All over the world, Internet users entertain romantic delusions about cyberspace. To most of us Web surfers, the Internet provides a false sense of complete freedom, power, and anonymity.
Every once in a while, of course, unsolicited messages and ads that happen to be mysteriously related to our most intimate habits intrude. They remind us that we Internet users are, indeed, under constant virtual surveillance. When the watchers have only commercial motives, such “spam” feels like a minor violation. But in China or Russia, the Internet is patrolled not by unsolicited peddlers, but by the police.
So Russian human-rights activists and the environmental organisation Baikal Environmental Wave should not have been surprised when, earlier this month, flesh and blood policemen – not Internet bots – confiscated their computers and the files stored within them. In the time of the Soviet Union, the KGB would have indicted these anti-Putin dissidents for mental disorders. This supposedly being a “new Russia,” cyber-dissidents are accused of violating intellectual property rights.
You see, they were using Microsoft-equipped computers and could not prove that the software had not been pirated. By confiscating the computers, the Russian police could supposedly verify whether or not the Microsoft software that the activists were using had been installed legally.
On the surface, Microsoft and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s police look like strange bedfellows. But are they? Microsoft’s authorised representatives declared that they could not oppose the Russian police actions, because the Seattle-based company had to abide by Russian law. Such an ambiguous declaration can be interpreted either as active support for the Russian police or as passive collaboration. Moreover, in previous cases, Microsoft assisted the Russian police in their investigations of non-governmental organisations.
Clearly, human-right activists in Russia cannot and should not count on Microsoft as an ally in their efforts to build a more open society. But Microsoft’s ambiguous – at best – behavior is part of a pattern. Indeed, the record of Internet companies in authoritarian countries is both consistent and grim.
Yahoo set the pace in pioneering the active collaboration of Internet and high-tech firms with political repression. In 2005, Yahoo gave the Chinese police the computer identification code for a dissident journalist, Shi Tao. Shi Tao had sent a message in praise of democracy, which the censors had detected. Following Yahoo’s lead, the police arrested him. Shi remains in jail to this day.
At that time, Yahoo’s managers in the United States, like Microsoft in Russia, declared that they had to follow Chinese law. Shi Tao, in his jail cell, was undoubtedly pleased to learn that China is ruled by law, not by the Communist Party. After all, the rule of law is what Shi Tao is fighting for.
Google, at least for a short while, seemed to follow different guidelines in its Chinese business, appearing to adhere to its widely proclaimed ethical principle, “Don’t be evil.” To protest against censorship, the Silicon Valley-based company relocated from mainland China in 2009 to the still relatively free Hong Kong. On the Hong Kong-based search engine, Chinese internauts could read about Taiwan, the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, or the Dalai Lama. On Google.cn, these sources, along with the results of searches using many other forbidden terms, simply did not appear.
Google’s move seemed to reconcile its proclaimed libertarian philosophy with its business ethics. But that reconciliation did not last long: Google, after all, had accepted censorship from the beginning of its efforts in China, in 2006, in order to gain entry into the Chinese market. After six months of life in Hong Kong, money talked: Google reinstated its mainland China service, and with the same level of censorship as before. In the end, Google, not the Chinese Communist Party, lost face.
Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft have thus followed a strikingly similar road: access to lucrative markets trumped ethical anxiety. The tools that they provide are politically neutral. Dissidents try to use them to pursue a democratic agenda. Police use them to detect and repress dissidents. Either way, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google make money – just like, say, IBM, which in the 1930’s sold its computing machines to the Nazi regime: the Nazis used these machines to make the destruction of their victims routine and bureaucratic.
Should we be shocked that Internet companies put profits ahead of morals? After all, they are ordinary, profit-seeking corporations, just like the IBM of Hitler’s era. Internet companies may, more than most, hide their true motives behind ersatz, democratic-sounding slogans, but in the end they are advertising products like any other. In advertising or self-promotion, the choice of words is determined by customer expectations, not by managers’ philosophy, as they mostly have none.
Capitalism is always a trade-off: we must live with unethical behaviour by money-making corporations that provide us with useful new tools. These tools can be used by Iranians fighting dictatorship, or by Tibetan dissidents trying to save their culture. They also can be used to compute the number of exterminated Jews, to arrest a Chinese dissident, or to break a human-rights group in Russia.
Microsoft in Russia or Google in China teach us that capitalism is not ethical: it is only efficient. Entrepreneurs are greedy by definition: if they were not, they would go bankrupt. An open society will never be created or sustained by righteous entrepreneurs or be the mere byproduct of political engineering. Liberty, as always, remains the endeavour of vigilant, free men and women.
Guy Sorman, a French philosopher and economist, is the author of Economics Does Not Lie
© Project Syndicate
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Thinking like Dubai Hisham Wyne
An event revolving around the UN Millennium Goals, TEDx Change Dubai, recently gathered three hundred participants at the creek side Dubai Chamber of Commerce. Melinda Gates, wife of billionaire philanthropist and once Microsoft overlord Bill Gates, asked a pertinent question while streaming live from New York.
How is it that Coke can sell 1.5 billion servings daily and dispense to far flung areas that NGOs, Quangos and aid agencies have difficulty reaching with aid or vaccines? It’s simple. Coke’s distribution takes advantage of local entrepreneurs. NGOs often don’t. Entrepreneurs are by nature both disruptive and generative. They distress the fabric of large business through hyper-local knowledge. They nimbly pounce on small market opportunities, or even build them from scratch. They catalyze economic spurts and the birth of cultures and sub-cultures as microcosms of activity appear around them. Their knowledge and drive can often be a powerful catalyst for social improvement.
When entrepreneurs facilitate positive social change, they earn the all-encompassing solace of being termed ‘social entrepreneurs’. The admirable Mohammed Younus of Grameen Bank from Bangladesh is an example. He originated a micro-credit business model that changed many lives for the better, but was not charity. Fred Smith of FedEx is another social entrepreneur. He realised customers were frustrated with fragmented delivery services, and came up with the idea of a unified process under the control of one organisation. But due to distortion by clever marketing and spin, social entrepreneurship can mean almost anything these days.
To separate wheat from chaff, it’s important to recall that the term ‘entrepreneur’ is essential; social alertness, flexibility and single-minded purpose is inherent to small enterprise, social or otherwise. Much of the recent positive change in Dubai is driven neither by altruism nor nihilistic commercialism, but a curious meeting of the twain. Dubai’s nascent art and cultural renaissance is largely due to determined individuals with boundless energy converting industrial warehouses in the Al Quoz district to art galleries, communal spaces and concert halls. These have offered much-needed space for the city’s infantile civil society to function. They have offered a useful platform too for artists, performers, trainers and even other entrepreneurs to congregate.
In similar social entrepreneurial vein, two Emirati brothers, distressed at the inability to find inexpensive healthful food in a city wracked by obesity, started a fusion shawarma shop in Dubai Healthcare City. Their outlet serves a socially nourishing purpose while also offering invaluable shared space, yet also generates returns. For a city where progress is often a curious synthesis of laissez faire and rolls of cherry tape, social entrepreneurism has often lent a helping hand. It places the burden of change squarely on the shoulders of residents and not a deux ex machina.
As a thought experiment experiment, let’s turn to the case of domestic help. The relationship is bracketed by mutual dissatisfaction — maids often complain of incessant work and occasional flagrant abuse, while employers mutter about unreliability and an uncanny ability for either employee or household articles to vanish mid-contract. There have been calls for rules, regulations and a greater role for embassies and consulates.
But surely a simpler approach is to treat this as a social entrepreneurial opportunity? Mutual suspicion may be remedied by a meticulous recruitment agency specialising in the field. One that interviews all help, assigns categories and pay scales based on expertise, checks backgrounds scrupulously and ensures opportunistic middlemen are not involved. An agency that insists on dignified living standards, monitors salary transfers, ensures passports aren’t illegally held, guarantees the availability of cellular communication and conducts regular reviews to ensure an abuse-free environment. On the flip side, the agency takes responsibility for absconding, investigates theft accusations, and guarantees replacements in the case of a mismatch. I suspect many households would gladly pay a small premium to facilitate peace of mind and the conscientious use of domestic help.
Social entrepreneurship works very well when there is obvious market demand. In Dubai, as elsewhere, demand can lead the enterprising to market opportunities that also foster positive social change. One can be socially proactive while making a profit. Now that’s a win-win situation.
Hisham Wyne is a Dubai-based columnist, copywriter and radio commentator (www.hishamwyne.com). For comments, write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com
How is it that Coke can sell 1.5 billion servings daily and dispense to far flung areas that NGOs, Quangos and aid agencies have difficulty reaching with aid or vaccines? It’s simple. Coke’s distribution takes advantage of local entrepreneurs. NGOs often don’t. Entrepreneurs are by nature both disruptive and generative. They distress the fabric of large business through hyper-local knowledge. They nimbly pounce on small market opportunities, or even build them from scratch. They catalyze economic spurts and the birth of cultures and sub-cultures as microcosms of activity appear around them. Their knowledge and drive can often be a powerful catalyst for social improvement.
When entrepreneurs facilitate positive social change, they earn the all-encompassing solace of being termed ‘social entrepreneurs’. The admirable Mohammed Younus of Grameen Bank from Bangladesh is an example. He originated a micro-credit business model that changed many lives for the better, but was not charity. Fred Smith of FedEx is another social entrepreneur. He realised customers were frustrated with fragmented delivery services, and came up with the idea of a unified process under the control of one organisation. But due to distortion by clever marketing and spin, social entrepreneurship can mean almost anything these days.
To separate wheat from chaff, it’s important to recall that the term ‘entrepreneur’ is essential; social alertness, flexibility and single-minded purpose is inherent to small enterprise, social or otherwise. Much of the recent positive change in Dubai is driven neither by altruism nor nihilistic commercialism, but a curious meeting of the twain. Dubai’s nascent art and cultural renaissance is largely due to determined individuals with boundless energy converting industrial warehouses in the Al Quoz district to art galleries, communal spaces and concert halls. These have offered much-needed space for the city’s infantile civil society to function. They have offered a useful platform too for artists, performers, trainers and even other entrepreneurs to congregate.
In similar social entrepreneurial vein, two Emirati brothers, distressed at the inability to find inexpensive healthful food in a city wracked by obesity, started a fusion shawarma shop in Dubai Healthcare City. Their outlet serves a socially nourishing purpose while also offering invaluable shared space, yet also generates returns. For a city where progress is often a curious synthesis of laissez faire and rolls of cherry tape, social entrepreneurism has often lent a helping hand. It places the burden of change squarely on the shoulders of residents and not a deux ex machina.
As a thought experiment experiment, let’s turn to the case of domestic help. The relationship is bracketed by mutual dissatisfaction — maids often complain of incessant work and occasional flagrant abuse, while employers mutter about unreliability and an uncanny ability for either employee or household articles to vanish mid-contract. There have been calls for rules, regulations and a greater role for embassies and consulates.
But surely a simpler approach is to treat this as a social entrepreneurial opportunity? Mutual suspicion may be remedied by a meticulous recruitment agency specialising in the field. One that interviews all help, assigns categories and pay scales based on expertise, checks backgrounds scrupulously and ensures opportunistic middlemen are not involved. An agency that insists on dignified living standards, monitors salary transfers, ensures passports aren’t illegally held, guarantees the availability of cellular communication and conducts regular reviews to ensure an abuse-free environment. On the flip side, the agency takes responsibility for absconding, investigates theft accusations, and guarantees replacements in the case of a mismatch. I suspect many households would gladly pay a small premium to facilitate peace of mind and the conscientious use of domestic help.
Social entrepreneurship works very well when there is obvious market demand. In Dubai, as elsewhere, demand can lead the enterprising to market opportunities that also foster positive social change. One can be socially proactive while making a profit. Now that’s a win-win situation.
Hisham Wyne is a Dubai-based columnist, copywriter and radio commentator (www.hishamwyne.com). For comments, write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com
When will the job be done? Faryal Leghari
The inherent differences over the war in Afghanistan within the US administration have often been brought to light. But the extent to which they run, deep within the system, is only now beginning to make its impact felt. On reading the leaked excerpts of Bob Woodward’s forthcoming book, Obama’s Wars, one can truly marvel at the uncertainty and confusion at the top most decision-making levels.
It seems that the current administration’s policy-making prowess is dictated mainly by considerations such as appeasing their own political backers, the Democrats and securing public support for the next election. President Barack Obama’s desire to withdraw his forces from the war in Afghanistan is undoubtedly genuine enough as was his premature announcement of a withdrawal date set for July 2011. But was it a wise decision to announce the date at a stage when the forecast was bleak and visibility poor? The announcement regarding the withdrawal has literally opened a Pandora’s box from start. Not only has it fanned furious contentions within the US camp it has unwittingly helped the insurgents who are already using this as a crucial morale booster and to win back break away allies.
Contradictory messages coming from US Secretary Defence Robert Gates and military commanders about the feasibility of an early withdrawal and its impact on the war had created a furore. So much so that President Obama has now been forced to clarify the government’s position on the exit from Afghanistan. Speaking to the BBC recently, he said that despite the July 2011 dateline, the US forces would stay till the job is done. A reduction in number of troops was in the pipeline for it was anticipated that the Afghan national forces would have attained sufficient numbers and capability to start fending for themselves by then. However, the idea of a complete withdrawal—that translates as desertion for many who are eager to see the Western forces leave—was dispelled by the President until attainment of the objective for which Afghanistan was invaded.
So what does the United States hope to achieve? If defeating Al Qaeda is the main objective then should not the US discriminate between a global terrorist outfit and a nationalist insurgency? Irrespective of the alliance that was forced upon the Taleban with the invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11, the two remain committed to a different agenda. That is the simple truth of the matter. Furthermore, is the US prepared to extend the ambit of its operations if Al Qaeda disperses its central command to other areas, which it probably has? Has there not been a bungling of sorts in keeping the war aims from intermeshing into each other? Pakistan has long been on the radar for Al Qaeda and key Taleban leaders using its territory for regrouping and seeking safety from the US-led coalition forces in neighbouring Afghanistan.
What next? If intelligence was received that bin Laden or Zawahiri among others had slipped into Iran or even India, Bangladesh or any of the Central Asian states to the north of Afghanistan, would Washington do the honours of shifting a full scale operation there? Or would it hunt them down with drone strikes? Not likely. Other states are not likely to tolerate such violations of sovereignty, Al Qaeda or no Al Qaeda unlike Pakistan that continues its feeble protests at yet another drone strike. But all is not lost for a ray of hope recently came with the British secret service MI5 chief saying that the threat from Pakistan was now reduced. He warned of danger from a stronger and resurgent Al Qaeda from Yemen and northern Africa.
With President Obama having already authorised the CIA to conduct special ops and drone strikes against targets in Yemen, there are chances that these might only be a preamble for bigger plans in the making. One more failed (hopefully) terror attack aboard a plane or elsewhere linked to some cleric in Yemen or Somalia might just do the trick. The question is when will the job be done? At least, in Afghanistan. Despite professions bout negotiation with insurgents, Washington does not seem ready to break bread with at least Mullah Omar or the Haqqanis’.
Maybe not until they publicly renounce ties with Al Qaeda and prove this by handing over a weighty target from the ‘US most wanted list’.
If Washington feels that it is building an alternate political and security system in Afghanistan that will at the same times be democratic, modern and capable of dealing with the insurgents once it begins to reduce its military commitment, it may be envisioning an Utopian dream. If only there was a political setup in Kabul to realise this. Lack of governance, corruption and fraudulent practices seem to be the only effective factors at play. Following the debacle of the controversy-laden presidential election, even the recent parliamentary elections are feared to be fraudulent to an extent that the results could affect a third of the provinces.
As for the US Afghan doctrine, the only thing that makes any sense is the dichotomy. Starting from the Pentagon to the State Department, the lack of consensus between the civilian and military leadership — and within these two arms of the government — is but visibly apparent. How this affects the war efforts is not difficult to guess. While the lack of a clear cohesive strategy has been often trumpeted as the main reason for lack of progress in this seemingly intractable and unwinnable war, there is a deeper issue that needs to be addressed.
Al Qaeda aside, is it not best to look at a political strategy for the country, one that should include all disparate groups including some hated insurgents? Reliance on military means and deluding one’s self that boosting Afghan security capability and governance resources is ‘the’ solution, is foolhardy. It is time for the US to step away from prioritising national interests for others and to think of solutions beyond the box on its own honourable exit albeit after achieving some semblance of security and stability. Sometimes this entails a few bitter sips but is that not preferable to drinking from a chalice of hemlock?
Faryal Leghari is Assistant Editor of Khaleej Times and can be reached at faryal@khaleejtimes.com
It seems that the current administration’s policy-making prowess is dictated mainly by considerations such as appeasing their own political backers, the Democrats and securing public support for the next election. President Barack Obama’s desire to withdraw his forces from the war in Afghanistan is undoubtedly genuine enough as was his premature announcement of a withdrawal date set for July 2011. But was it a wise decision to announce the date at a stage when the forecast was bleak and visibility poor? The announcement regarding the withdrawal has literally opened a Pandora’s box from start. Not only has it fanned furious contentions within the US camp it has unwittingly helped the insurgents who are already using this as a crucial morale booster and to win back break away allies.
Contradictory messages coming from US Secretary Defence Robert Gates and military commanders about the feasibility of an early withdrawal and its impact on the war had created a furore. So much so that President Obama has now been forced to clarify the government’s position on the exit from Afghanistan. Speaking to the BBC recently, he said that despite the July 2011 dateline, the US forces would stay till the job is done. A reduction in number of troops was in the pipeline for it was anticipated that the Afghan national forces would have attained sufficient numbers and capability to start fending for themselves by then. However, the idea of a complete withdrawal—that translates as desertion for many who are eager to see the Western forces leave—was dispelled by the President until attainment of the objective for which Afghanistan was invaded.
