michael Schumacher, Tiger Woods, Valentino Rossi and Sergei Bubka and now we want Michael Phelps to have one. In Federer’s case we wished for it and got one. Nobody will doubt that Nadal is Federer’s equal on the court. Perhaps not in terms of talent alone or in an aesthetic sense, but when the point is played, Nadal can match Federer every bit of the way. This is extremely rare to see in sport, and we are privileged to see it happen.
For Nadal fans, it is an amazing story that their man has come from seemingly nowhere to heroically disturb and stymie Federer’s march to immortality. In many ways it is the ultimate achievement against the odds; the quintessential example of an underdog champion (though he can no longer be considered an underdog). It is a phenomenal effort and I do not believe there is a parallel anywhere else in the sports world. We have been witness to something extremely unusual and amazingly inspiring.
For Federer fans, while their man might well have 18 Grand Slams by now were it not for Nadal, they should welcome the Nadal challenge and accept it for what it is. It is a clarion call to Federer to raise his game even more, dig deep, stare adversity in the face, stomach the Nadal challenge and triumph, so as to assure his greatness and his name in the history books.It will make him more human, his losses more tragic, his achievements more heroic. Make no mistake, if Federer does not again beat Nadal in a Grand Slam final, several people will be reluctant to place him alongside the likes of Laver, Borg and Sampras. If he cannot consistently beat his main rival in his own time, wherefore does he become the greatest player of all time? Federer’s genius deserves this test and we are lucky to see him challenged like this. It will be the ultimate test of him as a player and champion.
This will be the next chapter in this ongoing saga that we’re all witnessing from Melbourne to London to New York: two supreme athletes and talents battling it out tooth and nail to etch their own names in history. The ending matters only to them; we are witnesses to the means alone. Heaven only knows what they have in store for us. That it remains a friendly and healthy rivalry, given what’s at stake, is only further testament to the rarefied heights these two have taken themselves and their games to. Indeed, we are very lucky.
An acclaimed sports writer had similar sentiments the morning after the Australian Open Final:
“After their effulgent Wimbledon encounter much was spoken about how these two great athletes were by themselves reviving interest in the sport, especially here in the United States. Many fans who had neglected tennis for so long had welcome home their prodigal son of sports and were once again interested in its happenings. Surely, there has never been a duo who so represent tennis - or any sport - in such a fine manner. And if that match seven months ago is indeed considered the greatest display of tennis in a century then the post-match ceremony yesterday will certainly be remembered as the ultimate graceful nod to sportsmanship. Federer's tears and Nadal's sincere embrace and words for his rival will only solidify and crystallize this brilliant period in tennis history. And it leaves us all begging for more, wondering what other gifts these two wondrous athletes will bequeath to future generations of tennis followers. “
That it did all this in last Sunday’s Australian Open Final is undeniable. Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer gave us another classic Grand Slam final and indeed we are quite privileged to see two such amazing athletes battle for supremacy of their sport.
Not since Borg-McEnroe have tennis matches been awaited with such bated breath and been the cause of so much speculation, expectation and intrigue. This is a rivalry for the ages, a titanic struggle between two ultimate athletes. That we might yet have a long way to go in this rivalry is a mouth-watering prospect for all of us.
Few will doubt that with his win, Rafael Nadal is now the best tennis player on the planet. He has got here the hard way, and it is truly a testament to his perseverance, his hard-earned, versatile all surface game, his unbelievable physical fitness and supreme mental toughness. When he first appeared on the scene, Federer was all the rage, with talk of invincibility and GOAT (greatest of all time) status. Nadal has, over a quick three years, put paid to those notions.
Nobody should doubt Nadal’s legitimacy as the premier player in the world today. He has beaten Federer more often than not, on all surfaces, and especially in the big matches. McEnroe once said he would chase Borg to the ends of the earth; Rafa has done much the same with Federer. As one sports writer put it, “Rafael Nadal is not the No. 1 because Federer is having an off year. He is not the No. 1 because a champion is fading. He is No. 1 because he has taken on and beaten the best, time and again on the biggest stages tennis offers.”
Soon after Federer embarked on his 4 year, hell on the loose tear through men’s tennis, it was almost inconceivable that we would ever get to this stage. There was talk of him reaching Margaret Court’s record of 24 Grand Slam titles. It was only a matter of time before he won the French Open and then he would surely be the greatest player this sport had ever seen. For his fans, they got all they wanted. Complete annihilation of his opposition in final after final. For neutral observers, apart from the aesthetic quality of his game, it was getting tedious. Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt were mere pretenders to Federer’s crown, a real challenger was needed and the world got one. Rafael Nadal fit that role perfectly. He raised the stakes for Federer and thereby legitimized his greatness by the sheer force of his challenge. Every victory over Nadal was hard earned for Federer and as the rivalry was becoming legendary, the prism with which we began to view Federer’s greatness was unalterably shifted.
