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
Saturday, October 2, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)