So what does the United States hope to achieve? If defeating Al Qaeda is the main objective then should not the US discriminate between a global terrorist outfit and a nationalist insurgency? Irrespective of the alliance that was forced upon the Taleban with the invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11, the two remain committed to a different agenda. That is the simple truth of the matter. Furthermore, is the US prepared to extend the ambit of its operations if Al Qaeda disperses its central command to other areas, which it probably has? Has there not been a bungling of sorts in keeping the war aims from intermeshing into each other? Pakistan has long been on the radar for Al Qaeda and key Taleban leaders using its territory for regrouping and seeking safety from the US-led coalition forces in neighbouring Afghanistan.
What next? If intelligence was received that bin Laden or Zawahiri among others had slipped into Iran or even India, Bangladesh or any of the Central Asian states to the north of Afghanistan, would Washington do the honours of shifting a full scale operation there? Or would it hunt them down with drone strikes? Not likely. Other states are not likely to tolerate such violations of sovereignty, Al Qaeda or no Al Qaeda unlike Pakistan that continues its feeble protests at yet another drone strike. But all is not lost for a ray of hope recently came with the British secret service MI5 chief saying that the threat from Pakistan was now reduced. He warned of danger from a stronger and resurgent Al Qaeda from Yemen and northern Africa.
With President Obama having already authorised the CIA to conduct special ops and drone strikes against targets in Yemen, there are chances that these might only be a preamble for bigger plans in the making. One more failed (hopefully) terror attack aboard a plane or elsewhere linked to some cleric in Yemen or Somalia might just do the trick. The question is when will the job be done? At least, in Afghanistan. Despite professions bout negotiation with insurgents, Washington does not seem ready to break bread with at least Mullah Omar or the Haqqanis’.
Maybe not until they publicly renounce ties with Al Qaeda and prove this by handing over a weighty target from the ‘US most wanted list’.
If Washington feels that it is building an alternate political and security system in Afghanistan that will at the same times be democratic, modern and capable of dealing with the insurgents once it begins to reduce its military commitment, it may be envisioning an Utopian dream. If only there was a political setup in Kabul to realise this. Lack of governance, corruption and fraudulent practices seem to be the only effective factors at play. Following the debacle of the controversy-laden presidential election, even the recent parliamentary elections are feared to be fraudulent to an extent that the results could affect a third of the provinces.
As for the US Afghan doctrine, the only thing that makes any sense is the dichotomy. Starting from the Pentagon to the State Department, the lack of consensus between the civilian and military leadership — and within these two arms of the government — is but visibly apparent. How this affects the war efforts is not difficult to guess. While the lack of a clear cohesive strategy has been often trumpeted as the main reason for lack of progress in this seemingly intractable and unwinnable war, there is a deeper issue that needs to be addressed.
Al Qaeda aside, is it not best to look at a political strategy for the country, one that should include all disparate groups including some hated insurgents? Reliance on military means and deluding one’s self that boosting Afghan security capability and governance resources is ‘the’ solution, is foolhardy. It is time for the US to step away from prioritising national interests for others and to think of solutions beyond the box on its own honourable exit albeit after achieving some semblance of security and stability. Sometimes this entails a few bitter sips but is that not preferable to drinking from a chalice of hemlock?
Faryal Leghari is Assistant Editor of Khaleej Times and can be reached at faryal@khaleejtimes.com
Can the Games change the stereotyped Indian image? Nilofar Suhrawardy (INDIA)
With Commonwealth Games (CWG) days away, there is the other non-sporty angle, which cannot be missed.
No, this has nothing to with speculations on preparations being up to mark or not, some noise about corruption, fear about terrorism and other such issues. Being an Indian, one cannot turn a blind eye to the “negative image” about this country, which is given undue importance when foreigners land here.
Of course, there is the other side to this “negative image.” What is a part of routine life here appears as “news-worthy,” thought provoking, amazing, simply out of this world to most foreigners.
Despite the government making all possible efforts, which have been dampened a little by monsoon showers, it wouldn’t be astonishing if the image carried home by visitors is rather “stereotyped” from the Indian angle. Let us accept that although India is hailed as an emerging economic power, this perception is largely confined to the diplomatic level.
Overall, the people in general still view India as a Third world country, a developing nation plagued by social as well as economic problems. Should it be assumed that CWG would play a crucial role in changing this image about India? Not really. Certainly, thanks to the recent communication revolution, the small screen will play a major part in helping the people across the world get an idea about CWG taking place here.
At the same time, it is rather difficult to assume that except for participating nations, the entire world is likely to be interested in CWG. It is a fact that negative news from terrorist attacks, Indo-Pak tensions, poverty-stricken people to communal conflict receive greater media coverage than the positive. The result is that the media has played limited role in changing stereotyped images of India around the world. At the same time, the hard reality demands why the media should take the blame? The darker side of ongoing preparations where construction work is still on at an accelerating pace cannot be missed. The construction workers are living on roadside pavements in temporary, dingy shelters where they take care of all their basic needs.
If the weather suits, they cook and wash clothes on the pavements. A drive down such areas at late hours has shown quite a few sleeping in the open. This is also an India that cannot escape the eyes of those not used to similar images in their respective countries. This is also one of the many stereotyped pictures, which has been repeatedly displayed to make the people across the world view India from this prism.
Not too long ago when I was taking a few friends from the West around the capital city, a few memories of their vision of India still haunt me. During a visit to a residential area of South Delhi, suddenly a friend almost shrieked, “That’s it, I must take a photograph.” The subject of their attention was a stray dog sniffing through a trashcan. Well, during the follow-up conversation, they enlightened this friend on the images of India they were naturally looking to capture in their cameras and of course share them with others back home. These included those of animals on roads, beggars, traditionally attired people, dingy roads and lanes, crowded market places and so forth. Tempted to change their image, I took them down some of the most beautiful roads of the capital and the areas that have given Delhi the name of a green-city.
Sadly, these carried little appeal for them. It brought memories of similar roadways back home. So, nothing seemed worth a click. Of course, they did take photographs of historical monuments such as Taj Mahal in Agra, Red Fort, Jama Masjid and Qutub Minar in Delhi, among many others. Just as we were moving around another residential area in the capital, they suddenly stopped.
This time, the subject of their attention was a group of cows basking in the sun at the intersection. They were all smiles as they clicked and clicked away to glory. Yes, I agree this is India too but it is just one of the numerous images.
Right now, one can just muse over a billion-dollar question, will the much hyped CWG play some part in demolishing such stereotype images of India or not?
Nilofar Suhrawardy is an Indian journalist
No, this has nothing to with speculations on preparations being up to mark or not, some noise about corruption, fear about terrorism and other such issues. Being an Indian, one cannot turn a blind eye to the “negative image” about this country, which is given undue importance when foreigners land here.
Of course, there is the other side to this “negative image.” What is a part of routine life here appears as “news-worthy,” thought provoking, amazing, simply out of this world to most foreigners.
Despite the government making all possible efforts, which have been dampened a little by monsoon showers, it wouldn’t be astonishing if the image carried home by visitors is rather “stereotyped” from the Indian angle. Let us accept that although India is hailed as an emerging economic power, this perception is largely confined to the diplomatic level.
Overall, the people in general still view India as a Third world country, a developing nation plagued by social as well as economic problems. Should it be assumed that CWG would play a crucial role in changing this image about India? Not really. Certainly, thanks to the recent communication revolution, the small screen will play a major part in helping the people across the world get an idea about CWG taking place here.
At the same time, it is rather difficult to assume that except for participating nations, the entire world is likely to be interested in CWG. It is a fact that negative news from terrorist attacks, Indo-Pak tensions, poverty-stricken people to communal conflict receive greater media coverage than the positive. The result is that the media has played limited role in changing stereotyped images of India around the world. At the same time, the hard reality demands why the media should take the blame? The darker side of ongoing preparations where construction work is still on at an accelerating pace cannot be missed. The construction workers are living on roadside pavements in temporary, dingy shelters where they take care of all their basic needs.
If the weather suits, they cook and wash clothes on the pavements. A drive down such areas at late hours has shown quite a few sleeping in the open. This is also an India that cannot escape the eyes of those not used to similar images in their respective countries. This is also one of the many stereotyped pictures, which has been repeatedly displayed to make the people across the world view India from this prism.
Not too long ago when I was taking a few friends from the West around the capital city, a few memories of their vision of India still haunt me. During a visit to a residential area of South Delhi, suddenly a friend almost shrieked, “That’s it, I must take a photograph.” The subject of their attention was a stray dog sniffing through a trashcan. Well, during the follow-up conversation, they enlightened this friend on the images of India they were naturally looking to capture in their cameras and of course share them with others back home. These included those of animals on roads, beggars, traditionally attired people, dingy roads and lanes, crowded market places and so forth. Tempted to change their image, I took them down some of the most beautiful roads of the capital and the areas that have given Delhi the name of a green-city.
Sadly, these carried little appeal for them. It brought memories of similar roadways back home. So, nothing seemed worth a click. Of course, they did take photographs of historical monuments such as Taj Mahal in Agra, Red Fort, Jama Masjid and Qutub Minar in Delhi, among many others. Just as we were moving around another residential area in the capital, they suddenly stopped.
This time, the subject of their attention was a group of cows basking in the sun at the intersection. They were all smiles as they clicked and clicked away to glory. Yes, I agree this is India too but it is just one of the numerous images.
Right now, one can just muse over a billion-dollar question, will the much hyped CWG play some part in demolishing such stereotype images of India or not?
Nilofar Suhrawardy is an Indian journalist
Way towards a global reset Mikhail Gorbachev (World View)
In both Russia and the United States, the “reset” in US-Russian relations, to which the leaders of both countries first declared their commitment more than 18 months ago, is now being assessed.
Some, often for reasons of domestic politics, are trying to belittle any achievements. Others are wondering whether a new stage in the relationship has truly begun, or whether this is just another pendulum swing in a positive direction, to be followed inevitably by a swing backward. In assessing where we are today, it is useful to look back at the history of our relations. Even more importantly, we must consider those relations in a broader context, as part of the changes in our globalised world.
In the early 1990s, Russian expectations for cooperation with the United States were so great, the mood was euphoric. Some of that euphoria was based on illusions and on an idealised view of America — a sense that was particularly widespread among the intelligentsia. Yet, those expectations also reflected a sound belief that our two nations could indeed achieve a great deal together, both in their own interests and for global benefit.
Euphoria soon gave way to disillusionment. Later in that decade, when the Russian economy was undermined by inept reforms and while millions of Russians were plunged into poverty, many Americans applauded Russia’s leaders. Many Russians could not help wondering if a weak, cornered Russia was what the United States wanted. Also in the 1990s, NATO was expanded while the United States proclaimed its victory in the Cold War and its intention to maintain military superiority.
What, then, was the value of the pledge President Ronald Reagan made at the Geneva summit meeting in 1985, when he joined me in solemnly stating that our two nations would not seek military superiority? And how could a relationship of trust be built on the foundation set in the 1990s?
The period when the United States could regard itself as the sole remaining superpower and even a “hyperpower,” capable of creating a new kind of empire, turned out to be relatively short. The global financial crisis — which, this time, started in America itself rather than on the world’s periphery — spurred the process of global realignment in favor of new centers of power and influence. America has had to adjust to this shift, and it has not been easy.
The proposal to “reset” relations with Russia reflected the acknowledgement that previous policy had failed. It also recognised the great potential of a partnership between the two nations. Nevertheless, objections arose from the very start.
Naysayers stressed that our nations were too different to be able to build a sustainable, “organic” relationship for the long term. Moreover, in both Russia and the United States it became clear that some people still believe that our countries are potential adversaries.
Neither Russia nor the United States can afford another confrontation. Though quite different, both nations are going through a transition. They are trying to build new, often unpredictable relationships with emerging powers. The European Union, too, faces this challenge — a challenge made even more difficult by problems arising from a hasty EU enlargement and monetary integration.
The intercontinental area from Vancouver to Vladivostok confronts many similar problems, and many shared interests are emerging. Powerful forces of mutual attraction must emerge as well. The US-Russia “reset” and the declared EU-Russia “partnership for modernisation” should mark the beginning of the road toward a new intercontinental community.
Only by working together can the United States, Europe and Russia secure a position of leadership and influence in a rapidly changing global world.
Am I calling for an association of “the North” as a counterweight to “the South,” the Islamic world or perhaps China? Far from it. Such a plan would be a recipe for a real rather than a hypothetical conflict of civilizations — something that in today’s world is totally unacceptable. In relations with other countries, we must always seek cooperation, joint problem-solving and ways to overcome difficulties — both those that have already arisen and those that are bound to arise.
The Islamic world is grappling with the challenge of adapting to the modern era while trying to protect its cultural identity and unique civilization. As part of this painful process, extremist tendencies within political Islam are opposed by moderate tendencies and regimes that are not averse to modernisation and are ready for dialogue. A community of shared civilization, with common cultural roots and diverse experience interacting with the Islamic world, must be a party to such a dialogue.
Such a community could play an equally important role in a dialogue with China.
China’s political importance will undoubtedly increase with its population and economic power. This will be a serious test, for the international community as well as China, especially since the historic evolution of any nation is not always linear. There are forks in the road, when difficult decisions must be made. China, sooner or later, will face a political choice — the problem of democracy. Engagement and cooperation with a great nation that has become not just the “factory to the world” but also a giant economic and political “laboratory” will be another key task for the intercontinental community I am advocating.
How this community will emerge and what its final shape will be is still unclear. What is clear is that we must start by building a durable security architecture, first and foremost in Europe, with the United States and Russia as partners. Recent US policy statements suggest that at last even American leaders recognise that security cannot be achieved unilaterally; it requires partnership. The proposal by Russia’s president, Dmitri Medvedev, to conclude a pan-European security treaty applies to the same area, extending from North America to Europe and all of Russia. I am convinced that in the future an intercontinental association of nations with a common destiny will emerge. Big goals may seem overly ambitious or abstract, particularly at a time when Russia and the United States cannot agree on the issue of imported poultry despite their public commitment to a new relationship, and the European Union still denies Russian citizens visa-free travel. Yet I am convinced that my proposal is not a pipe dream. The scale of global change is so vast, and the potential contribution of nations across the intercontinental space of Russia, Europe and North America is so enormous, that their close association should be seen as imperative. We must move from “reset” and partnership toward a reconfiguration of global political relations.
Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 until its dissolution in 1991. He is a founding member of Green Cross International and is on its board
©IHT
Some, often for reasons of domestic politics, are trying to belittle any achievements. Others are wondering whether a new stage in the relationship has truly begun, or whether this is just another pendulum swing in a positive direction, to be followed inevitably by a swing backward. In assessing where we are today, it is useful to look back at the history of our relations. Even more importantly, we must consider those relations in a broader context, as part of the changes in our globalised world.
In the early 1990s, Russian expectations for cooperation with the United States were so great, the mood was euphoric. Some of that euphoria was based on illusions and on an idealised view of America — a sense that was particularly widespread among the intelligentsia. Yet, those expectations also reflected a sound belief that our two nations could indeed achieve a great deal together, both in their own interests and for global benefit.
Euphoria soon gave way to disillusionment. Later in that decade, when the Russian economy was undermined by inept reforms and while millions of Russians were plunged into poverty, many Americans applauded Russia’s leaders. Many Russians could not help wondering if a weak, cornered Russia was what the United States wanted. Also in the 1990s, NATO was expanded while the United States proclaimed its victory in the Cold War and its intention to maintain military superiority.
What, then, was the value of the pledge President Ronald Reagan made at the Geneva summit meeting in 1985, when he joined me in solemnly stating that our two nations would not seek military superiority? And how could a relationship of trust be built on the foundation set in the 1990s?
The period when the United States could regard itself as the sole remaining superpower and even a “hyperpower,” capable of creating a new kind of empire, turned out to be relatively short. The global financial crisis — which, this time, started in America itself rather than on the world’s periphery — spurred the process of global realignment in favor of new centers of power and influence. America has had to adjust to this shift, and it has not been easy.
The proposal to “reset” relations with Russia reflected the acknowledgement that previous policy had failed. It also recognised the great potential of a partnership between the two nations. Nevertheless, objections arose from the very start.
Naysayers stressed that our nations were too different to be able to build a sustainable, “organic” relationship for the long term. Moreover, in both Russia and the United States it became clear that some people still believe that our countries are potential adversaries.
Neither Russia nor the United States can afford another confrontation. Though quite different, both nations are going through a transition. They are trying to build new, often unpredictable relationships with emerging powers. The European Union, too, faces this challenge — a challenge made even more difficult by problems arising from a hasty EU enlargement and monetary integration.
The intercontinental area from Vancouver to Vladivostok confronts many similar problems, and many shared interests are emerging. Powerful forces of mutual attraction must emerge as well. The US-Russia “reset” and the declared EU-Russia “partnership for modernisation” should mark the beginning of the road toward a new intercontinental community.
Only by working together can the United States, Europe and Russia secure a position of leadership and influence in a rapidly changing global world.
Am I calling for an association of “the North” as a counterweight to “the South,” the Islamic world or perhaps China? Far from it. Such a plan would be a recipe for a real rather than a hypothetical conflict of civilizations — something that in today’s world is totally unacceptable. In relations with other countries, we must always seek cooperation, joint problem-solving and ways to overcome difficulties — both those that have already arisen and those that are bound to arise.
The Islamic world is grappling with the challenge of adapting to the modern era while trying to protect its cultural identity and unique civilization. As part of this painful process, extremist tendencies within political Islam are opposed by moderate tendencies and regimes that are not averse to modernisation and are ready for dialogue. A community of shared civilization, with common cultural roots and diverse experience interacting with the Islamic world, must be a party to such a dialogue.
Such a community could play an equally important role in a dialogue with China.
China’s political importance will undoubtedly increase with its population and economic power. This will be a serious test, for the international community as well as China, especially since the historic evolution of any nation is not always linear. There are forks in the road, when difficult decisions must be made. China, sooner or later, will face a political choice — the problem of democracy. Engagement and cooperation with a great nation that has become not just the “factory to the world” but also a giant economic and political “laboratory” will be another key task for the intercontinental community I am advocating.