It is unusual in a sport for one supreme talent to face another in his own generation. Typically, an extraordinary talent has a lopsided career with very few challengers. We wish we had seen or could see legitimate challengers to Michael Jordan, Michael Schumacher, Tiger Woods, Valentino Rossi and Sergei Bubka and now we want Michael Phelps to have one. In Federer’s case we wished for it and got one. Nobody will doubt that Nadal is Federer’s equal on the court. Perhaps not in terms of talent alone or in an aesthetic sense, but when the point is played, Nadal can match Federer every bit of the way. This is extremely rare to see in sport, and we are privileged to see it happen.
For Nadal fans, it is an amazing story that their man has come from seemingly nowhere to heroically disturb and stymie Federer’s march to immortality. In many ways it is the ultimate achievement against the odds; the quintessential example of an underdog champion (though he can no longer be considered an underdog). It is a phenomenal effort and I do not believe there is a parallel anywhere else in the sports world. We have been witness to something extremely unusual and amazingly inspiring.
For Federer fans, while their man might well have 18 Grand Slams by now were it not for Nadal, they should welcome the Nadal challenge and accept it for what it is. It is a clarion call to Federer to raise his game even more, dig deep, stare adversity in the face, stomach the Nadal challenge and triumph, so as to assure his greatness and his name in the history books.It will make him more human, his losses more tragic, his achievements more heroic. Make no mistake, if Federer does not again beat Nadal in a Grand Slam final, several people will be reluctant to place him alongside the likes of Laver, Borg and Sampras. If he cannot consistently beat his main rival in his own time, wherefore does he become the greatest player of all time? Federer’s genius deserves this test and we are lucky to see him challenged like this. It will be the ultimate test of him as a player and champion.
This will be the next chapter in this ongoing saga that we’re all witnessing from Melbourne to London to New York: two supreme athletes and talents battling it out tooth and nail to etch their own names in history. The ending matters only to them; we are witnesses to the means alone. Heaven only knows what they have in store for us. That it remains a friendly and healthy rivalry, given what’s at stake, is only further testament to the rarefied heights these two have taken themselves and their games to. Indeed, we are very lucky.
An acclaimed sports writer had similar sentiments the morning after the Australian Open Final:
“After their effulgent Wimbledon encounter much was spoken about how these two great athletes were by themselves reviving interest in the sport, especially here in the United States. Many fans who had neglected tennis for so long had welcome home their prodigal son of sports and were once again interested in its happenings. Surely, there has never been a duo who so represent tennis - or any sport - in such a fine manner. And if that match seven months ago is indeed considered the greatest display of tennis in a century then the post-match ceremony yesterday will certainly be remembered as the ultimate graceful nod to sportsmanship. Federer's tears and Nadal's sincere embrace and words for his rival will only solidify and crystallize this brilliant period in tennis history. And it leaves us all begging for more, wondering what other gifts these two wondrous athletes will bequeath to future generations of tennis followers. “
Friday, February 6, 2009
Beckhaaaaammmmm!!
David Beckham is derided by all who watch and care about football. The man is known as a walking commercial and for most it is difficult to see beyond that. His football is rarely discussed anymore. Its sad for a player who once finished 2nd in the voting for the World Player of the Year. He was at the peak of his powers while at Manchester United. He was the least talented of the famous midfield consisting of Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Roy Keane and himself but he carved out a niche for himself. His runs up and down the right wing were lung busting. He often clocked 13-14 km a game, about 25% more than most others. His vision was impeccable, understanding and creating flowing moves all over the park. Known mostly for his crossing, his passing along the ground was just as good but rarely acknowledged by critics. His pivoting movement was a work of art and was crucial for him to wrap his foot around the ball ekeing out that much more spin from the ball. And then there was his right foot. It would appear a wand, allowing him to place the ball at will at the feet or on the head of anyone he chose. It was good enough to be preserved in bronze for posterity.
