Europe has been on our radar lately for its pathetic cultural and economic bigotry.
In this context, Fareed Zakaria's Newsweek column on The Decline and Fall of Europe is worth reading.
The decline of Europe means a world with a greater diffusion of power and a lessened ability to create international norms and rules of the road. It also means that America's superpower status will linger. Think of the dollar. For years people have argued that it is due for a massive drop as countries around the world diversify their savings. But as people looked at the alternatives, they decided that the chief rivals, the euro and the yen, represented economies that were structurally weak. So they have reluctantly stuck with the dollar. It's a similar dynamic in other arenas. You can't beat something with nothing.
Given this dynamic, myopic critics of the Indo-US strategic partnership -- a key pillar of which is the nuclear deal -- ought to think carefully about their position. Instead of watching history from the sidelines by taking yet another isolationist detour, India has the opportunity to partner with the sole superpower to actively shape such history.
That's what we are talking about here. If the nuclear deal goes down, this opportunity will sustain enormous political damage. Will our political left take the responsibility for this outcome? Our religious right? Our Lilliputian neighbors seeking to tie down India? Of course not. None of these groups have ever done anything valuable for India -- this is hardly the time to start listening to their petty politicking.
As Europe falls, India can rise -- and, as we've noted previously, America can be our ally in this. This is a real delicious gift of globalization. Let's negotiate hard with America but, please, not blow this singular opportunity.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Disgrace In Indonesia
Via BBC, Danes in Indonesia 'under threat'
While the cartoons in question were clearly bigoted, the violence in response is barbaric.
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan comes to mind:
bas hamein shaikh ji aap jaise
Allah walon se Allah bachaye
Update: Read also Nonie Darwish in The Telegraph We were brought up to hate - and we do (link courtesy: National Review)
It's time for Arabs and Muslims to stand up for their families. We must stop allowing our leaders to use the West and Israel as an excuse to distract from their own failed leadership and their citizens' lack of freedoms. It's time to stop allowing Arab leaders to complain about cartoons while turning a blind eye to people who defame Islam by holding Korans in one hand while murdering innocent people with the other.
Muslims need jobs - not jihad. Apologies about cartoons will not solve the problems. What is needed is hope and not hate. Unless we recognise that the culture of hate is the true root of the riots surrounding this cartoon controversy, this violent overreaction will only be the start of a clash of civilizations that the world cannot bear.
While the cartoons in question were clearly bigoted, the violence in response is barbaric.
Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan comes to mind:
bas hamein shaikh ji aap jaise
Allah walon se Allah bachaye
Update: Read also Nonie Darwish in The Telegraph We were brought up to hate - and we do (link courtesy: National Review)
It's time for Arabs and Muslims to stand up for their families. We must stop allowing our leaders to use the West and Israel as an excuse to distract from their own failed leadership and their citizens' lack of freedoms. It's time to stop allowing Arab leaders to complain about cartoons while turning a blind eye to people who defame Islam by holding Korans in one hand while murdering innocent people with the other.
Muslims need jobs - not jihad. Apologies about cartoons will not solve the problems. What is needed is hope and not hate. Unless we recognise that the culture of hate is the true root of the riots surrounding this cartoon controversy, this violent overreaction will only be the start of a clash of civilizations that the world cannot bear.
100 Million Missing Women
New York Times magazine carries a fascinating report on controversial research that pins at least some of the blame for the developing world's missing women on Hepatitis B virus -- not, as is conventional wisdom, exclusively on gender discrimination.
In a deeply disturbing essay in The New York Review of Books in 1990, the economist and future Nobel laureate Amartya Sen laid bare some brutal math. Because of biological advantages in fighting disease, women typically outnumbered men in fully developed countries, with about 105 women for every 100 men. And yet in developing countries like China and India, there were only about 94 women for every 100 men. The women seemed to have vanished into thin air. What was happening? As a first step toward unraveling the mystery, Sen decided to compute how many women would have been alive in parts of Asia and North Africa had their countries' sex ratios matched those of the developed West. The math shocked the world: more than 100 million women were missing.
In the summer of 2004, a 24-year-old Harvard graduate student in economics named Emily Oster was reading Baruch S. Blumberg's book "Hepatitis B: The Hunt for a Killer Virus." Oster, a tireless number-cruncher, has published research on everything from the decision-making of Powerball players to the correlation between witch trials and rotten weather in Medieval Europe. She was intrigued by several small-scale studies in the Blumberg book that suggested that if either parent was a carrier of the hepatitis B virus, the couple were more likely to have male children. What if nature, wondered Oster, and not the lack of nurture, was behind Sen's 100 million missing women?
Oster crunched the data available for hepatitis B in China, India, Pakistan, Egypt and Bangladesh. Those countries with higher rates of hepatitis B in the 80's, she found, also tended to be the countries with the highest number of missing women. She decided that she had the fuel for what was bound to be a controversial paper.
In December, Oster unveiled her research in The Journal of Political Economy. Working under the assumption that carriers of hepatitis B had 1.5 boys for every 1 girl, she concluded that "hepatitis B can account for about 45 percent of the 'missing women': around 75 percent in China, between 20 and 50 percent in Egypt and western Asia, and under 20 percent in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal."