How this community will emerge and what its final shape will be is still unclear. What is clear is that we must start by building a durable security architecture, first and foremost in Europe, with the United States and Russia as partners. Recent US policy statements suggest that at last even American leaders recognise that security cannot be achieved unilaterally; it requires partnership. The proposal by Russia’s president, Dmitri Medvedev, to conclude a pan-European security treaty applies to the same area, extending from North America to Europe and all of Russia. I am convinced that in the future an intercontinental association of nations with a common destiny will emerge. Big goals may seem overly ambitious or abstract, particularly at a time when Russia and the United States cannot agree on the issue of imported poultry despite their public commitment to a new relationship, and the European Union still denies Russian citizens visa-free travel. Yet I am convinced that my proposal is not a pipe dream. The scale of global change is so vast, and the potential contribution of nations across the intercontinental space of Russia, Europe and North America is so enormous, that their close association should be seen as imperative. We must move from “reset” and partnership toward a reconfiguration of global political relations.
Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 until its dissolution in 1991. He is a founding member of Green Cross International and is on its board
©IHT
Doctor online: Don’t get caught in the web Anthony F. D’Silva (Life)
Hundreds of thousands of people who are sick of paying doctors’ hefty fees are said to be turning to the Internet for free medical consultation, much to the chagrin of the medical fraternity.
No doubt, the Internet scores over the doctor in several ways: it is packed with useful (and not-so-useful) information as well as some valuable (and sometimes unwanted) advice on every ailment under the sun.
You Google something as innocuous as ‘common cold’ and you get 25 million results in 0.06 seconds, faster than it takes to spell the name of your family doctor. With the Web at our command, do we really need the doctor? The Net tells you much more about ailments and treatments than the entire medical staff of a large hospital could provide. And it is all free and quick, and comes without those mandatory, and often unnecessary, tests like blood tests, throat swabs, and others.
Having pain in the legs and arms? Ask the Internet, and perhaps you will be told that it could be arthritis or something more esoteric like Buerger’s Disease or Klinefelter’s Syndrome. The Net will help you understand more about these ailments.
Maybe, your problem is digestive disorders. It is likely you are suffering from any of the 50 different illnesses in this category, such as Lynch Syndrome, Crohn’s Disease, gallstones and peptic ulcers. Take your pick. Recently, in my case, a bout of overeating led to a severe heartburn. The all-knowing Google informed me that heartburn, also known as acid reflux, is a common phenomenon (nice consolation), and went on to explain how it is caused, enlightening me on terms like oesophagus, gullet and endoscopy. Then the bloggers, that army of people who wash their dirty linen and pour out their secrets in cyber space, recommended home remedies such as apple cider vinegar, baking soda, peppermint tea, green tea and mustard.
A further search yielded a whole list of drugs for this ailment, each one claiming to be better than the other. Then there was this website that attempted to silence all the protagonists of conventional medicines by claiming to have found a remedy to ‘end all of your digestive problems FOREVER.’ No more drugs, tests, endoscopy, etc. But there was a catch. Buy this book for just $39.95 and say goodbye to your heartburn.
Some days back, I began to get acute pain in the toes. A Web search warned me that it could be the start of gout, an ailment caused by excess uric acid in the body, and threatened me of dire consequences if I did not stop eating red meats, certain types of fish and all things delicious.
It is true that the common man is today more knowledgeable about medical conditions than some of the doctors. The flipside is that too much knowledge in the hands of amateurs is a dangerous thing. It is alright to use all our Internet knowledge to impress the doctor, but the more you browse the more confused you get, and could end up being a wreck, haunted by imaginary illnesses. The dangers of medical advice from the Net is that it can turn any normal person into a hypochondriac. You get some slight pain in the chest and you start imagining the worst. A Google search tells you that ‘some people have a heart attack without experiencing pain’ and somewhere else they tell you that someone somewhere has a heart attack every two minutes.
The net result of using the Net for medical consultancy is disaster. It is certainly good to enhance one’s medical knowledge by browsing the Web, and there is merit in learning from bloggers who have found relief from ailments, but this one-size-fits-all approach can backfire.
I have no sympathy for the medical fraternity and most of them deserve to be replaced and sidelined, but I do not recommend a total boycott of the medical practitioner. Use your Web-based medical knowledge to enjoy better health, but under no condition tell the doctor that he is becoming a disposable commodity. He could take his revenge on your next visit.
Anthony F. D’Silva is a Dubai-based writer and media relations consultant
No doubt, the Internet scores over the doctor in several ways: it is packed with useful (and not-so-useful) information as well as some valuable (and sometimes unwanted) advice on every ailment under the sun.
You Google something as innocuous as ‘common cold’ and you get 25 million results in 0.06 seconds, faster than it takes to spell the name of your family doctor. With the Web at our command, do we really need the doctor? The Net tells you much more about ailments and treatments than the entire medical staff of a large hospital could provide. And it is all free and quick, and comes without those mandatory, and often unnecessary, tests like blood tests, throat swabs, and others.
Having pain in the legs and arms? Ask the Internet, and perhaps you will be told that it could be arthritis or something more esoteric like Buerger’s Disease or Klinefelter’s Syndrome. The Net will help you understand more about these ailments.
Maybe, your problem is digestive disorders. It is likely you are suffering from any of the 50 different illnesses in this category, such as Lynch Syndrome, Crohn’s Disease, gallstones and peptic ulcers. Take your pick. Recently, in my case, a bout of overeating led to a severe heartburn. The all-knowing Google informed me that heartburn, also known as acid reflux, is a common phenomenon (nice consolation), and went on to explain how it is caused, enlightening me on terms like oesophagus, gullet and endoscopy. Then the bloggers, that army of people who wash their dirty linen and pour out their secrets in cyber space, recommended home remedies such as apple cider vinegar, baking soda, peppermint tea, green tea and mustard.
A further search yielded a whole list of drugs for this ailment, each one claiming to be better than the other. Then there was this website that attempted to silence all the protagonists of conventional medicines by claiming to have found a remedy to ‘end all of your digestive problems FOREVER.’ No more drugs, tests, endoscopy, etc. But there was a catch. Buy this book for just $39.95 and say goodbye to your heartburn.
Some days back, I began to get acute pain in the toes. A Web search warned me that it could be the start of gout, an ailment caused by excess uric acid in the body, and threatened me of dire consequences if I did not stop eating red meats, certain types of fish and all things delicious.
It is true that the common man is today more knowledgeable about medical conditions than some of the doctors. The flipside is that too much knowledge in the hands of amateurs is a dangerous thing. It is alright to use all our Internet knowledge to impress the doctor, but the more you browse the more confused you get, and could end up being a wreck, haunted by imaginary illnesses. The dangers of medical advice from the Net is that it can turn any normal person into a hypochondriac. You get some slight pain in the chest and you start imagining the worst. A Google search tells you that ‘some people have a heart attack without experiencing pain’ and somewhere else they tell you that someone somewhere has a heart attack every two minutes.
The net result of using the Net for medical consultancy is disaster. It is certainly good to enhance one’s medical knowledge by browsing the Web, and there is merit in learning from bloggers who have found relief from ailments, but this one-size-fits-all approach can backfire.
I have no sympathy for the medical fraternity and most of them deserve to be replaced and sidelined, but I do not recommend a total boycott of the medical practitioner. Use your Web-based medical knowledge to enjoy better health, but under no condition tell the doctor that he is becoming a disposable commodity. He could take his revenge on your next visit.
Anthony F. D’Silva is a Dubai-based writer and media relations consultant
Lebanese bloggers are the pioneers in the Arab world Tony Saghbini
A recent survey of readers of the more than 400 blogs in Lebanon shows that their numbers are close to the online readership of the most well-known Lebanese newspapers: both averaging 14,000 visitors daily. This is a clear indication that blogs have become one of the main media sources for Lebanese youth to access diverse information and various opinions. But do their high readership rates mean that blogs can be a tool for real social and political change?
It is difficult to answer this question in a country in which the future of blogging is closely connected to conditions that frequently change, such as internet connectivity, internet publication laws and censorship.
The blogosphere in Lebanon has recently witnessed several changes: the migration of some bloggers to newspapers, the publication of books containing material collected from electronic media, the launch of blogs by radio stations, and the birth of civil movements and new organisations that show the impact of blogs on the ground.
In this way, the Lebanese blogosphere is breaking down the barriers that separate traditional media from electronic media. It has become an alternative media source on many issues, particularly the environment which isn’t routinely covered by traditional media. One example is coverage in the blogosphere of a young Lebanese man, Rami Eid, who spent three days and nights in a glass cube in the Ain el Mreisseh neighbourhood in Beirut last October, representing the last man on earth in a hopeless future as a result of humankind’s failure to act against climate change. His stunt alerted the public about the need to face these changes.
The media campaign for this experiment focused on electronic media, beginning with Eid’s personal blog which was read by thousands in just the first few days of the campaign. In addition, Twitter and Facebook sites reported on developments in real time. This coverage succeeded in galvanising public opinion, the media and various environmental research centres, which culminated in the Lebanese government deciding to participate in international negotiations on combatting climate change in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Lebanese blogs have also served as key political mobilisation and organisation tools on many occasions, especially in preparing for the March for Secularism in April of this year. The march started with a Facebook invitation, as well as a few blog posts. It eventually developed into a march in which thousands of people participated, without the need for a central organising committee.
And during the last municipal elections in Lebanon, in May 2010, bloggers turned into a makeshift independent elections monitoring agency. Some of these bloggers – in partnership with a Beirut-based organisation specialising in new media training called Social Media Exchange – were given a license by the Ministry of Interior to enter election stations, observe voting and submit their own reports to media and constitutional bodies about the voting process.
This was the first experience of its kind in the Arab world and was seen as being quite successful, with more than 60,000 hits on the site where bloggers published their live reports, lebloggers.org.
One incident in particular perhaps best demonstrates how influential bloggers can be. After a far-reaching electronic campaign, bloggers were able to stop a proposed law in the Lebanese parliament to organise the blogosphere, a law that they decided would curtail freedom of expression on the Internet.
This incident proved that when organised, blogs are not only an alternative media source or a tool to mobilise the public in support of specific causes, but they can also influence the legislative process.
Well on their way to becoming pioneers in the Arab world, bloggers in Lebanon comprise a fledgling movement that has just begun to assume its role in the field of information media, benefitting from relative media freedom and the achievements realised thus far.
Tony Saghbini is a Lebanese activist and blogger who helped establish the Lebanese Society for bloggers. Distributed by the Common Ground News Service
It is difficult to answer this question in a country in which the future of blogging is closely connected to conditions that frequently change, such as internet connectivity, internet publication laws and censorship.
The blogosphere in Lebanon has recently witnessed several changes: the migration of some bloggers to newspapers, the publication of books containing material collected from electronic media, the launch of blogs by radio stations, and the birth of civil movements and new organisations that show the impact of blogs on the ground.
In this way, the Lebanese blogosphere is breaking down the barriers that separate traditional media from electronic media. It has become an alternative media source on many issues, particularly the environment which isn’t routinely covered by traditional media. One example is coverage in the blogosphere of a young Lebanese man, Rami Eid, who spent three days and nights in a glass cube in the Ain el Mreisseh neighbourhood in Beirut last October, representing the last man on earth in a hopeless future as a result of humankind’s failure to act against climate change. His stunt alerted the public about the need to face these changes.
The media campaign for this experiment focused on electronic media, beginning with Eid’s personal blog which was read by thousands in just the first few days of the campaign. In addition, Twitter and Facebook sites reported on developments in real time. This coverage succeeded in galvanising public opinion, the media and various environmental research centres, which culminated in the Lebanese government deciding to participate in international negotiations on combatting climate change in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Lebanese blogs have also served as key political mobilisation and organisation tools on many occasions, especially in preparing for the March for Secularism in April of this year. The march started with a Facebook invitation, as well as a few blog posts. It eventually developed into a march in which thousands of people participated, without the need for a central organising committee.
And during the last municipal elections in Lebanon, in May 2010, bloggers turned into a makeshift independent elections monitoring agency. Some of these bloggers – in partnership with a Beirut-based organisation specialising in new media training called Social Media Exchange – were given a license by the Ministry of Interior to enter election stations, observe voting and submit their own reports to media and constitutional bodies about the voting process.
This was the first experience of its kind in the Arab world and was seen as being quite successful, with more than 60,000 hits on the site where bloggers published their live reports, lebloggers.org.
One incident in particular perhaps best demonstrates how influential bloggers can be. After a far-reaching electronic campaign, bloggers were able to stop a proposed law in the Lebanese parliament to organise the blogosphere, a law that they decided would curtail freedom of expression on the Internet.
This incident proved that when organised, blogs are not only an alternative media source or a tool to mobilise the public in support of specific causes, but they can also influence the legislative process.
Well on their way to becoming pioneers in the Arab world, bloggers in Lebanon comprise a fledgling movement that has just begun to assume its role in the field of information media, benefitting from relative media freedom and the achievements realised thus far.
Tony Saghbini is a Lebanese activist and blogger who helped establish the Lebanese Society for bloggers. Distributed by the Common Ground News Service
An open letter to Obama Gordon Duff
Dear Mr. President,
I am speaking for myself and the not entirely uninformed belief that I speak for some of our readership. We are mostly veterans and active duty military. We are not the majority of either group but we are a significant number, in the hundreds of thousands, and are unique in one way. We are your supporters. We worked in support of your election, when you were threatened, we defended you. This is easy to check, simple as getting a record of our publication, our readership numbers or even my own service record book. I am a combat veteran from the Vietnam War.
We are not ready to abandon you but we are very concerned and I believe it is time you listened to voices other than those that have managed to isolate you from what we see as “reality.”
Our most current concern is with what appears to be a growing pattern of abuse of American rights by Federal law enforcement authorities in recent days. It is our belief that agent provocateurs have, at the direction of our complex and burdensome state security apparatus, infiltrated groups trying to end the war in Afghanistan, groups asking for an honest investigation of 9/11 and, perhaps even more seriously, groups challenging financial policies that are undermining the future of the United States.
We have seen no indication whatsoever that these groups are in any way terrorist or subversive, far from it. These people voted for you, worked for your election, donated money to your campaign and believed your promises. We also suspect that it isn’t just these groups, constituting what is typically referred to as the “progressive left,” that are being targeted but also conservative and libertarian groups as well, including the Tea Party.
If there is a domestic threat, some group likely to represent a threat to the United States, I don’t see it coming from here. I am strongly suspicious that those around you who are warning you of such things are hiding a personal agenda inconsistent with the values you have often spoken of.
However, we are not saying there isn’t a threat out there. You don’t have to look very far beneath the rhetoric of the television and radio pundits with their powerful backing, many directly tied to the financial criminals who are so powerful they represent a “clear and present danger” to the security of the country, to see where the violence will come from.
We do expect violence, perhaps even terrorist attacks, but not planned by peace activists in a church basement in Ann Arbor or a cave in Waziristan. Look for those who profit most from violence, terrorism, war and instability.
Any genuinely qualified National Security Adviser will always factor this into your briefings.
We have our fears. We fear some, perhaps many within our military leadership have become addicted to war and have come to serve a private agenda counter to American values. We believe some in our intelligence organisations are with them. If there is a threat to the United States, look there.
While the FBI is searching homes across the country for “subversive” material, $65 billion dollars a year, the profits from the heroin trade in Afghanistan, is buying power, perhaps funding world terrorism and even undermining our own political system. Over $1.2 billion will be spent on the upcoming elections.
Due to changes in campaign funding laws based on the recent decision in the US Supreme Court, it will be impossible to track any of that money to its real source. The bales of cash leaving Kandahar and the negotiable instruments, some worth hundreds of millions, that are now floating around the world, go somewhere. Where better than to buy influence and control here, in the United States? Perhaps the FBI could look into this.
America is facing threats, threats that may push the nation over the edge. We are all aware of it. We are facing a crisis, grinding poverty amid increasing wealth in the hands of a very few.
Those few, those wealthy few, hardly Americans but rather a government of their own making, internationalists, buying influence, deregulation, advocating war, profiting from terrorism, are hardly invisible. You can see their trail in the $13.5 trillion dollar national debt. You can see their trail in the figures on your desk every day, poverty, unemployment, balance of trade.
We know you see this. We also know you may be powerless to oppose these massive evils, even as President.
What we do ask is that you stand by us as we stood by you.
Sincerely,
Gordon Duff
Marine Vietnam war veteran
and Senior Editor, Veterans Today,
a journal of military veterans and foreign affairs
I am speaking for myself and the not entirely uninformed belief that I speak for some of our readership. We are mostly veterans and active duty military. We are not the majority of either group but we are a significant number, in the hundreds of thousands, and are unique in one way. We are your supporters. We worked in support of your election, when you were threatened, we defended you. This is easy to check, simple as getting a record of our publication, our readership numbers or even my own service record book. I am a combat veteran from the Vietnam War.
We are not ready to abandon you but we are very concerned and I believe it is time you listened to voices other than those that have managed to isolate you from what we see as “reality.”
Our most current concern is with what appears to be a growing pattern of abuse of American rights by Federal law enforcement authorities in recent days. It is our belief that agent provocateurs have, at the direction of our complex and burdensome state security apparatus, infiltrated groups trying to end the war in Afghanistan, groups asking for an honest investigation of 9/11 and, perhaps even more seriously, groups challenging financial policies that are undermining the future of the United States.
We have seen no indication whatsoever that these groups are in any way terrorist or subversive, far from it. These people voted for you, worked for your election, donated money to your campaign and believed your promises. We also suspect that it isn’t just these groups, constituting what is typically referred to as the “progressive left,” that are being targeted but also conservative and libertarian groups as well, including the Tea Party.
If there is a domestic threat, some group likely to represent a threat to the United States, I don’t see it coming from here. I am strongly suspicious that those around you who are warning you of such things are hiding a personal agenda inconsistent with the values you have often spoken of.
However, we are not saying there isn’t a threat out there. You don’t have to look very far beneath the rhetoric of the television and radio pundits with their powerful backing, many directly tied to the financial criminals who are so powerful they represent a “clear and present danger” to the security of the country, to see where the violence will come from.
We do expect violence, perhaps even terrorist attacks, but not planned by peace activists in a church basement in Ann Arbor or a cave in Waziristan. Look for those who profit most from violence, terrorism, war and instability.
Any genuinely qualified National Security Adviser will always factor this into your briefings.