He was vilified for being sent off against Argentina in the 1998 World Cup. Given the option of leaving for Italy, he stayed and faced his demons head on with United fans backing him every step of the way. He won 6 Premier League titles, 2 FA Cups and a Champions League in his time at United. Things went awry on July 1st, 2003. Beckham signed for Real Madrid and my adulation turned to unbridled hate. I was angry that he would leave even though its long been clear that he was sold against his will. I hoped he would fail and be shown up as a fool on the pitch. I wished he would never score a goal, never win a game and if lucky break all his metatarsals. It was an immature fan's way of dealing with the loss of such a treasure. I couldn't accept that I would not hear the commentator screaming "Beckhaaaaammmmm!!" as he curled in yet another trademark freekick for United.
Beckham didn't win any trophies for years at Real Madrid. His travails after Manchester United though have taught me his true value. He was a consummate professional who still approached games like a child during recess. Watching him come off during the quarter final against Portugal in 2006 illustrated just how much England meant to him. The tears wouldn't stop as his injury made him redundant on the field. The responsibility that he tasked himself with led him to resign from the captaincy when he had no need to do so.
Steve McClaren dropped him from the England squad. Fabio Capello dropped him from the Real Madrid first team. What has made Beckham special over and above his physical qualities is his strength of character. He trained harder and won his spot back in the Real Madrid team. He fought for every ball, every inch becoming a crucial member of the team as they finally won the Primera Liga. He forced McClaren to recall him on the strength of his performances. He's been belittled for moving to the footballing backwaters that are Major League Soccer.
His loan move to AC Milan appeared to be a poorly disguised shopping holiday for his wife. Yet Beckham has defied the odds again. He's scored twice and set up two with his crossing in 4 games. Playing alongside such accomplished passers as Andrea Pirlo and Clarence Seedorf, he's still able to shine. He's managed to keep Ronaldinho on the bench, no mean feat. He has also set up a deserved and record equalling 108th cap for England next week. Through the last 3 years, Beckham has made me appreciate what I couldn't see when he was at United. His best quality was never his right foot. It was always his will to play at the very top no matter who criticized him, who dropped him and who was better than him. So few have been the centre of attention for peripheral reasons but he's never lost focus of the game that gave him everything. His legs and lungs have both begun to give way and he seems older than his 33 years. He hasn't given up yet and never will. When his time in professional football finally comes to an end, may we remember that above all else.
He was vilified for being sent off against Argentina in the 1998 World Cup. Given the option of leaving for Italy, he stayed and faced his demons head on with United fans backing him every step of the way. He won 6 Premier League titles, 2 FA Cups and a Champions League in his time at United. Things went awry on July 1st, 2003. Beckham signed for Real Madrid and my adulation turned to unbridled hate. I was angry that he would leave even though its long been clear that he was sold against his will. I hoped he would fail and be shown up as a fool on the pitch. I wished he would never score a goal, never win a game and if lucky break all his metatarsals. It was an immature fan's way of dealing with the loss of such a treasure. I couldn't accept that I would not hear the commentator screaming "Beckhaaaaammmmm!!" as he curled in yet another trademark freekick for United.
Beckham didn't win any trophies for years at Real Madrid. His travails after Manchester United though have taught me his true value. He was a consummate professional who still approached games like a child during recess. Watching him come off during the quarter final against Portugal in 2006 illustrated just how much England meant to him. The tears wouldn't stop as his injury made him redundant on the field. The responsibility that he tasked himself with led him to resign from the captaincy when he had no need to do so.
Steve McClaren dropped him from the England squad. Fabio Capello dropped him from the Real Madrid first team. What has made Beckham special over and above his physical qualities is his strength of character. He trained harder and won his spot back in the Real Madrid team. He fought for every ball, every inch becoming a crucial member of the team as they finally won the Primera Liga. He forced McClaren to recall him on the strength of his performances. He's been belittled for moving to the footballing backwaters that are Major League Soccer.
His loan move to AC Milan appeared to be a poorly disguised shopping holiday for his wife. Yet Beckham has defied the odds again. He's scored twice and set up two with his crossing in 4 games. Playing alongside such accomplished passers as Andrea Pirlo and Clarence Seedorf, he's still able to shine. He's managed to keep Ronaldinho on the bench, no mean feat. He has also set up a deserved and record equalling 108th cap for England next week. Through the last 3 years, Beckham has made me appreciate what I couldn't see when he was at United. His best quality was never his right foot. It was always his will to play at the very top no matter who criticized him, who dropped him and who was better than him. So few have been the centre of attention for peripheral reasons but he's never lost focus of the game that gave him everything. His legs and lungs have both begun to give way and he seems older than his 33 years. He hasn't given up yet and never will. When his time in professional football finally comes to an end, may we remember that above all else.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Give me hope, Davos
And so they gathered in Davos, hailing from all corners, leaders one and all, representing all quarters; innovators one and all, convening to conjure up new ideas to rescue a planet in peril; statesmen one and all, joining hands to give the world a dose of optimism when the future looks bleakest. A grim world looks to its best, brightest and most powerful, for a reason not to despair, for a reason to hope.