We have our fears. We fear some, perhaps many within our military leadership have become addicted to war and have come to serve a private agenda counter to American values. We believe some in our intelligence organisations are with them. If there is a threat to the United States, look there.
While the FBI is searching homes across the country for “subversive” material, $65 billion dollars a year, the profits from the heroin trade in Afghanistan, is buying power, perhaps funding world terrorism and even undermining our own political system. Over $1.2 billion will be spent on the upcoming elections.
Due to changes in campaign funding laws based on the recent decision in the US Supreme Court, it will be impossible to track any of that money to its real source. The bales of cash leaving Kandahar and the negotiable instruments, some worth hundreds of millions, that are now floating around the world, go somewhere. Where better than to buy influence and control here, in the United States? Perhaps the FBI could look into this.
America is facing threats, threats that may push the nation over the edge. We are all aware of it. We are facing a crisis, grinding poverty amid increasing wealth in the hands of a very few.
Those few, those wealthy few, hardly Americans but rather a government of their own making, internationalists, buying influence, deregulation, advocating war, profiting from terrorism, are hardly invisible. You can see their trail in the $13.5 trillion dollar national debt. You can see their trail in the figures on your desk every day, poverty, unemployment, balance of trade.
We know you see this. We also know you may be powerless to oppose these massive evils, even as President.
What we do ask is that you stand by us as we stood by you.
Sincerely,
Gordon Duff
Marine Vietnam war veteran
and Senior Editor, Veterans Today,
a journal of military veterans and foreign affairs
Oh captain, my captain! Asleep at the wheel – literally Ajith Athrady
Nearly five months after an Air India Express Boeing aircraft crashed during landing at Mangalore airport killing 158 people on board, flight details contained in the black box have revealed that the pilot-in-command was asleep for an hour and 50 minutes when the plane cruised towards its destination.
An analysis of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) -- which contains conversation between two pilots, radio communication between the cockpit crew and others (including conversation with air traffic control personnel) and Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) -- was presented before the Court of Inquiry (CoI) headed by Air Marshal (Retd) B N Gokhale.
The Directorate-General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which presented the details to the CoI, had sent the CVR and the DFDR to the United States for data retrieval since they were heavily damaged, though the memory chips remained intact.
In the CoI, officials from Boeing, the manufacturer of the aircraft, and GE, which was involved in decoding the black box, presented their findings.
Only excerpts of the black box data were released on Wednesday and a detailed report will be submitted to the Centre along with the CoI findings by the end of this month.
The startling details culled from the CVR and the DFDR have now established that pilot error, compounded by others factors like sleeping, caused the crash.
The cockpit transcripts and coded DFDR information were released to silence persistent speculation that reasons other than pilot error might have contributed to the doom of the aircraft and the 152 passengers and six crew members.
The analysis of the CVR revealed that there was sound nasal snoring and heavy breathing for nearly two hours, indicating that one of the two pilots-in all likelihood Serbian national Captain Zslatko Glucika, 55-had fallen asleep on his seat on the 200-minute flight of IX-812 that originated in Dubai (local time 1:10 am) on May 22.
What corroborates the pilot error as the principal reason behind the crash is the long silence in the cockpit—for as long as 110 minutes-indicating that Glucika, who was believed to have about 2,000 flying hours’ experience, had dozed off ahead of landing. Captain H S Ahluwalia, 40, from Mumbai, was the co-pilot of the ill-fated aircraft.
When it was time for flight IX-812 to land, it was too late. The black box details have established that the aircraft started descent for landing when it was flying at an altitude of 4,400 feet against the normal height of 2,000 feet. Besides, the flight touched down at the 4,638 feet mark on the middle of Mangalore’s ‘table-top’ runway which has a maximum length of 8,038 feet.
According to civil aviation regulations, normal touchdown mark for passenger aircraft is 1,000 feet. This strongly indicates that Glucika not only reacted late and overshot the runway, but certain standard operating procedures were not followed during landing.
DHNS reported on August 19 the pilots’ last-minute conversation in which Capt Ahluwalia desperately cautioned Glucika to abort landing and “go around”, meaning that the pilot should not attempt a landing and instead try to fly without touching down.
The co-pilot is heard on the audio telling Glucika “we don’t have enough runway left”. Capt Ahluwalia’s last word to his commanding pilot was “control” and then the aircraft fell on to a steep slope before exploding into a ball of fire.
According to the decoded information from the black box, the aircraft was not on its glide path while landing. As suspected earlier, the Boeing 737-800 aircraft was flying at an unusually high speed of 139 knots during landing. In the course of the inquiry and inspection of the aircraft’s remains it was found that the plane’s landing gear was found in the takeoff position, suggesting that the pilot tried a “go around.”
“Despite the high speed and landing in the middle of the runway, had the pilot tried to stop the aircraft instead of taking off after making touch down, it would have stopped at least at the end of the run way averting the disaster,” a Boeing official said. In support of the evidence that the pilot tried a “go around,” the DFDR shows that Glucika activated the takeoff gear and that the engine was in powered to high speed. “During normal touch down the engine speed is always low”, the official said.
“The main reason for the accident was that the pilot(s) tried to take off when just 800 feet of the runway was left. It was a wrong judgment while attempting a takeoff,” he said.
The decoding of the black box also shows that the GPS (ground proximity warning system) precision approach and landing system of the aircraft had given several warnings indicating that it was taking a wrong glide path. The CVR records show that both pilots had discussed that the aircraft was following a wrong glide path.
Early on May 22, the weather was fine for landing and visibility 6 km. The runway was dry and clearance had been given for landing under the Instrument Landing System. According to Boeing, the runway length for a 737-800 type aircraft during landing should be 7,500 feet.
(This article is quoted from the Deccan Herald News Service although several versions of the story have been sent to media taking credit for it)
An analysis of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) -- which contains conversation between two pilots, radio communication between the cockpit crew and others (including conversation with air traffic control personnel) and Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) -- was presented before the Court of Inquiry (CoI) headed by Air Marshal (Retd) B N Gokhale.
The Directorate-General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which presented the details to the CoI, had sent the CVR and the DFDR to the United States for data retrieval since they were heavily damaged, though the memory chips remained intact.
In the CoI, officials from Boeing, the manufacturer of the aircraft, and GE, which was involved in decoding the black box, presented their findings.
Only excerpts of the black box data were released on Wednesday and a detailed report will be submitted to the Centre along with the CoI findings by the end of this month.
The startling details culled from the CVR and the DFDR have now established that pilot error, compounded by others factors like sleeping, caused the crash.
The cockpit transcripts and coded DFDR information were released to silence persistent speculation that reasons other than pilot error might have contributed to the doom of the aircraft and the 152 passengers and six crew members.
The analysis of the CVR revealed that there was sound nasal snoring and heavy breathing for nearly two hours, indicating that one of the two pilots-in all likelihood Serbian national Captain Zslatko Glucika, 55-had fallen asleep on his seat on the 200-minute flight of IX-812 that originated in Dubai (local time 1:10 am) on May 22.
What corroborates the pilot error as the principal reason behind the crash is the long silence in the cockpit—for as long as 110 minutes-indicating that Glucika, who was believed to have about 2,000 flying hours’ experience, had dozed off ahead of landing. Captain H S Ahluwalia, 40, from Mumbai, was the co-pilot of the ill-fated aircraft.
When it was time for flight IX-812 to land, it was too late. The black box details have established that the aircraft started descent for landing when it was flying at an altitude of 4,400 feet against the normal height of 2,000 feet. Besides, the flight touched down at the 4,638 feet mark on the middle of Mangalore’s ‘table-top’ runway which has a maximum length of 8,038 feet.
According to civil aviation regulations, normal touchdown mark for passenger aircraft is 1,000 feet. This strongly indicates that Glucika not only reacted late and overshot the runway, but certain standard operating procedures were not followed during landing.
DHNS reported on August 19 the pilots’ last-minute conversation in which Capt Ahluwalia desperately cautioned Glucika to abort landing and “go around”, meaning that the pilot should not attempt a landing and instead try to fly without touching down.
The co-pilot is heard on the audio telling Glucika “we don’t have enough runway left”. Capt Ahluwalia’s last word to his commanding pilot was “control” and then the aircraft fell on to a steep slope before exploding into a ball of fire.
According to the decoded information from the black box, the aircraft was not on its glide path while landing. As suspected earlier, the Boeing 737-800 aircraft was flying at an unusually high speed of 139 knots during landing. In the course of the inquiry and inspection of the aircraft’s remains it was found that the plane’s landing gear was found in the takeoff position, suggesting that the pilot tried a “go around.”
“Despite the high speed and landing in the middle of the runway, had the pilot tried to stop the aircraft instead of taking off after making touch down, it would have stopped at least at the end of the run way averting the disaster,” a Boeing official said. In support of the evidence that the pilot tried a “go around,” the DFDR shows that Glucika activated the takeoff gear and that the engine was in powered to high speed. “During normal touch down the engine speed is always low”, the official said.
“The main reason for the accident was that the pilot(s) tried to take off when just 800 feet of the runway was left. It was a wrong judgment while attempting a takeoff,” he said.
The decoding of the black box also shows that the GPS (ground proximity warning system) precision approach and landing system of the aircraft had given several warnings indicating that it was taking a wrong glide path. The CVR records show that both pilots had discussed that the aircraft was following a wrong glide path.
Early on May 22, the weather was fine for landing and visibility 6 km. The runway was dry and clearance had been given for landing under the Instrument Landing System. According to Boeing, the runway length for a 737-800 type aircraft during landing should be 7,500 feet.
(This article is quoted from the Deccan Herald News Service although several versions of the story have been sent to media taking credit for it)
Muppets and Mideast peace Naomi Wolf
Can furry puppets in Day-Glo colours provide the lessons we need to calm the fires of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? The Muppet empire is now worldwide. Those who grew up with the children’s educational TV show Sesame Street know that it gives five-year-olds easy-to-take lessons in literacy, numeracy, and social skills. But Sesame Street has a loftier agenda, finding partners in the developing world – including Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Pakistan – to bring the fuzzy little creatures, with their message of peace and tolerance, to local audiences.
A new documentary, “When Muppets Dream of Peace,” tracks the harrowing joint production of Sesame Street in Israel and Palestine, with a Jordanian production team brought in to help facilitate. This programme, like so many educational or cultural Israeli-Palestinian partnerships, began in starry-eyed idealism. But, based on the film – and on a recent panel discussion with the filmmakers and a Muppets spokesman in New York City – it was undermined by a common flaw in such partnerships.
The original plan – like with so many of these programmes – was based on a notion of parity: Israeli and Palestinian production teams would work together. But the Palestinian partners vetoed that idea – “We aren’t there yet,” they explained. Could they have a stand-alone Palestinian Sesame Street? No funding for that, came the reply.
The Palestinian team finally agreed to parallel productions with a major “cultural exchange” element – rather than creating segments together, they would produce a series with Palestinian Muppets and adults that also incorporated cartoons and mini-documentaries produced by the Israelis and Jordanians.
The other two teams would do likewise. Some unifying characters – such as an Arab-Israeli girl who explains each “side” to the other – would create a measure of continuity. The New York-based management wanted the Palestinians and Israelis to portray each other in a humanising way. Again, the Palestinians resisted.
Rather than focus on creating scenarios that showed Israelis – even Israeli kids – in a positive light, they wanted to focus on showing Palestinian culture in a positive light, portraying Palestinian youths as role models, and providing images to kids that offered alternatives to violence. But then reality intervened again. A suicide bomber attacked in Israel, and, in retaliation, the Israel Defence Forces took over Ramallah, where the tiny Palestinian Sesame Street studio was located. Day after day, the talented Palestinian team of animators, puppeteers, designers, cameramen, and producers could not get to work – even as the Israeli team was churning out their own material in a brightly lit, well-funded studio in Tel Aviv.
Then the IDF occupied the TV station itself and destroyed it, along with the team’s computers and cameras. The documentary’s footage of shot-out computer screens and piles of smashed printers and cameras – under graffiti reading “Palestine Never” – makes one despair.
Meanwhile, New York was growing impatient, letting the Palestinian team know that their segments were late – and, under what was essentially a military occupation, the Palestinians began to rethink whether this was the right kind of project to which to devote their energies.
The New York producer overseeing the project, a single mother, was reluctant initially to visit Ramallah – so the Palestinian team’s inability to produce their segments on time was, like so many aspects of the Palestinian experience, hidden behind a barrier of fear, not fully witnessed, and thus not fully comprehended.
The co-production has ended. But there is a Palestinian Sesame Street and an Israeli Sesame Street, and there are positive Arab-Israeli characters in the Israeli version. And the creators of these programmes, together with the filmmakers behind “When Muppets Dream of Peace,” offer important lessons for all of us.
One quote from a Palestinian TV production team member stayed with me: “This is a shotgun wedding,” he explained when he was advocating for a Palestine-only Sesame Street. “And we want a divorce.”
The Palestinian team is utterly indistinguishable, superficially, from their European or Israeli counterparts: they are hip, young, talented, sophisticated, and more than anything they want to work to create a positive environment for their kids – or at least a psychological respite from the reality of occupation, violence, and war.
But how often does the outside world – even the best-intentioned donors and programme creators – reach out to Palestinian civil society on its own terms, without insisting on that “shotgun wedding?” How often are resources invested in Palestinian films, books, newspapers, high schools, dance troupes, teachers, etc. without requiring the recipients to make friendly gestures to Israel?
Many civil-society elements in the Muslim world have turned their backs on possible partnerships with Israeli counterparts. One Egyptian actor was boycotted at home for merely appearing in Cannes with an Israeli actress.
But I am certain that the more intently outsiders invest in Palestinian civil society on its own terms, the less exasperated the Palestinian intelligentsia – and the Muslim world – will become with the often-coerced terms of Palestine’s creativity.
A vibrant Palestinian civil society could become more flexible and open toward possible partnerships – including more natural, holistic Israeli-Palestinian joint ventures – thus benefiting the region as a whole.
The Muppets have taught generations of kids worldwide how to count to ten and share cookies. In the 1970’s in the United States, they taught us about an interracial couple on Sesame Street.
In South Africa, the creators asked for – and got – a puppet that was an HIV-positive child, since acceptance of such kids was a lesson that local educators told the New York team they needed to teach. In the Sesame Street of Palestine and Israel, the failure of the joint venture was really a success: the Muppets and their creators have given us another valuable lesson, this time in how – and how not – to help others.
Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries c. Project Syndicate
A new documentary, “When Muppets Dream of Peace,” tracks the harrowing joint production of Sesame Street in Israel and Palestine, with a Jordanian production team brought in to help facilitate. This programme, like so many educational or cultural Israeli-Palestinian partnerships, began in starry-eyed idealism. But, based on the film – and on a recent panel discussion with the filmmakers and a Muppets spokesman in New York City – it was undermined by a common flaw in such partnerships.
The original plan – like with so many of these programmes – was based on a notion of parity: Israeli and Palestinian production teams would work together. But the Palestinian partners vetoed that idea – “We aren’t there yet,” they explained. Could they have a stand-alone Palestinian Sesame Street? No funding for that, came the reply.
The Palestinian team finally agreed to parallel productions with a major “cultural exchange” element – rather than creating segments together, they would produce a series with Palestinian Muppets and adults that also incorporated cartoons and mini-documentaries produced by the Israelis and Jordanians.
The other two teams would do likewise. Some unifying characters – such as an Arab-Israeli girl who explains each “side” to the other – would create a measure of continuity. The New York-based management wanted the Palestinians and Israelis to portray each other in a humanising way. Again, the Palestinians resisted.
Rather than focus on creating scenarios that showed Israelis – even Israeli kids – in a positive light, they wanted to focus on showing Palestinian culture in a positive light, portraying Palestinian youths as role models, and providing images to kids that offered alternatives to violence. But then reality intervened again. A suicide bomber attacked in Israel, and, in retaliation, the Israel Defence Forces took over Ramallah, where the tiny Palestinian Sesame Street studio was located. Day after day, the talented Palestinian team of animators, puppeteers, designers, cameramen, and producers could not get to work – even as the Israeli team was churning out their own material in a brightly lit, well-funded studio in Tel Aviv.
Then the IDF occupied the TV station itself and destroyed it, along with the team’s computers and cameras. The documentary’s footage of shot-out computer screens and piles of smashed printers and cameras – under graffiti reading “Palestine Never” – makes one despair.
Meanwhile, New York was growing impatient, letting the Palestinian team know that their segments were late – and, under what was essentially a military occupation, the Palestinians began to rethink whether this was the right kind of project to which to devote their energies.
The New York producer overseeing the project, a single mother, was reluctant initially to visit Ramallah – so the Palestinian team’s inability to produce their segments on time was, like so many aspects of the Palestinian experience, hidden behind a barrier of fear, not fully witnessed, and thus not fully comprehended.
The co-production has ended. But there is a Palestinian Sesame Street and an Israeli Sesame Street, and there are positive Arab-Israeli characters in the Israeli version. And the creators of these programmes, together with the filmmakers behind “When Muppets Dream of Peace,” offer important lessons for all of us.
One quote from a Palestinian TV production team member stayed with me: “This is a shotgun wedding,” he explained when he was advocating for a Palestine-only Sesame Street. “And we want a divorce.”
The Palestinian team is utterly indistinguishable, superficially, from their European or Israeli counterparts: they are hip, young, talented, sophisticated, and more than anything they want to work to create a positive environment for their kids – or at least a psychological respite from the reality of occupation, violence, and war.
But how often does the outside world – even the best-intentioned donors and programme creators – reach out to Palestinian civil society on its own terms, without insisting on that “shotgun wedding?” How often are resources invested in Palestinian films, books, newspapers, high schools, dance troupes, teachers, etc. without requiring the recipients to make friendly gestures to Israel?
Many civil-society elements in the Muslim world have turned their backs on possible partnerships with Israeli counterparts. One Egyptian actor was boycotted at home for merely appearing in Cannes with an Israeli actress.
But I am certain that the more intently outsiders invest in Palestinian civil society on its own terms, the less exasperated the Palestinian intelligentsia – and the Muslim world – will become with the often-coerced terms of Palestine’s creativity.
A vibrant Palestinian civil society could become more flexible and open toward possible partnerships – including more natural, holistic Israeli-Palestinian joint ventures – thus benefiting the region as a whole.
The Muppets have taught generations of kids worldwide how to count to ten and share cookies. In the 1970’s in the United States, they taught us about an interracial couple on Sesame Street.
In South Africa, the creators asked for – and got – a puppet that was an HIV-positive child, since acceptance of such kids was a lesson that local educators told the New York team they needed to teach. In the Sesame Street of Palestine and Israel, the failure of the joint venture was really a success: the Muppets and their creators have given us another valuable lesson, this time in how – and how not – to help others.
Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic whose most recent book is Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries c. Project Syndicate
Is there a ghost in the machine? Neeta Lal (Issues)
The looming Bihar assembly polls, the controversial arrest and release of a Hyderabad-based researcher who had demonstrated the alleged “tamperability” of electronic voting machines (EVMs) earlier this year on TV and a raft of pending petitions in high courts have collectively re-ignited the contentious debate on EVMs in India.
The issue acquired further political traction when 13 Opposition parties recently asked the Election Commissioner (EC) for an all-party meet to deliberate on the “vulnerability of EVMs”.
Though earlier, the anti-EVM campaign reared its head only sporadically, it gathered a palpable momentum last year when the Congress surpassed all projections to bag 262 seats in the general elections. The result surprised the party even, leading the anti-EVM lobby to raise a cry about the ‘tamper-proof’ nature of the voting machines.
So is there really a ghost in the machine? The question acquires a special salience in the world’s largest democracy where these machines record the political pulse of a billion-plus people. Since 2004, the entire population of India has been voting on EVMs, which number around 1.4 million and are of the controversial “Direct Recording Electronic” (DRE) variety. Vulnerable EVMs means playing with votes which can potentially alter election outcomes and ergo, political history.
There is an unmistakable political undertone to the EVM issue as it directly involves the Election Commission of India (ECI), which ranks among the highest on the credibility index in the country. The machines were a part of the Commission’s drive to usher in electoral reforms in the country.
Arguments for and against the Indian EVM centre on the technology of the machine and security procedures surrounding it. The EC points out that the technology is different from that used by countries where electronic voting has been discontinued, like Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland. That, combined with a raft of administrative safeguards ensures the integrity of the Indian EVM. Further, the randomized distribution of machines ensures that it is well-nigh impossible to know till the last minute which machine goes to which polling booth in which constituency.
Inarguably, the adoption of EVMs has revolutionised India’s democratic process. For one, it is now impossible to do physical ‘booth-capturing’ any more, a practice, which had gained India considerable notoriety in the nineties. Secondly, votes are converted pronto into digital impulses that can be counted with alacrity. Thirdly, statistical data collection, analysis and data mining can all be done seamlessly.
By curbing electoral malpractices, EVMs have been a huge leap forward over the paper ballots system. They have whittled down costs, the time needed to declare results apart from reducing the need for recounts. They have virtually eliminated invalid votes and streamlined the overall poll process.
Unfortunately, the EVMs’ strength is a sword that cuts both ways. Since there is no physical audit trail of the vote, once the voter has cast his vote, there’s no way of verifying that his choice of candidate has been honored. In other words, if a software-savvy criminal were to tinker with the machine’s software, it could swing an election this way or that.
Electronic voting was introduced in many countries. But serious doubts were soon raised about the security, accuracy, reliability and verifiability of electronic elections. Netherlands banned voting machines in 2006 after an activist group demonstrated that the country’s Nedap machines could be wirelessly hacked into.
In 2009, Ireland declared a moratorium on their use. Italy has followed suit. In March 2009, the Supreme Court of Germany ruled that voting through EVMs was unconstitutional. Even US Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 saw widespread voting controversies with many states rejecting the electronic recording of votes.
But there have been allegations of rigging even in the time of paper ballots. In 1990, there were widespread reports of rigging in Meham (Haryana). In 1972, West Bengal’s CPM alleged that polls were fraudulent; in Punjab 1992, the Opposition boycotted elections and in J&K 1987, the Muslim United Front alleged mass rigging.
So should we go back to the era of ballot papers? That would indeed be a retrogressive step. Would we abandon computers in banks because of occasional security lapses?
The jury, it seems, is still out on EVMs as there is no conclusive data, nor academic consensus on the issue. The EC can perhaps address the issue by taking the help of independent security analysts to run tests on the EVM software. That, combined with a transparent, extensive pre-poll testing of the machines in the presence of all stakeholders, should help sort out things.
If at all EVMs fall short of being 100 per cent foolproof, there is a case for improving them, not eliminating them. For doing away with them totally would be like throwing away the baby with the bath water. Or going back to the barter system just because of the lingering threat of counterfeit currency!
Neeta Lal is a New Delhi-based journalist
The issue acquired further political traction when 13 Opposition parties recently asked the Election Commissioner (EC) for an all-party meet to deliberate on the “vulnerability of EVMs”.
Though earlier, the anti-EVM campaign reared its head only sporadically, it gathered a palpable momentum last year when the Congress surpassed all projections to bag 262 seats in the general elections. The result surprised the party even, leading the anti-EVM lobby to raise a cry about the ‘tamper-proof’ nature of the voting machines.
So is there really a ghost in the machine? The question acquires a special salience in the world’s largest democracy where these machines record the political pulse of a billion-plus people. Since 2004, the entire population of India has been voting on EVMs, which number around 1.4 million and are of the controversial “Direct Recording Electronic” (DRE) variety. Vulnerable EVMs means playing with votes which can potentially alter election outcomes and ergo, political history.
There is an unmistakable political undertone to the EVM issue as it directly involves the Election Commission of India (ECI), which ranks among the highest on the credibility index in the country. The machines were a part of the Commission’s drive to usher in electoral reforms in the country.
Arguments for and against the Indian EVM centre on the technology of the machine and security procedures surrounding it. The EC points out that the technology is different from that used by countries where electronic voting has been discontinued, like Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland. That, combined with a raft of administrative safeguards ensures the integrity of the Indian EVM. Further, the randomized distribution of machines ensures that it is well-nigh impossible to know till the last minute which machine goes to which polling booth in which constituency.
Inarguably, the adoption of EVMs has revolutionised India’s democratic process. For one, it is now impossible to do physical ‘booth-capturing’ any more, a practice, which had gained India considerable notoriety in the nineties. Secondly, votes are converted pronto into digital impulses that can be counted with alacrity. Thirdly, statistical data collection, analysis and data mining can all be done seamlessly.
By curbing electoral malpractices, EVMs have been a huge leap forward over the paper ballots system. They have whittled down costs, the time needed to declare results apart from reducing the need for recounts. They have virtually eliminated invalid votes and streamlined the overall poll process.
Unfortunately, the EVMs’ strength is a sword that cuts both ways. Since there is no physical audit trail of the vote, once the voter has cast his vote, there’s no way of verifying that his choice of candidate has been honored. In other words, if a software-savvy criminal were to tinker with the machine’s software, it could swing an election this way or that.
Electronic voting was introduced in many countries. But serious doubts were soon raised about the security, accuracy, reliability and verifiability of electronic elections. Netherlands banned voting machines in 2006 after an activist group demonstrated that the country’s Nedap machines could be wirelessly hacked into.
In 2009, Ireland declared a moratorium on their use. Italy has followed suit. In March 2009, the Supreme Court of Germany ruled that voting through EVMs was unconstitutional. Even US Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 saw widespread voting controversies with many states rejecting the electronic recording of votes.
But there have been allegations of rigging even in the time of paper ballots. In 1990, there were widespread reports of rigging in Meham (Haryana). In 1972, West Bengal’s CPM alleged that polls were fraudulent; in Punjab 1992, the Opposition boycotted elections and in J&K 1987, the Muslim United Front alleged mass rigging.
So should we go back to the era of ballot papers? That would indeed be a retrogressive step. Would we abandon computers in banks because of occasional security lapses?
The jury, it seems, is still out on EVMs as there is no conclusive data, nor academic consensus on the issue. The EC can perhaps address the issue by taking the help of independent security analysts to run tests on the EVM software. That, combined with a transparent, extensive pre-poll testing of the machines in the presence of all stakeholders, should help sort out things.
If at all EVMs fall short of being 100 per cent foolproof, there is a case for improving them, not eliminating them. For doing away with them totally would be like throwing away the baby with the bath water. Or going back to the barter system just because of the lingering threat of counterfeit currency!
Neeta Lal is a New Delhi-based journalist
Ayodhya: then and now Nilofar Suhrawardy (India)
Eighteen years ago, as I watched the live-telecast of Babri Masjid’s demolition from Madison (USA), yes I did feel hurt, sad, angry and of course tensed as well as concerned about my close relatives in India.
A few phone-calls with family members assured me that they were safe and fine. But I did remain angry and hurt at India’s secularism and security-services being put to shame as a few hundred thousand extremists took law in their own hands by demolishing the mosque and communally targeting Muslims in most parts of the country.
The headlines in print media and television-news blamed Hindu terrorism for the demolition and accompanying riots. My immediate priority was to raise my voice as an Indian Muslim and question those allegations. So I did. How could the entire Hindu community and religion be blamed for what some percentage of extremists adhering to this faith had indulged in? A terrorist is a terrorist and cannot be linked with any religion. Defending India’s multi-religious secularism, I questioned the ease with which Islam and Hinduism were linked with terrorism.
Now, when Ayodhya issue is in news again, the Indian secular fervor has overshadowed the communal frenzy. Understandably, against the backdrop of nation-wide riots witnessed during the late 1980s and early 1990s over the Ayodhya crisis, the Indian leaders and people have a legitimate reason to fear rioters taking to streets again.
Communication revolution and political developments over the past two decades have played a major role in preventing the communal violence today. The new generation of voters was not even born or were just mere toddlers when the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. The youngsters then had access to just one government-controlled television channel, the Doordarshan. The likes of BJP leader L.K. Advani certainly were able to organise “rath-yatras” (chariot processions) to propagandise their stand towards the Ayodhya issue. Though there has been tension in the air about reaction to “verdict,” nobody has even talked of repeating those “yatras.” The answer is simple, even if they did; today’s generation is least likely to join them. Besides, in the present multi-party coalition-era, even the BJP is fearful of losing secular allies and Muslim votes by turning “communal.”
There was a phase when a riot in one corner of country could provoke riots in other parts too. Indian secularism faced a major litmus test when Gujarat carnage occurred. The riots remained primarily confined to Gujarat as people across the country witnessed the carnage on the small screen. Yes, communication revolution played its part in prompting them to remain inside their houses and take their own decisions. The recent Ayodhya verdict may be regarded as another litmus test. Irrespective of their reactions to the verdict, by defying apprehensions and defeating threats of 1992-riotious phase being repeated, the people have played a crucial role in displaying their secular spirit to the world at large.
Nilofar Suhrawardy is an Indian journalist
A few phone-calls with family members assured me that they were safe and fine. But I did remain angry and hurt at India’s secularism and security-services being put to shame as a few hundred thousand extremists took law in their own hands by demolishing the mosque and communally targeting Muslims in most parts of the country.
The headlines in print media and television-news blamed Hindu terrorism for the demolition and accompanying riots. My immediate priority was to raise my voice as an Indian Muslim and question those allegations. So I did. How could the entire Hindu community and religion be blamed for what some percentage of extremists adhering to this faith had indulged in? A terrorist is a terrorist and cannot be linked with any religion. Defending India’s multi-religious secularism, I questioned the ease with which Islam and Hinduism were linked with terrorism.
Now, when Ayodhya issue is in news again, the Indian secular fervor has overshadowed the communal frenzy. Understandably, against the backdrop of nation-wide riots witnessed during the late 1980s and early 1990s over the Ayodhya crisis, the Indian leaders and people have a legitimate reason to fear rioters taking to streets again.
Communication revolution and political developments over the past two decades have played a major role in preventing the communal violence today. The new generation of voters was not even born or were just mere toddlers when the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. The youngsters then had access to just one government-controlled television channel, the Doordarshan. The likes of BJP leader L.K. Advani certainly were able to organise “rath-yatras” (chariot processions) to propagandise their stand towards the Ayodhya issue. Though there has been tension in the air about reaction to “verdict,” nobody has even talked of repeating those “yatras.” The answer is simple, even if they did; today’s generation is least likely to join them. Besides, in the present multi-party coalition-era, even the BJP is fearful of losing secular allies and Muslim votes by turning “communal.”
There was a phase when a riot in one corner of country could provoke riots in other parts too. Indian secularism faced a major litmus test when Gujarat carnage occurred. The riots remained primarily confined to Gujarat as people across the country witnessed the carnage on the small screen. Yes, communication revolution played its part in prompting them to remain inside their houses and take their own decisions. The recent Ayodhya verdict may be regarded as another litmus test. Irrespective of their reactions to the verdict, by defying apprehensions and defeating threats of 1992-riotious phase being repeated, the people have played a crucial role in displaying their secular spirit to the world at large.
Nilofar Suhrawardy is an Indian journalist
Decoding the vilification of Miliband Neil Berry (Britain)
The new leader of the British Labour Party, Ed Miliband, has inspired an amazing outpouring of venom.
Having beaten by a whisker his older brother David in the party’s leadership contest, he is being demonised by right-wing columnists as ‘Red Ed’, an inheritor of the revolutionary zeal of his father, the renowned Marxist academic Ralph Miliband, who fled to Britain from Belgium during World War Two as a Jewish refugee from Nazi-dominated Europe and who died in 1994.
Ed Miliband’s detractors focus relentlessly on the fact that he owed his triumph to trades union votes and that by recklessly choosing the ‘wrong’ Miliband the Labour Party has ensured that Britain’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government led by Prime Minister David Cameron will face an opposition party so extreme as to lack all credibility.
In sober truth, there is no great ideological chasm between Ed and David Miliband, any more than there was between their respective mentors, the former Labour leaders and successive British prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. What does distinguish Ed, whose leadership campaign manager was the personable south London Muslim MP Sadiq Khan, is that in contrast to his brother he was not conspicuously involved in the hijacking of the Labour party by Blair and ‘New Labour’. He was not part of the Blair government that turned Britain into an abject stooge of the United States and committed Britain to the catastrophic US-led Iraq War; nor, unlike his brother, who until May of this year was Britain’s Foreign Secretary, has he faced accusations of complicity with the US over the torture of terrorist suspects.
Victory for David Miliband in the leadership contest would inescapably have seemed like a vindication of the Blairite legacy, a declaration that, despite Iraq, the Labour Party believed that the values that informed Blair’s New Labour project were essentially sound. Blairite sections of the Labour Party are bitter that the Miliband brother who was seen as Blair’s natural successor has been robbed of his rightful inheritance by the trade union block vote. That the unions rejected David Miliband reflected enduring Labour feuding between the Blairites and Brownites, with the unions supporting the rhetorically more leftist stance of the latter, but it also testified to the determination of large numbers of working people to purge the party of the moral stain of being associated with a leader whom millions of across the world regard as a war criminal.
The palpable anger on the face of David Miliband when his brother, in his Labour Party conference speech last week, acknowledged that the Iraq war as a mistake suggested among other things that he would not have been speaking in such terms had he become Labour leader. At any rate, David Miliband has now withdrawn from front-line politics and New Labour has lost its standard-bearer. A large part of the raison d’etre of New Labour was to appease vested Western interests, the kind epitomised by the neo-conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Tony Blair fashioned a party that operated on the premise that it was Britain’s destiny to be utterly submissive to globalised free markets and embrace without question the foreign policies of the United States and Israel, irrespective of the consequences for British relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.
It is the mere possibility that a Labour Party led by a politician who might display independence of mind that explains the strident vilification of Ed Miliband. This after all is a peculiarly anxious moment in Britain, as elsewhere, for vested interests, with the coalition government of David Cameron poised to make vast cuts in public expenditure that are certain to have a devastating impact on the lives of millions. For years the assumption has been that following the neo-liberal transformation that Britain underwent at the hands of Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s and that Tony Blair and New Labour did much to entrench, Britain had said a definitive goodbye to left-wing politics. Yet suddenly the possibility has emerged that Britain’s economic ills and the drastic cure that the coalition government of David Cameron is prescribing for them could rekindle the sort of radicalism for which the Labour Party was once a vehicle.
Already there is widespread resentment that the burden of tackling an economic crisis precipitated by bankers and the financial sector should be borne by the public sector and ordinary people. What seems certain to make things especially tricky for the Cameron government is that it is composed to a spectacular degree of the very rich. The key question is whether it is going be democratically viable for hugely wealthy politicians to implement policies that impact disproportionately not just on the poor and disadvantaged, among whom Muslims figure large, but also on those of middle income.
If Britain’s conservative newspapers are fearful to the point of paranoia that a leftist leader of the Labour Party might be able to turn mass hardship to political advantage, it is not without reason. It is a measure of how frantic they are to discredit him that Ed Miliband’s attackers appear not to have noticed the incoherent, not to say ludicrously contradictory, character of their onslaught on his campaign. Even as they smeared him as a ‘red’ menace, a Fidel Castro who could turn Britain into a north European version of Cuba, they scoffed at the Labour Party for electing an utterly implausible leader who is certain to consign it to oblivion.
Meanwhile, it is natural to wonder what Ralph Miliband would be making of the extraordinary power struggle between his clever, furiously ambitious sons, with its echoes of the brutal fratricidal dramas of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. As a socialist who was appalled by US foreign policy, he would have loathed everything about the politics of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Yet now he would surely be rejoicing in the demise of New Labour. The old Marxist firebrand might even be allowing himself to dream impossible dreams.
Neil Berry is a London-based commentator
Having beaten by a whisker his older brother David in the party’s leadership contest, he is being demonised by right-wing columnists as ‘Red Ed’, an inheritor of the revolutionary zeal of his father, the renowned Marxist academic Ralph Miliband, who fled to Britain from Belgium during World War Two as a Jewish refugee from Nazi-dominated Europe and who died in 1994.
Ed Miliband’s detractors focus relentlessly on the fact that he owed his triumph to trades union votes and that by recklessly choosing the ‘wrong’ Miliband the Labour Party has ensured that Britain’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government led by Prime Minister David Cameron will face an opposition party so extreme as to lack all credibility.