But this was not to be. These titans of our time spent their days in the Alps, ringing the alarm bells that had already been rung, pointing fingers at those who had already been assigned blame, stating the obvious regarding the need for solutions and cooperation, obvious because it has all been said before. Davos was a four-day recapping of all that has been said and done before, all that even we laymen knew from before.
Much of the four days were spent conducting a roasting of the United States and bankers. This I am sure was not very hard, since these were the two least represented parties at the forum. President Obama was conspicuously absent from the event, and from the ‘big bad’ American banks, only the CEO of JP Morgan was in attendance. I am surprised the audience did not pelt him, given the vitriol directed the financial services industry
Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel, representing the two biggest European economies, both spoke of the dated nature of the current international economic institutions, and the need for a new international economic regulatory system. In response, I would like to say, “Gordon, Angela, No DUH!!” We have been hearing this same statement repeated ad nauseum since the recession set in. However, there has been no progress in this direction; in fact, things have been moving in the reverse, as an every-state-for-itself attitude has mainly been the order of the day.
Perhaps the best example of this is the United States stimulus plan which was also the subject of concern and consternation. The $900 bn dollar plan, including massive public works programs, tax cuts, and bailouts for ailing American industries, has drawn the ire of other states because of its essentially America-centric protectionist nature. With local industries being subsidized and with material for public works programs coming only from local sources, foreign companies realize that they face the prospect of significantly reduced business within the United States. Angela Merkel has accused the US of neglecting the needs and demands of the international economy. However, we must be cognizant of the fact that these states are only looking out for their own countries’ stakes in the world’s largest market. The US after all has two models before them. Germany and the United Kingdom. The UK chose to abandon its base industries and specialize in the service sector, a move that has proven disastrous. On the other hand, Germany has maintained a strong indigenous manufacturing base, so they can withstand the storm of the financial systems collapse. So, if anything Merkel should understand the impetus to revive the indigenous industries, through stimulus and protectionism. But in an every-country-for-itself scenario, that is not to be.
That being said, however, there seems to be a lack of imaginative solutions in the US stimulus plan. They have essentially replicated aspects of different contrasting plans of the past, and in doing so, may not be emphasizing enough on the significant aspects of any single scheme, enough for it to make a difference. The challenges of the current financial system collapse are so unprecedented, and the nature of the present economy so different from prior experiences, I wonder whether, the US government has really understood what it is trying to solve. It seems in many ways a plan to hurriedly stop the bleeding. However, there is a need for major reforms and changes to the way the economy is run. We have seen little of this. As William Galstone of Brookings Institution writes, “haste precluded a serious consideration of structural change.”
The representatives from the world’s top economies at Davos provided us with no leadership for the future. Perhaps, befittingly, some of the only forward-looking thinking and action came from the newcomers, the small Gulf states. The representative from Qatar, spoke of a new program Qatar has launched called the Global Cooperation Project which is dedicated to understanding the new set of challenges the world is facing today. This is the key. We need to invest a lot in actually understanding the nature of the beast we are confronting, before any drastic ventures. As Arif Naqvi of Abraj, also from the Gulf said, “People are looking for the solution but don’t yet have the question formulated.”
But this was not to be. These titans of our time spent their days in the Alps, ringing the alarm bells that had already been rung, pointing fingers at those who had already been assigned blame, stating the obvious regarding the need for solutions and cooperation, obvious because it has all been said before. Davos was a four-day recapping of all that has been said and done before, all that even we laymen knew from before.
Much of the four days were spent conducting a roasting of the United States and bankers. This I am sure was not very hard, since these were the two least represented parties at the forum. President Obama was conspicuously absent from the event, and from the ‘big bad’ American banks, only the CEO of JP Morgan was in attendance. I am surprised the audience did not pelt him, given the vitriol directed the financial services industry
Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel, representing the two biggest European economies, both spoke of the dated nature of the current international economic institutions, and the need for a new international economic regulatory system. In response, I would like to say, “Gordon, Angela, No DUH!!” We have been hearing this same statement repeated ad nauseum since the recession set in. However, there has been no progress in this direction; in fact, things have been moving in the reverse, as an every-state-for-itself attitude has mainly been the order of the day.