In sober truth, there is no great ideological chasm between Ed and David Miliband, any more than there was between their respective mentors, the former Labour leaders and successive British prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. What does distinguish Ed, whose leadership campaign manager was the personable south London Muslim MP Sadiq Khan, is that in contrast to his brother he was not conspicuously involved in the hijacking of the Labour party by Blair and ‘New Labour’. He was not part of the Blair government that turned Britain into an abject stooge of the United States and committed Britain to the catastrophic US-led Iraq War; nor, unlike his brother, who until May of this year was Britain’s Foreign Secretary, has he faced accusations of complicity with the US over the torture of terrorist suspects.
Victory for David Miliband in the leadership contest would inescapably have seemed like a vindication of the Blairite legacy, a declaration that, despite Iraq, the Labour Party believed that the values that informed Blair’s New Labour project were essentially sound. Blairite sections of the Labour Party are bitter that the Miliband brother who was seen as Blair’s natural successor has been robbed of his rightful inheritance by the trade union block vote. That the unions rejected David Miliband reflected enduring Labour feuding between the Blairites and Brownites, with the unions supporting the rhetorically more leftist stance of the latter, but it also testified to the determination of large numbers of working people to purge the party of the moral stain of being associated with a leader whom millions of across the world regard as a war criminal.
The palpable anger on the face of David Miliband when his brother, in his Labour Party conference speech last week, acknowledged that the Iraq war as a mistake suggested among other things that he would not have been speaking in such terms had he become Labour leader. At any rate, David Miliband has now withdrawn from front-line politics and New Labour has lost its standard-bearer. A large part of the raison d’etre of New Labour was to appease vested Western interests, the kind epitomised by the neo-conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Tony Blair fashioned a party that operated on the premise that it was Britain’s destiny to be utterly submissive to globalised free markets and embrace without question the foreign policies of the United States and Israel, irrespective of the consequences for British relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds.
It is the mere possibility that a Labour Party led by a politician who might display independence of mind that explains the strident vilification of Ed Miliband. This after all is a peculiarly anxious moment in Britain, as elsewhere, for vested interests, with the coalition government of David Cameron poised to make vast cuts in public expenditure that are certain to have a devastating impact on the lives of millions. For years the assumption has been that following the neo-liberal transformation that Britain underwent at the hands of Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s and that Tony Blair and New Labour did much to entrench, Britain had said a definitive goodbye to left-wing politics. Yet suddenly the possibility has emerged that Britain’s economic ills and the drastic cure that the coalition government of David Cameron is prescribing for them could rekindle the sort of radicalism for which the Labour Party was once a vehicle.
Already there is widespread resentment that the burden of tackling an economic crisis precipitated by bankers and the financial sector should be borne by the public sector and ordinary people. What seems certain to make things especially tricky for the Cameron government is that it is composed to a spectacular degree of the very rich. The key question is whether it is going be democratically viable for hugely wealthy politicians to implement policies that impact disproportionately not just on the poor and disadvantaged, among whom Muslims figure large, but also on those of middle income.
If Britain’s conservative newspapers are fearful to the point of paranoia that a leftist leader of the Labour Party might be able to turn mass hardship to political advantage, it is not without reason. It is a measure of how frantic they are to discredit him that Ed Miliband’s attackers appear not to have noticed the incoherent, not to say ludicrously contradictory, character of their onslaught on his campaign. Even as they smeared him as a ‘red’ menace, a Fidel Castro who could turn Britain into a north European version of Cuba, they scoffed at the Labour Party for electing an utterly implausible leader who is certain to consign it to oblivion.
Meanwhile, it is natural to wonder what Ralph Miliband would be making of the extraordinary power struggle between his clever, furiously ambitious sons, with its echoes of the brutal fratricidal dramas of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. As a socialist who was appalled by US foreign policy, he would have loathed everything about the politics of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Yet now he would surely be rejoicing in the demise of New Labour. The old Marxist firebrand might even be allowing himself to dream impossible dreams.
Neil Berry is a London-based commentator
When I am 64 Bikram Vohra (between the lines)
You know your age has passed the half-way house and it is all downhill from now on when: You actually know the people in the obit section. Some one says, ‘so how are you?’ and you find you are telling.
You never look at the job section.
You have no idea how to work the Playstation controls.
People tell you to take it easy, slow down, you are not getting any younger, lean back a bit - and you hate them for saying it.
Everyone has advice on cutting out various foods. You never hear enough of it as they babble on about salt, sugar, coffee, tea, fried foods, cigarettes, dairy products, ...oh go away and leave me alone.
You actually read those “I am John’s liver” type of articles in the magazines.
Your hypochondria gallops around like a young colt and every symptom you read about or see on TV you know you have it, no doubt at all.
You spend hours googling your symptoms.
You actually have memories and talk about the good old days when things were cheap.
All the young people suddenly get very busy when you say, ‘let me tell you when I was your age...’
You cannot believe what things cost as compared to your childhood and you can’t wait to share the comparison if you can get someone to stay long enough to listen.
All the job ads are for people old enough to be your son.
Ads on herbal medicines and what they do to your system fascinate you.
Someone sees you playing squash tells you it is dangerous at your age.
Every little twinge in your chest and you start thinking, uh oh, what’s going on here.
Someone you know knows someone who keeled over at 45 and that gives you periodic spasms of terror. Gravity seems to be winning hands down because now life is one big sag.
You wish your metabolism wasn’t such a lazy sod and you didn’t have to beg forgiveness everytime you ate rich food. Less and less food agrees with you.
You go around the house yelling about elec-tricity bills and switching all the lights off. You meet some young guy whose swash hasn’t buckled and he reminds you of what you once were, and you loathe him for it. Then you go home and sadly realise you’ll never run the 400 metres again. Nor play a game of soccer or run up a hill or swim a river.
Someone gives you his card and you spend a minute squeegeeing your eyes to read it; is that number a 6 or an 8 or a 5 squint, squint.
You overhear someone call you that old eccentric.
Your kids tell you this is not your type of a movie, it is too ‘now’. No one in this generation knows who Mal-colm X is.
You find today’s youngsters lazy, shiftless, spoilt, pampered, ill mannered louts ...not much different from what you were.
You go to a party and yearn for a chair to sit in; then you don’t want to get up every time a lady comes in.
All your food intake is on a quota system. The doctor talks about you in third person, like what does he like to eat or how was he feeling this morning and you want to say, hey, I am here, okay talk to me.
You can’t open a lid and you go red in the face trying, and then some kid comes and yanks it off, upstaged, you go looking for Deep Heat.
Your whole breakfast is a saga in roughage and fibre and you actually read the ingredi-ents on the packet to see if you have had 60 per cent of your riboflavin — whatever that is.
You discuss the details of your flipping daily ‘walk’ with others of your age...like who cares, did you ever think you’d do that?
If you do something young at heart your family is embarrassed, like not at your age...well, whyever not?
You actually find you bought a jar of anti-wrinkle cream.
You can’t believe this is the generation which is going to inherit your legacy, I mean what a mess they’ll make of it.
You get all schmaltzy and gooey eyed in the movies, all that soppy sentiment for Mr Onetime Tough Guy-.
Your after-late-night morning recovery time is two mornings, and you like fizzy solutions like fruit salt.
You find yourself obsessed by your diges-tive system and its mysteries.
You wonder where the time went, there was so much of it just yesterday ...it was yesterday, promise, just yesterday and now you are 20 years older.
Bikram Vohra is Editorial Adviser of Khaleej Times. Write to him at bikram@khaleejtimes.com
You never look at the job section.
You have no idea how to work the Playstation controls.
People tell you to take it easy, slow down, you are not getting any younger, lean back a bit - and you hate them for saying it.
Everyone has advice on cutting out various foods. You never hear enough of it as they babble on about salt, sugar, coffee, tea, fried foods, cigarettes, dairy products, ...oh go away and leave me alone.
You actually read those “I am John’s liver” type of articles in the magazines.
Your hypochondria gallops around like a young colt and every symptom you read about or see on TV you know you have it, no doubt at all.
You spend hours googling your symptoms.
You actually have memories and talk about the good old days when things were cheap.
All the young people suddenly get very busy when you say, ‘let me tell you when I was your age...’
You cannot believe what things cost as compared to your childhood and you can’t wait to share the comparison if you can get someone to stay long enough to listen.
All the job ads are for people old enough to be your son.
Ads on herbal medicines and what they do to your system fascinate you.
Someone sees you playing squash tells you it is dangerous at your age.
Every little twinge in your chest and you start thinking, uh oh, what’s going on here.
Someone you know knows someone who keeled over at 45 and that gives you periodic spasms of terror. Gravity seems to be winning hands down because now life is one big sag.
You wish your metabolism wasn’t such a lazy sod and you didn’t have to beg forgiveness everytime you ate rich food. Less and less food agrees with you.
You go around the house yelling about elec-tricity bills and switching all the lights off. You meet some young guy whose swash hasn’t buckled and he reminds you of what you once were, and you loathe him for it. Then you go home and sadly realise you’ll never run the 400 metres again. Nor play a game of soccer or run up a hill or swim a river.
Someone gives you his card and you spend a minute squeegeeing your eyes to read it; is that number a 6 or an 8 or a 5 squint, squint.
You overhear someone call you that old eccentric.
Your kids tell you this is not your type of a movie, it is too ‘now’. No one in this generation knows who Mal-colm X is.
You find today’s youngsters lazy, shiftless, spoilt, pampered, ill mannered louts ...not much different from what you were.
You go to a party and yearn for a chair to sit in; then you don’t want to get up every time a lady comes in.
All your food intake is on a quota system. The doctor talks about you in third person, like what does he like to eat or how was he feeling this morning and you want to say, hey, I am here, okay talk to me.
You can’t open a lid and you go red in the face trying, and then some kid comes and yanks it off, upstaged, you go looking for Deep Heat.
Your whole breakfast is a saga in roughage and fibre and you actually read the ingredi-ents on the packet to see if you have had 60 per cent of your riboflavin — whatever that is.
You discuss the details of your flipping daily ‘walk’ with others of your age...like who cares, did you ever think you’d do that?
If you do something young at heart your family is embarrassed, like not at your age...well, whyever not?
You actually find you bought a jar of anti-wrinkle cream.
You can’t believe this is the generation which is going to inherit your legacy, I mean what a mess they’ll make of it.
You get all schmaltzy and gooey eyed in the movies, all that soppy sentiment for Mr Onetime Tough Guy-.
Your after-late-night morning recovery time is two mornings, and you like fizzy solutions like fruit salt.
You find yourself obsessed by your diges-tive system and its mysteries.
You wonder where the time went, there was so much of it just yesterday ...it was yesterday, promise, just yesterday and now you are 20 years older.
Bikram Vohra is Editorial Adviser of Khaleej Times. Write to him at bikram@khaleejtimes.com
Settlement or settlements Claude Salhani (View from Washington)
The Obama administration is trying a last-ditch effort to revive the dormant Middle East peace negotiations and is pushing hard to get the Palestinians and Israelis to finalise a peace deal before the November mid-term elections in the United States.
Obama has stressed that a Middle East peace accord is in the national interest of the United States. That is undoubtedly true. In the long run the US can only benefit from a peaceful Middle East. But then again, so can the Obama reelection campaign.
However, despite all the pressures from the White House to try and reach an understanding, both sides remain as far from a settlement as they have ever been, with additional hurdles popping up along the way.
It is the very question of settlements that seems to be the new hurdle in the peace talks this time around. Israel wants to continue building settlements on land occupied in the 1967 war. The Palestinians refuse to sit at the negotiating table so long as Israel does not put a halt to settlement expansion. Israel talks about ‘natural extension,’ meaning that as children of settlers reach adulthood and establish families of their own, they will need new homes, and thus the settlements need to grow. Israel calls this ‘natural expansion.’ Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas calls it grabbing Palestinian land, and said he would not return to the negotiating table as long as the question of settlements remains unsettled.
Every time there is an attempt to revive the peace talks a new snag sneaks into the dispute putting a freeze to negotiations. The last time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in the US to confer with President Barak Obama, the Israeli leader insisted that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish State. This time it is the Palestinians who are raising a ruckus.
Will the next meeting raise protests over the continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms and the village of Ghajar in South Lebanon? Part of the dilemma of the Middle East conflict is that the longer the problem lingers, the more complex it becomes. What began as a dispute over real estate 60-some years ago has now turned into a religious conflict, making it all that more difficult to resolve and more explosive.
And this dispute is likely to keep on growing unless stopped. Indeed, Jordan’s King Abdullah II warned American audiences that there would be a new war in the Middle East by the end of the year unless Israel extended its moratorium on building settlements in the West Bank and in Arab East Jerusalem.
The Israeli moratorium on settlement construction ended last Sunday and repeated US requests to Netanyahu were ignored. And if Israel’s foreign minister, the ultra hard-liner Avigdor Lieberman, gets his way the situation may yet further deteriorate.
How likely is that to happen? It seems rather unlikely, but then again, anything can happen in the Middle East. This is the land of miracles, after all. Would the Netanyahu cabinet survive an attempt to sideline Labour from any talks with the Palestinians, as Labour tends to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Yet when I raised the issue of possible deportation of Israeli Arabs, a young Palestinian official working for the Palestine Liberation Organisation, replied, “The difference between the Israeli left and right is that the left will put us aboard air conditioned buses.”
Claude Salhani is a Middle East analyst
Obama has stressed that a Middle East peace accord is in the national interest of the United States. That is undoubtedly true. In the long run the US can only benefit from a peaceful Middle East. But then again, so can the Obama reelection campaign.
However, despite all the pressures from the White House to try and reach an understanding, both sides remain as far from a settlement as they have ever been, with additional hurdles popping up along the way.
It is the very question of settlements that seems to be the new hurdle in the peace talks this time around. Israel wants to continue building settlements on land occupied in the 1967 war. The Palestinians refuse to sit at the negotiating table so long as Israel does not put a halt to settlement expansion. Israel talks about ‘natural extension,’ meaning that as children of settlers reach adulthood and establish families of their own, they will need new homes, and thus the settlements need to grow. Israel calls this ‘natural expansion.’ Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas calls it grabbing Palestinian land, and said he would not return to the negotiating table as long as the question of settlements remains unsettled.
Every time there is an attempt to revive the peace talks a new snag sneaks into the dispute putting a freeze to negotiations. The last time when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in the US to confer with President Barak Obama, the Israeli leader insisted that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish State. This time it is the Palestinians who are raising a ruckus.
Will the next meeting raise protests over the continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms and the village of Ghajar in South Lebanon? Part of the dilemma of the Middle East conflict is that the longer the problem lingers, the more complex it becomes. What began as a dispute over real estate 60-some years ago has now turned into a religious conflict, making it all that more difficult to resolve and more explosive.
And this dispute is likely to keep on growing unless stopped. Indeed, Jordan’s King Abdullah II warned American audiences that there would be a new war in the Middle East by the end of the year unless Israel extended its moratorium on building settlements in the West Bank and in Arab East Jerusalem.
The Israeli moratorium on settlement construction ended last Sunday and repeated US requests to Netanyahu were ignored. And if Israel’s foreign minister, the ultra hard-liner Avigdor Lieberman, gets his way the situation may yet further deteriorate.
How likely is that to happen? It seems rather unlikely, but then again, anything can happen in the Middle East. This is the land of miracles, after all. Would the Netanyahu cabinet survive an attempt to sideline Labour from any talks with the Palestinians, as Labour tends to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Yet when I raised the issue of possible deportation of Israeli Arabs, a young Palestinian official working for the Palestine Liberation Organisation, replied, “The difference between the Israeli left and right is that the left will put us aboard air conditioned buses.”
Claude Salhani is a Middle East analyst
Evil of our circumstances Ayaz Amir (Pakistan)
The Pakistani predicament cannot be understood or fully explained without a reference to history. We are what we are in large part because of the circumstances of our birth. That we were unprepared for statehood was no big disability.
Nations learn on the march and we could have done the same. But we were scarred by something else. Our vision of statehood was very limited. In that sense it was flawed.
Partition and independent statehood should have meant a liberation of the spirit, a broadening of our mental horizons. But in our endeavour to construct an ideological state, resting on a system of thought, which drew inspiration from the past, we set about erecting high walls and embankments around national thought. We should have been a progressive nation. We became instead an outpost of reactionary thinking.
To a large extent this reflected the kind of leadership we had. The Indian national movement had produced a whole range of outstanding leaders, spanning the political spectrum from right to left. With the perennial exception of Jinnah and one or two others, the leadership of the Muslim League was plodding and lustreless, nawabs and sardars drawn mostly from the aristocracy and the landed class. Such a leadership could not create a progressive nation.
There was another vital difference between the Indian national movement and the movement for the creation of Pakistan. The former struggled for independence from the British whereas the primary aim of the latter was to seek safeguards for the Muslim community against the Hindu majority.
Jinnah was amongst the first of the Indian nationalists. We must always bear this in mind. But on the whole the Muslim League leadership was not in the forefront of the fight against the British. That was not part of their outlook. Worried about the future they sought bulwarks against Hindu rule. And, given their social background, they were mortally afraid of anything that carried even a remote hint of socialism.
This was not a fighting mentality. This was a defensive mentality and its nature put a stamp on the texture and psychology of the new state. Small wonder then that audacity and the taking of risks, the ability to think big, were not the defining characteristics of our birth.
We did not prosecute the Kashmir war, 1947-48, with the vigour that the enterprise deserved. Jinnah was an ailing person and the men around him, a few exceptions apart, were men of straw. Where we should have lost no time in drawing up a constitution we wasted time in theological debates, one outcome of which was the Objectives Resolution.
Where we should have abolished feudalism and distributed Hindu property equitably, we allowed feudalism to retain its stranglehold in West Pakistan (East Pakistan being different) and distributed evacuee property on the basis of self-filed claims, opening the door to widespread graft and forgery.
The dominance of the bureaucracy over state affairs was no accident. The calibre of the Muslim League leadership almost invited bureaucratic meddling and interference. The higher bureaucracy being deeply conservative in nature, its growing influence meant a predisposition towards a policy of dependence upon the West. Our status as the United States’ most allied ally and our membership of the anti-Communist alliance were thus foreordained.
Our geographic location or, as we are wont to say, our strategic location, at the crossroads of history and the march of empires, should have given us confidence and strengthened a spirit of independence. In our case it gave rise to a sepoy mentality: a willingness to serve foreign interests at minimum wages. Before independence our so-called martial races served most loyally the British Empire. After independence our army has felt little qualms in serving American interests under one guise or the other.
So many things have changed over the years but this aspect of our national policy remains fixed in stone. We concluded our first military agreement with the US in 1951. Sixty odd years later we remain locked in America’s military embrace, fighting a war whose direction and purpose are defined by the US.
In India it was the quality of the leadership thrown up by the independence movement, which ensured civilian dominance over the military. In Pakistan it was the sub-standard quality of the political leadership, which ensured the military’s dominance over decision-making. Given the material at hand, no other outcome was possible.
Pakistan also suffers from another disability: the overweening influence of Punjab in all matters great and small. Punjab’s has been the dominant hand and, more importantly, the dominant thinking in shaping Pakistan. East Pakistan was pushed towards separatism because Punjab could not accommodate East Pakistani aspirations. Punjabi judges, acting in concert with Gen Zia (as his willing accomplices), hanged Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. When Pakistan’s accounts before the final judgment seat are drawn up, Punjabi generals, mandarins and senior judges will have much to answer for.
The ideology of Pakistan is largely a Punjabi artefact. Pakistan as fortress-of-Islam is also, for the most part, a Punjabi concept. Islamabad as Pakistan’s capital is a Punjab idea. For much of Pakistan’s history the Punjabi elites and the army high command have marched to the same tune.
No wonder, Pakistan’s affairs are in such a mess. Through an accident of history Punjab is propelled into a position of leadership and it makes a mess of the whole thing.
Punjab and the army are synonymous. Punjab and the ISI are synonymous. Punjab and the threat from India are synonymous. The ideological state dedicated to a very primitive notion of national security—underpinned by huge outlays on defence—which we have created, is a Punjabi invention. The remaking of Pakistan has to begin with dismantling the national security state. Otherwise the sepoy mentality will remain alive and our begging bowl will not break.
The Delhi Sultanate, beginning with Qutbuddin Aibak and ending with Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi, and the Mughal Empire, from Babar onwards, were not fortresses of Islam. They were secular enterprises resting upon a superiority of arms and a vision of government in which the highest posts were occupied by the Muslim aristocracy but which, lower down the rung, allowed room for votaries of other faiths. This was out of necessity because such a vast kingdom could not be administered on sectarian or exclusivist lines.
The greatest Muslim kings and emperors of India were those who were the least bigoted. The worst were champions of fanaticism such as Aurangzeb. The Mughal Empire’s tragedy was Aurangzeb’s victory in the war of succession, which broke out during the lifetime of the Emperor Shahjehan. For the future of the empire Dara Shikoh, genial and tolerant, would have been a far better choice.
Pakistan’s problem is the blinkers on the eyes of its governing classes. There has to be a liberation of the mind, a cultural revolution, before Pakistan can emerge from the shadows into the light. And before it can leave the sorrows of the past behind.
Ayaz Amir is a distinguished Pakistani commentator and Member of National Assembly (parliament). For comments, write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com
Nations learn on the march and we could have done the same. But we were scarred by something else. Our vision of statehood was very limited. In that sense it was flawed.
Partition and independent statehood should have meant a liberation of the spirit, a broadening of our mental horizons. But in our endeavour to construct an ideological state, resting on a system of thought, which drew inspiration from the past, we set about erecting high walls and embankments around national thought. We should have been a progressive nation. We became instead an outpost of reactionary thinking.
To a large extent this reflected the kind of leadership we had. The Indian national movement had produced a whole range of outstanding leaders, spanning the political spectrum from right to left. With the perennial exception of Jinnah and one or two others, the leadership of the Muslim League was plodding and lustreless, nawabs and sardars drawn mostly from the aristocracy and the landed class. Such a leadership could not create a progressive nation.
There was another vital difference between the Indian national movement and the movement for the creation of Pakistan. The former struggled for independence from the British whereas the primary aim of the latter was to seek safeguards for the Muslim community against the Hindu majority.
Jinnah was amongst the first of the Indian nationalists. We must always bear this in mind. But on the whole the Muslim League leadership was not in the forefront of the fight against the British. That was not part of their outlook. Worried about the future they sought bulwarks against Hindu rule. And, given their social background, they were mortally afraid of anything that carried even a remote hint of socialism.
This was not a fighting mentality. This was a defensive mentality and its nature put a stamp on the texture and psychology of the new state. Small wonder then that audacity and the taking of risks, the ability to think big, were not the defining characteristics of our birth.
We did not prosecute the Kashmir war, 1947-48, with the vigour that the enterprise deserved. Jinnah was an ailing person and the men around him, a few exceptions apart, were men of straw. Where we should have lost no time in drawing up a constitution we wasted time in theological debates, one outcome of which was the Objectives Resolution.
Where we should have abolished feudalism and distributed Hindu property equitably, we allowed feudalism to retain its stranglehold in West Pakistan (East Pakistan being different) and distributed evacuee property on the basis of self-filed claims, opening the door to widespread graft and forgery.
The dominance of the bureaucracy over state affairs was no accident. The calibre of the Muslim League leadership almost invited bureaucratic meddling and interference. The higher bureaucracy being deeply conservative in nature, its growing influence meant a predisposition towards a policy of dependence upon the West. Our status as the United States’ most allied ally and our membership of the anti-Communist alliance were thus foreordained.
Our geographic location or, as we are wont to say, our strategic location, at the crossroads of history and the march of empires, should have given us confidence and strengthened a spirit of independence. In our case it gave rise to a sepoy mentality: a willingness to serve foreign interests at minimum wages. Before independence our so-called martial races served most loyally the British Empire. After independence our army has felt little qualms in serving American interests under one guise or the other.
So many things have changed over the years but this aspect of our national policy remains fixed in stone. We concluded our first military agreement with the US in 1951. Sixty odd years later we remain locked in America’s military embrace, fighting a war whose direction and purpose are defined by the US.
In India it was the quality of the leadership thrown up by the independence movement, which ensured civilian dominance over the military. In Pakistan it was the sub-standard quality of the political leadership, which ensured the military’s dominance over decision-making. Given the material at hand, no other outcome was possible.
Pakistan also suffers from another disability: the overweening influence of Punjab in all matters great and small. Punjab’s has been the dominant hand and, more importantly, the dominant thinking in shaping Pakistan. East Pakistan was pushed towards separatism because Punjab could not accommodate East Pakistani aspirations. Punjabi judges, acting in concert with Gen Zia (as his willing accomplices), hanged Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. When Pakistan’s accounts before the final judgment seat are drawn up, Punjabi generals, mandarins and senior judges will have much to answer for.
The ideology of Pakistan is largely a Punjabi artefact. Pakistan as fortress-of-Islam is also, for the most part, a Punjabi concept. Islamabad as Pakistan’s capital is a Punjab idea. For much of Pakistan’s history the Punjabi elites and the army high command have marched to the same tune.
No wonder, Pakistan’s affairs are in such a mess. Through an accident of history Punjab is propelled into a position of leadership and it makes a mess of the whole thing.
Punjab and the army are synonymous. Punjab and the ISI are synonymous. Punjab and the threat from India are synonymous. The ideological state dedicated to a very primitive notion of national security—underpinned by huge outlays on defence—which we have created, is a Punjabi invention. The remaking of Pakistan has to begin with dismantling the national security state. Otherwise the sepoy mentality will remain alive and our begging bowl will not break.
The Delhi Sultanate, beginning with Qutbuddin Aibak and ending with Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi, and the Mughal Empire, from Babar onwards, were not fortresses of Islam. They were secular enterprises resting upon a superiority of arms and a vision of government in which the highest posts were occupied by the Muslim aristocracy but which, lower down the rung, allowed room for votaries of other faiths. This was out of necessity because such a vast kingdom could not be administered on sectarian or exclusivist lines.
The greatest Muslim kings and emperors of India were those who were the least bigoted. The worst were champions of fanaticism such as Aurangzeb. The Mughal Empire’s tragedy was Aurangzeb’s victory in the war of succession, which broke out during the lifetime of the Emperor Shahjehan. For the future of the empire Dara Shikoh, genial and tolerant, would have been a far better choice.
Pakistan’s problem is the blinkers on the eyes of its governing classes. There has to be a liberation of the mind, a cultural revolution, before Pakistan can emerge from the shadows into the light. And before it can leave the sorrows of the past behind.
Ayaz Amir is a distinguished Pakistani commentator and Member of National Assembly (parliament). For comments, write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com
Evil of our circumstances Ayaz Amir (Pakistan)
The Pakistani predicament cannot be understood or fully explained without a reference to history. We are what we are in large part because of the circumstances of our birth. That we were unprepared for statehood was no big disability.
Nations learn on the march and we could have done the same. But we were scarred by something else. Our vision of statehood was very limited. In that sense it was flawed.
Partition and independent statehood should have meant a liberation of the spirit, a broadening of our mental horizons. But in our endeavour to construct an ideological state, resting on a system of thought, which drew inspiration from the past, we set about erecting high walls and embankments around national thought. We should have been a progressive nation. We became instead an outpost of reactionary thinking.
To a large extent this reflected the kind of leadership we had. The Indian national movement had produced a whole range of outstanding leaders, spanning the political spectrum from right to left. With the perennial exception of Jinnah and one or two others, the leadership of the Muslim League was plodding and lustreless, nawabs and sardars drawn mostly from the aristocracy and the landed class. Such a leadership could not create a progressive nation.
There was another vital difference between the Indian national movement and the movement for the creation of Pakistan. The former struggled for independence from the British whereas the primary aim of the latter was to seek safeguards for the Muslim community against the Hindu majority.
Jinnah was amongst the first of the Indian nationalists. We must always bear this in mind. But on the whole the Muslim League leadership was not in the forefront of the fight against the British. That was not part of their outlook. Worried about the future they sought bulwarks against Hindu rule. And, given their social background, they were mortally afraid of anything that carried even a remote hint of socialism.
This was not a fighting mentality. This was a defensive mentality and its nature put a stamp on the texture and psychology of the new state. Small wonder then that audacity and the taking of risks, the ability to think big, were not the defining characteristics of our birth.
We did not prosecute the Kashmir war, 1947-48, with the vigour that the enterprise deserved. Jinnah was an ailing person and the men around him, a few exceptions apart, were men of straw. Where we should have lost no time in drawing up a constitution we wasted time in theological debates, one outcome of which was the Objectives Resolution.
Where we should have abolished feudalism and distributed Hindu property equitably, we allowed feudalism to retain its stranglehold in West Pakistan (East Pakistan being different) and distributed evacuee property on the basis of self-filed claims, opening the door to widespread graft and forgery.
The dominance of the bureaucracy over state affairs was no accident. The calibre of the Muslim League leadership almost invited bureaucratic meddling and interference. The higher bureaucracy being deeply conservative in nature, its growing influence meant a predisposition towards a policy of dependence upon the West. Our status as the United States’ most allied ally and our membership of the anti-Communist alliance were thus foreordained.
Our geographic location or, as we are wont to say, our strategic location, at the crossroads of history and the march of empires, should have given us confidence and strengthened a spirit of independence. In our case it gave rise to a sepoy mentality: a willingness to serve foreign interests at minimum wages. Before independence our so-called martial races served most loyally the British Empire. After independence our army has felt little qualms in serving American interests under one guise or the other.
So many things have changed over the years but this aspect of our national policy remains fixed in stone. We concluded our first military agreement with the US in 1951. Sixty odd years later we remain locked in America’s military embrace, fighting a war whose direction and purpose are defined by the US.
In India it was the quality of the leadership thrown up by the independence movement, which ensured civilian dominance over the military. In Pakistan it was the sub-standard quality of the political leadership, which ensured the military’s dominance over decision-making. Given the material at hand, no other outcome was possible.
Pakistan also suffers from another disability: the overweening influence of Punjab in all matters great and small. Punjab’s has been the dominant hand and, more importantly, the dominant thinking in shaping Pakistan. East Pakistan was pushed towards separatism because Punjab could not accommodate East Pakistani aspirations. Punjabi judges, acting in concert with Gen Zia (as his willing accomplices), hanged Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. When Pakistan’s accounts before the final judgment seat are drawn up, Punjabi generals, mandarins and senior judges will have much to answer for.
The ideology of Pakistan is largely a Punjabi artefact. Pakistan as fortress-of-Islam is also, for the most part, a Punjabi concept. Islamabad as Pakistan’s capital is a Punjab idea. For much of Pakistan’s history the Punjabi elites and the army high command have marched to the same tune.
No wonder, Pakistan’s affairs are in such a mess. Through an accident of history Punjab is propelled into a position of leadership and it makes a mess of the whole thing.
Punjab and the army are synonymous. Punjab and the ISI are synonymous. Punjab and the threat from India are synonymous. The ideological state dedicated to a very primitive notion of national security—underpinned by huge outlays on defence—which we have created, is a Punjabi invention. The remaking of Pakistan has to begin with dismantling the national security state. Otherwise the sepoy mentality will remain alive and our begging bowl will not break.
The Delhi Sultanate, beginning with Qutbuddin Aibak and ending with Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi, and the Mughal Empire, from Babar onwards, were not fortresses of Islam. They were secular enterprises resting upon a superiority of arms and a vision of government in which the highest posts were occupied by the Muslim aristocracy but which, lower down the rung, allowed room for votaries of other faiths. This was out of necessity because such a vast kingdom could not be administered on sectarian or exclusivist lines.
The greatest Muslim kings and emperors of India were those who were the least bigoted. The worst were champions of fanaticism such as Aurangzeb. The Mughal Empire’s tragedy was Aurangzeb’s victory in the war of succession, which broke out during the lifetime of the Emperor Shahjehan. For the future of the empire Dara Shikoh, genial and tolerant, would have been a far better choice.
Pakistan’s problem is the blinkers on the eyes of its governing classes. There has to be a liberation of the mind, a cultural revolution, before Pakistan can emerge from the shadows into the light. And before it can leave the sorrows of the past behind.
Ayaz Amir is a distinguished Pakistani commentator and Member of National Assembly (parliament). For comments, write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com
Nations learn on the march and we could have done the same. But we were scarred by something else. Our vision of statehood was very limited. In that sense it was flawed.
Partition and independent statehood should have meant a liberation of the spirit, a broadening of our mental horizons. But in our endeavour to construct an ideological state, resting on a system of thought, which drew inspiration from the past, we set about erecting high walls and embankments around national thought. We should have been a progressive nation. We became instead an outpost of reactionary thinking.
To a large extent this reflected the kind of leadership we had. The Indian national movement had produced a whole range of outstanding leaders, spanning the political spectrum from right to left. With the perennial exception of Jinnah and one or two others, the leadership of the Muslim League was plodding and lustreless, nawabs and sardars drawn mostly from the aristocracy and the landed class. Such a leadership could not create a progressive nation.
There was another vital difference between the Indian national movement and the movement for the creation of Pakistan. The former struggled for independence from the British whereas the primary aim of the latter was to seek safeguards for the Muslim community against the Hindu majority.
Jinnah was amongst the first of the Indian nationalists. We must always bear this in mind. But on the whole the Muslim League leadership was not in the forefront of the fight against the British. That was not part of their outlook. Worried about the future they sought bulwarks against Hindu rule. And, given their social background, they were mortally afraid of anything that carried even a remote hint of socialism.
This was not a fighting mentality. This was a defensive mentality and its nature put a stamp on the texture and psychology of the new state. Small wonder then that audacity and the taking of risks, the ability to think big, were not the defining characteristics of our birth.
We did not prosecute the Kashmir war, 1947-48, with the vigour that the enterprise deserved. Jinnah was an ailing person and the men around him, a few exceptions apart, were men of straw. Where we should have lost no time in drawing up a constitution we wasted time in theological debates, one outcome of which was the Objectives Resolution.
Where we should have abolished feudalism and distributed Hindu property equitably, we allowed feudalism to retain its stranglehold in West Pakistan (East Pakistan being different) and distributed evacuee property on the basis of self-filed claims, opening the door to widespread graft and forgery.
The dominance of the bureaucracy over state affairs was no accident. The calibre of the Muslim League leadership almost invited bureaucratic meddling and interference. The higher bureaucracy being deeply conservative in nature, its growing influence meant a predisposition towards a policy of dependence upon the West. Our status as the United States’ most allied ally and our membership of the anti-Communist alliance were thus foreordained.
Our geographic location or, as we are wont to say, our strategic location, at the crossroads of history and the march of empires, should have given us confidence and strengthened a spirit of independence. In our case it gave rise to a sepoy mentality: a willingness to serve foreign interests at minimum wages. Before independence our so-called martial races served most loyally the British Empire. After independence our army has felt little qualms in serving American interests under one guise or the other.
So many things have changed over the years but this aspect of our national policy remains fixed in stone. We concluded our first military agreement with the US in 1951. Sixty odd years later we remain locked in America’s military embrace, fighting a war whose direction and purpose are defined by the US.
In India it was the quality of the leadership thrown up by the independence movement, which ensured civilian dominance over the military. In Pakistan it was the sub-standard quality of the political leadership, which ensured the military’s dominance over decision-making. Given the material at hand, no other outcome was possible.
Pakistan also suffers from another disability: the overweening influence of Punjab in all matters great and small. Punjab’s has been the dominant hand and, more importantly, the dominant thinking in shaping Pakistan. East Pakistan was pushed towards separatism because Punjab could not accommodate East Pakistani aspirations. Punjabi judges, acting in concert with Gen Zia (as his willing accomplices), hanged Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. When Pakistan’s accounts before the final judgment seat are drawn up, Punjabi generals, mandarins and senior judges will have much to answer for.
The ideology of Pakistan is largely a Punjabi artefact. Pakistan as fortress-of-Islam is also, for the most part, a Punjabi concept. Islamabad as Pakistan’s capital is a Punjab idea. For much of Pakistan’s history the Punjabi elites and the army high command have marched to the same tune.