Perhaps the best example of this is the United States stimulus plan which was also the subject of concern and consternation. The $900 bn dollar plan, including massive public works programs, tax cuts, and bailouts for ailing American industries, has drawn the ire of other states because of its essentially America-centric protectionist nature. With local industries being subsidized and with material for public works programs coming only from local sources, foreign companies realize that they face the prospect of significantly reduced business within the United States. Angela Merkel has accused the US of neglecting the needs and demands of the international economy. However, we must be cognizant of the fact that these states are only looking out for their own countries’ stakes in the world’s largest market. The US after all has two models before them. Germany and the United Kingdom. The UK chose to abandon its base industries and specialize in the service sector, a move that has proven disastrous. On the other hand, Germany has maintained a strong indigenous manufacturing base, so they can withstand the storm of the financial systems collapse. So, if anything Merkel should understand the impetus to revive the indigenous industries, through stimulus and protectionism. But in an every-country-for-itself scenario, that is not to be.
That being said, however, there seems to be a lack of imaginative solutions in the US stimulus plan. They have essentially replicated aspects of different contrasting plans of the past, and in doing so, may not be emphasizing enough on the significant aspects of any single scheme, enough for it to make a difference. The challenges of the current financial system collapse are so unprecedented, and the nature of the present economy so different from prior experiences, I wonder whether, the US government has really understood what it is trying to solve. It seems in many ways a plan to hurriedly stop the bleeding. However, there is a need for major reforms and changes to the way the economy is run. We have seen little of this. As William Galstone of Brookings Institution writes, “haste precluded a serious consideration of structural change.”
The representatives from the world’s top economies at Davos provided us with no leadership for the future. Perhaps, befittingly, some of the only forward-looking thinking and action came from the newcomers, the small Gulf states. The representative from Qatar, spoke of a new program Qatar has launched called the Global Cooperation Project which is dedicated to understanding the new set of challenges the world is facing today. This is the key. We need to invest a lot in actually understanding the nature of the beast we are confronting, before any drastic ventures. As Arif Naqvi of Abraj, also from the Gulf said, “People are looking for the solution but don’t yet have the question formulated.”
Sunday, February 1, 2009
A Law of Love
"If only people freed themselves from their beliefs in all kinds of Ormuzds, Brahmas, Sabbaoths, and their incarnation as Krishnas and Christs, from beliefs in Paradises and Hells, in reincarnations and resurrections, from belief in the interference of the Gods in the external affairs of the universe, and above all, if they freed themselves from belief in the infallibility of all the various Vedas, Bibles, Gospels, Tripitakas, Korans, and the like, and also freed themselves from blind belief in a variety of scientific teachings about infinitely small atoms and molecules and in all the infinitely great and infinitely remote worlds, their movements and origin, as well as from faith in the infallibility of the scientific law to which humanity is at present subjected: the historic law, the economic laws, the law of struggle and survival, and so on--if people only freed themselves from this terrible accumulation of futile exercises of our lower capacities of mind and memory called the 'Sciences', and from the innumerable divisions of all sorts of histories, anthropologies, homiletics, bacteriologics, jurisprudences, cosmographies, strategies--their name is legion--and freed themselves from all this harmful, stupifying ballast--the simple law of love, natural to man, accessible to all and solving all questions and perplexities, would of itself become clear and obligatory." - Leo Tolstoy
So spoke Tolstoy, in his 'Letter to a Hindu' one of the inspirations for Mahatma Gandhi and the movement he then spawned. Tolstoy speaks so easily of freedom from dogmas, to let go of all that one has grown up with, the thoughts and experiences that bind families and communities together. It hits me like the anthem of a hippy, like "All You Need is Love" blasting in a concert hall. So completely illogical. How do we reconcile the peace and love that religions preach with the wars that they have inspired throughout history? We cannot stop drawing morals and teachings from them, from visiting centres of prayer and speaking of God in awe inspiring terms. And for the non-believers, there is always some belief that they will fight for. A person can love but a people cannot. A person cannot make war on his own but a people can, and do so all the time. The fact is that humanity thrives off anger and violence. It allows us to scare off rivals, fight for what is ours and what we believe is ours. Humanity just got lucky when Gandhi managed to pull off a peaceful independence movement. It is an aberration because the love that Tolstoy speaks off is for an evolved species to practice, one that we are not and cannot practice sustainably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