No wonder, Pakistan’s affairs are in such a mess. Through an accident of history Punjab is propelled into a position of leadership and it makes a mess of the whole thing.
Punjab and the army are synonymous. Punjab and the ISI are synonymous. Punjab and the threat from India are synonymous. The ideological state dedicated to a very primitive notion of national security—underpinned by huge outlays on defence—which we have created, is a Punjabi invention. The remaking of Pakistan has to begin with dismantling the national security state. Otherwise the sepoy mentality will remain alive and our begging bowl will not break.
The Delhi Sultanate, beginning with Qutbuddin Aibak and ending with Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi, and the Mughal Empire, from Babar onwards, were not fortresses of Islam. They were secular enterprises resting upon a superiority of arms and a vision of government in which the highest posts were occupied by the Muslim aristocracy but which, lower down the rung, allowed room for votaries of other faiths. This was out of necessity because such a vast kingdom could not be administered on sectarian or exclusivist lines.
The greatest Muslim kings and emperors of India were those who were the least bigoted. The worst were champions of fanaticism such as Aurangzeb. The Mughal Empire’s tragedy was Aurangzeb’s victory in the war of succession, which broke out during the lifetime of the Emperor Shahjehan. For the future of the empire Dara Shikoh, genial and tolerant, would have been a far better choice.
Pakistan’s problem is the blinkers on the eyes of its governing classes. There has to be a liberation of the mind, a cultural revolution, before Pakistan can emerge from the shadows into the light. And before it can leave the sorrows of the past behind.
Ayaz Amir is a distinguished Pakistani commentator and Member of National Assembly (parliament). For comments, write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com
Too Funny for Words By PETER FUNT
WHEN my dad, Allen Funt, produced “Candid Microphone” back in the mid-1940s, he used a clever ruse to titillate listeners. A few times per show he’d edit out an innocent word or phrase and replace it with a recording of a sultry woman’s voice saying, “Censored.” Audiences always laughed at the thought that something dirty had been said, even though it hadn’t.
When “Candid Camera” came to television, the female voice was replaced by a bleep and a graphic that flashed “Censored!” As my father and I learned over decades of production, ordinary folks don’t really curse much in routine conversation — even when mildly agitated — but audiences love to think otherwise.
By the mid-1950s, TV’s standards and practices people decided Dad’s gimmick was an unacceptable deception. There would be no further censoring of clean words.
I thought about all this when CBS started broadcasting a show last week titled “$#*! My Dad Says,” which the network insists with a wink should be pronounced “Bleep My Dad Says.” There is, of course, no mystery whatsoever about what the $-word stands for, because the show is based on a highly popular Twitter feed, using the real word, in which a clever guy named Justin Halpern quotes the humorous, often foul utterances of his father, Sam.
Bleeping is broadcasting’s biggest deal. Even on basic cable, the new generation of “reality” shows like “Jersey Shore” bleep like crazy, as do infotainment series like “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” where scripted curses take on an anti-establishment edge when bleeped in a contrived bit of post-production. This season there is even a cable series about relationships titled “Who the (Bleep) Did I Marry?” — in which “bleep” isn’t subbing for any word in particular. The comedian Drew Carey is developing a series that CBS has decided to call “WTF!” Still winking, the network says this one stands for “Wow That’s Funny!”
Although mainstream broadcasters won a battle against censorship over the summer when a federal appeals court struck down some elements of the Federal Communications Commission’s restrictions on objectionable language, they’ve always been more driven by self-censorship than by the government-mandated kind. Eager to help are advertisers and watchdog groups, each appearing to take a tough stand on language while actually reveling in the double entendre.
For example, my father and I didn’t run across many dirty words when recording everyday conversation, but we did find that people use the terms “God” and “Jesus” frequently — often in a gentle context, like “Oh, my God” — and this, it turned out, worried broadcasting executives even more than swearing. If someone said “Jesus” in a “Candid Camera” scene, CBS made us bleep it, leaving viewers to assume that a truly foul word had been spoken. And that seemed fine with CBS, because what mainstream TV likes best is the perception of naughtiness.
TV’s often-hypocritical approach to censorship was given its grandest showcase back in 1972, when the comedian George Carlin first took note of “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” The bit was recreated on stage at the Kennedy Center a few years ago in a posthumous tribute to Carlin, but all the words were bleeped — not only for the PBS audience but for the theatergoers as well.
Many who saw the show believed the bleeped version played funnier. After all, when Bill Maher and his guests unleash a stream of nasty words on HBO, it’s little more than barroom banter. But when Jon Stewart says the same words, knowing they’ll be bleeped, it revs up the crowd while also seeming to challenge the censors.
In its July ruling, the appeals court concluded, “By prohibiting all ‘patently offensive’ references to sex ... without giving adequate guidance as to what ‘patently offensive’ means, the F.C.C. effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the F.C.C. will find offensive.” That’s quite reasonable — and totally beside the point. Most producers understand that when it comes to language, the sizzle has far more appeal than the steak. Broadcasters keep jousting with the F.C.C. begging not to be thrown in the briar patch of censorship, because that’s really where they most want to be.
Jimmy Kimmel has come up with a segment for his late-night ABC program called “This Week in Unnecessary Censorship.” He bleeps ordinary words in clips to make them seem obscene. How bleepin’ dare he! Censorship, it seems, remains one of the most entertaining things on television.
Peter Funt writes about social issues on his Web site, Candid Camera.
When “Candid Camera” came to television, the female voice was replaced by a bleep and a graphic that flashed “Censored!” As my father and I learned over decades of production, ordinary folks don’t really curse much in routine conversation — even when mildly agitated — but audiences love to think otherwise.
By the mid-1950s, TV’s standards and practices people decided Dad’s gimmick was an unacceptable deception. There would be no further censoring of clean words.
I thought about all this when CBS started broadcasting a show last week titled “$#*! My Dad Says,” which the network insists with a wink should be pronounced “Bleep My Dad Says.” There is, of course, no mystery whatsoever about what the $-word stands for, because the show is based on a highly popular Twitter feed, using the real word, in which a clever guy named Justin Halpern quotes the humorous, often foul utterances of his father, Sam.
Bleeping is broadcasting’s biggest deal. Even on basic cable, the new generation of “reality” shows like “Jersey Shore” bleep like crazy, as do infotainment series like “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” where scripted curses take on an anti-establishment edge when bleeped in a contrived bit of post-production. This season there is even a cable series about relationships titled “Who the (Bleep) Did I Marry?” — in which “bleep” isn’t subbing for any word in particular. The comedian Drew Carey is developing a series that CBS has decided to call “WTF!” Still winking, the network says this one stands for “Wow That’s Funny!”
Although mainstream broadcasters won a battle against censorship over the summer when a federal appeals court struck down some elements of the Federal Communications Commission’s restrictions on objectionable language, they’ve always been more driven by self-censorship than by the government-mandated kind. Eager to help are advertisers and watchdog groups, each appearing to take a tough stand on language while actually reveling in the double entendre.
For example, my father and I didn’t run across many dirty words when recording everyday conversation, but we did find that people use the terms “God” and “Jesus” frequently — often in a gentle context, like “Oh, my God” — and this, it turned out, worried broadcasting executives even more than swearing. If someone said “Jesus” in a “Candid Camera” scene, CBS made us bleep it, leaving viewers to assume that a truly foul word had been spoken. And that seemed fine with CBS, because what mainstream TV likes best is the perception of naughtiness.
TV’s often-hypocritical approach to censorship was given its grandest showcase back in 1972, when the comedian George Carlin first took note of “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” The bit was recreated on stage at the Kennedy Center a few years ago in a posthumous tribute to Carlin, but all the words were bleeped — not only for the PBS audience but for the theatergoers as well.
Many who saw the show believed the bleeped version played funnier. After all, when Bill Maher and his guests unleash a stream of nasty words on HBO, it’s little more than barroom banter. But when Jon Stewart says the same words, knowing they’ll be bleeped, it revs up the crowd while also seeming to challenge the censors.
In its July ruling, the appeals court concluded, “By prohibiting all ‘patently offensive’ references to sex ... without giving adequate guidance as to what ‘patently offensive’ means, the F.C.C. effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the F.C.C. will find offensive.” That’s quite reasonable — and totally beside the point. Most producers understand that when it comes to language, the sizzle has far more appeal than the steak. Broadcasters keep jousting with the F.C.C. begging not to be thrown in the briar patch of censorship, because that’s really where they most want to be.
Jimmy Kimmel has come up with a segment for his late-night ABC program called “This Week in Unnecessary Censorship.” He bleeps ordinary words in clips to make them seem obscene. How bleepin’ dare he! Censorship, it seems, remains one of the most entertaining things on television.
Peter Funt writes about social issues on his Web site, Candid Camera.
Musharraf on the comeback trail By Irfan Husain
They say old soldiers never die; they just fade away. This is certainly not true of Pervez Musharraf. This ageing warrior just refuses to slip quietly into graceful retirement, clearly preferring the limelight to the joys of playing with his grandchildren, and doing a bit of light gardening.
As if earning a fair bit of money on the lecture circuit to supplement his army pension wasn’t enough, he will have announced the launch of his political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), by the time you read this. Clearly, he feels there are not enough variations on the Muslim League theme already in existence.
Listening to him in the Intelligence Squared talk at the Kensington Town Hall in London the other night, I was struck by his apparent popularity among educated Brits. While there were many Pakistani-British citizens in the audience, there were a surprising number of locals in the large hall, and at £20 per ticket, Musharraf must have been pleased at the take.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the event was the series of fluffy questions put to the former Pakistani general by the interviewer, Christopher Meyer. The British ex-diplomat was obsequious to the point of servility. Even when Musharraf was obviously stretching the truth, Meyer refused to pin him down. In encouraging Musharraf to perpetuate the myth of the necessity of military intervention, Meyer displayed his own ignorance, as well as his contempt for democratic principles.
In his lengthy replies to the cringe-making questions, Musharraf not only justified his own coup, but seemed to signal encouragement for his successor to put pressure on this government. As he said, army commanders were forced to intervene because “people kept urging us to do something to save Pakistan”.
Obviously, he was referring to out-of-power politicians who have so often served as cheerleaders to dictators. The follow-up question Meyer ought to have asked is why should army generals encourage such opportunists to come to them in the first place.
In the question-and-answer session, I asked Musharraf about the UN report on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. The commission had clearly identified gaping security flaws, and strongly accused the Musharraf government of neglecting the most basic safeguards despite the dangers posed to the ex-prime minister. Her security arrangements were far less stringent than the measures provided for him.
My question and Musharraf’s waffling response have been reported in the Guardian which quotes him repeating the old line that she was killed because she stood up in her vehicle. He said nothing about why the crowd was allowed to approach her car in the first place, and nor why the spot was hosed down immediately to prevent a forensic examination of the crime scene. As we were not permitted any follow-up questions, Musharraf was allowed to get away with his untruthful version.
Musharraf’s half-baked effort to return to power by forming his own political party has relevance only in the light of certain recent events and statements. First, Altaf Hussain’s bizarre exhortation to “patriotic generals to take martial law-like steps” to intervene. Next, the New York Times has reported on the recent meeting between the army chief, the prime minister and the president, suggesting strongly that the message given by Kayani to his nominal political masters is that they had better get their act together.
These are not isolated reports. Pakistani TV channels have been full of highly speculative stories and comments about imminent changes. Against this background of spin and character assassination, the formation of the APML takes on some significance. Should mid-term elections be called, the MQM will almost certainly jump on board Musharraf’s bandwagon, as will all the Muslim League factions not in Nawaz Sharif’s camp. And once the independents, opportunistic lotas and Islamic parties see which way the wind is blowing, they too will cast their lot with Musharraf. Waverers will no doubt be persuaded to sign up by our politically astute intelligence agencies.
In this scenario, a new dispensation that can form a government without either the PPP or the PML-N will emerge with the tacit support of the army and the Americans. Both these elements are clearly fed up with this government, but are reluctant to see yet another round of martial law.
For the Americans, a strong, stable government is required if they are to succeed in implementing a workable exit strategy from Afghanistan. Our army is bogged down in a difficult campaign against the extremists, and must coordinate the endgame in Afghanistan with Washington. The last thing it needs presently is the distraction of having to run the government. Our generals have all the powers and the independence they require without the flak and the hassle of having to stage a coup.
Both the major political parties have only themselves to blame for the mess we are in. By refusing to cooperate, they risk being out in the cold yet again, just as they were during Musharraf’s nine years in power. I can see that Nawaz Sharif has little to gain by supporting this government. Clearly, his calculation is that by the time it finishes its term, the PPP will be so discredited that it will be a spent political force for the foreseeable future.
Had the situation been normal, this would have been a perfectly sensible political decision. However, in Pakistan, we hardly ever have the luxury of normality. Although Asif Zardari appears to have signalled his refusal to leave quietly, pressure seems to be building up for quasi-constitutional change. Once this happens, and the powerful establishment swings into action, any mid-term elections will not reflect the popular will. Charges of rigging will be largely ignored, and hey, presto! Musharraf will be back in the saddle.
As opinion polls indicate, this government has done little to endear itself to us, so few tears will be shed over its demise. One way of saving the system is for Nawaz Sharif to accept the PPP’s long-standing offer to enter into a coalition with it. This would send out a powerful signal to all those who seek to hijack power. Indeed, a strong coalition might also improve governance.
Both parties have a vested interest in blocking the ongoing moves to sideline them, and in a rational world, they would join hands to save democracy. But as we know to our cost, common sense is a most uncommon commodity in Pakistan.
irfanhusain@gmail.com
As if earning a fair bit of money on the lecture circuit to supplement his army pension wasn’t enough, he will have announced the launch of his political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), by the time you read this. Clearly, he feels there are not enough variations on the Muslim League theme already in existence.
Listening to him in the Intelligence Squared talk at the Kensington Town Hall in London the other night, I was struck by his apparent popularity among educated Brits. While there were many Pakistani-British citizens in the audience, there were a surprising number of locals in the large hall, and at £20 per ticket, Musharraf must have been pleased at the take.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the event was the series of fluffy questions put to the former Pakistani general by the interviewer, Christopher Meyer. The British ex-diplomat was obsequious to the point of servility. Even when Musharraf was obviously stretching the truth, Meyer refused to pin him down. In encouraging Musharraf to perpetuate the myth of the necessity of military intervention, Meyer displayed his own ignorance, as well as his contempt for democratic principles.
In his lengthy replies to the cringe-making questions, Musharraf not only justified his own coup, but seemed to signal encouragement for his successor to put pressure on this government. As he said, army commanders were forced to intervene because “people kept urging us to do something to save Pakistan”.
Obviously, he was referring to out-of-power politicians who have so often served as cheerleaders to dictators. The follow-up question Meyer ought to have asked is why should army generals encourage such opportunists to come to them in the first place.
In the question-and-answer session, I asked Musharraf about the UN report on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. The commission had clearly identified gaping security flaws, and strongly accused the Musharraf government of neglecting the most basic safeguards despite the dangers posed to the ex-prime minister. Her security arrangements were far less stringent than the measures provided for him.
My question and Musharraf’s waffling response have been reported in the Guardian which quotes him repeating the old line that she was killed because she stood up in her vehicle. He said nothing about why the crowd was allowed to approach her car in the first place, and nor why the spot was hosed down immediately to prevent a forensic examination of the crime scene. As we were not permitted any follow-up questions, Musharraf was allowed to get away with his untruthful version.
Musharraf’s half-baked effort to return to power by forming his own political party has relevance only in the light of certain recent events and statements. First, Altaf Hussain’s bizarre exhortation to “patriotic generals to take martial law-like steps” to intervene. Next, the New York Times has reported on the recent meeting between the army chief, the prime minister and the president, suggesting strongly that the message given by Kayani to his nominal political masters is that they had better get their act together.
These are not isolated reports. Pakistani TV channels have been full of highly speculative stories and comments about imminent changes. Against this background of spin and character assassination, the formation of the APML takes on some significance. Should mid-term elections be called, the MQM will almost certainly jump on board Musharraf’s bandwagon, as will all the Muslim League factions not in Nawaz Sharif’s camp. And once the independents, opportunistic lotas and Islamic parties see which way the wind is blowing, they too will cast their lot with Musharraf. Waverers will no doubt be persuaded to sign up by our politically astute intelligence agencies.
In this scenario, a new dispensation that can form a government without either the PPP or the PML-N will emerge with the tacit support of the army and the Americans. Both these elements are clearly fed up with this government, but are reluctant to see yet another round of martial law.
For the Americans, a strong, stable government is required if they are to succeed in implementing a workable exit strategy from Afghanistan. Our army is bogged down in a difficult campaign against the extremists, and must coordinate the endgame in Afghanistan with Washington. The last thing it needs presently is the distraction of having to run the government. Our generals have all the powers and the independence they require without the flak and the hassle of having to stage a coup.
Both the major political parties have only themselves to blame for the mess we are in. By refusing to cooperate, they risk being out in the cold yet again, just as they were during Musharraf’s nine years in power. I can see that Nawaz Sharif has little to gain by supporting this government. Clearly, his calculation is that by the time it finishes its term, the PPP will be so discredited that it will be a spent political force for the foreseeable future.
Had the situation been normal, this would have been a perfectly sensible political decision. However, in Pakistan, we hardly ever have the luxury of normality. Although Asif Zardari appears to have signalled his refusal to leave quietly, pressure seems to be building up for quasi-constitutional change. Once this happens, and the powerful establishment swings into action, any mid-term elections will not reflect the popular will. Charges of rigging will be largely ignored, and hey, presto! Musharraf will be back in the saddle.
As opinion polls indicate, this government has done little to endear itself to us, so few tears will be shed over its demise. One way of saving the system is for Nawaz Sharif to accept the PPP’s long-standing offer to enter into a coalition with it. This would send out a powerful signal to all those who seek to hijack power. Indeed, a strong coalition might also improve governance.
Both parties have a vested interest in blocking the ongoing moves to sideline them, and in a rational world, they would join hands to save democracy. But as we know to our cost, common sense is a most uncommon commodity in Pakistan.
irfanhusain@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)