In a deeply disturbing essay in The New York Review of Books in 1990, the economist and future Nobel laureate Amartya Sen laid bare some brutal math. Because of biological advantages in fighting disease, women typically outnumbered men in fully developed countries, with about 105 women for every 100 men. And yet in developing countries like China and India, there were only about 94 women for every 100 men. The women seemed to have vanished into thin air. What was happening? As a first step toward unraveling the mystery, Sen decided to compute how many women would have been alive in parts of Asia and North Africa had their countries' sex ratios matched those of the developed West. The math shocked the world: more than 100 million women were missing.
In the summer of 2004, a 24-year-old Harvard graduate student in economics named Emily Oster was reading Baruch S. Blumberg's book "Hepatitis B: The Hunt for a Killer Virus." Oster, a tireless number-cruncher, has published research on everything from the decision-making of Powerball players to the correlation between witch trials and rotten weather in Medieval Europe. She was intrigued by several small-scale studies in the Blumberg book that suggested that if either parent was a carrier of the hepatitis B virus, the couple were more likely to have male children. What if nature, wondered Oster, and not the lack of nurture, was behind Sen's 100 million missing women?
Oster crunched the data available for hepatitis B in China, India, Pakistan, Egypt and Bangladesh. Those countries with higher rates of hepatitis B in the 80's, she found, also tended to be the countries with the highest number of missing women. She decided that she had the fuel for what was bound to be a controversial paper.
In December, Oster unveiled her research in The Journal of Political Economy. Working under the assumption that carriers of hepatitis B had 1.5 boys for every 1 girl, she concluded that "hepatitis B can account for about 45 percent of the 'missing women': around 75 percent in China, between 20 and 50 percent in Egypt and western Asia, and under 20 percent in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal."
The Chinese Dragon?
Cynical Nerd shared with me a Der Spiegel article on China. The piece highlights China's meteoric rise and predicts the start of a new Chinese century, one that would replace Pax Americana. The Chinese economy grew at an average annual rate of 9% in the past 25 years while Chinese exports to the United States had climbed 1,200% since 1990. China's foreign exchange reserves are estimated at US$ 710 billion. This is more than India's GDP! The United States trade deficit with China had doubled to US$ 162 billion since 2001. This deficit is poised to widen further in 2006. Der Spiegel adds that 440,000 engineers graduate in China each year, which is more than twice that in the United States.
The article refers to Chinese manufactures of cell phones, refrigerators and computers. Chinese firms purchased the computer wing of IBM, endeavored to buy the home appliance producer Maytag and almost bought over the California-based Unocal oil company, a move that was thwarted due to Congressional opposition in Washington. The Chinese had earlier purchased the Canadian oil firm, Petrokazakhstan, for a hefty sum of US$ 4.2 billion. Der Spiegel mentions that China had transformed bloated state-run companies into hard hitting enterprises while its biggest auto-parts producer, Wanxiang, had sales to the United States that exceeded US$ 400 million each year. It then refers to the "turbocharged breed of unbridled capitalism" poised to dominate international energy markets.
This is indeed an impressive account, one that Indian policy makers need to be mindful of. I would add that the nationalistic zeal in China ensures continued funding of an ambitious space program, investment in defence and success in international sports. The Chinese are investing in international energy, be it in Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan and Sudan. China will no doubt be a significant player in international politics while its economy will continue to register high rates of growth. Any traveler to Beijing or Shanghai can not but be impressed at the rise of the Chinese dragon. The contrast with Delhi and Mumbai is evident. However, Der Spiegel misses out on other crucial pieces of the jig saw puzzle where predictions of a new Chinese century might be premature. Here's why.
For one, China lacks the intellectual space for cutting edge research and development. Its education system does not provide for creative innovation and discovery, the development of new technology and scientific breakthrough. It is still dependent on the United States in this respect, be it with regards to aviation, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, software or telecommunications. Like Japan of yesteryear, China excels in the mass manufacture of cheap consumer appliances designed elsewhere, but its system is not well positioned to develop innovative technology.
Two, China lacks the institutional resilience and legal systems that the North Atlantic states enjoy. While its low cost consumer items might have a field day in western markets, the absence of entrenched legal and institutional structures undermines the potential to create, innovate and discover - vital components of the capitalist world.
Three, China's coastal provinces have done extremely well. Fujian, Guangong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang stand out in this regard. Its landlocked interior provinces, however, lag behind in economic and social indicators. Recent accidents in the coal sector illustrate the travails of China's rust belt. The rates of poverty are significant inland. The " Chinese Mezzogiorno" is likely to impede continued economic take off. Vastly differential rates of economic growth between two sections of the same country bode ill for political stability.
Four, I remain skeptical of the overall health of China's banking sector. The state run banks are not subject to the same scrutiny and audit safeguards that financial institutions in the North Atlantic are governed by. Chinese accounting standards have much to be desired. There are reports of double counting and consequent exaggerated revenue figures, not to mention the lack of adequate watchdog functions in the system.
Five, China's restive Tibet and East Turkestan (i.e. Xinjiang in Chinese parlance) are likely to pose problems. Neither territory is ethnic Han Chinese by self-definition and would opt to secede if given the chance. China countered this possibility by settling several hundred thousand Han Chinese in the two regions. But settlers are unlikely to preempt the possibility of secession as witnessed in the recent history of Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Even if Islamist extremism were to fade away, a pan-Turkic consciousness is likely to ensure a modicum of sympathy for the Uighurs in the years to come. Furthermore, the question of Tibet would always remain on the international radar screen as the prime example of Chinese hegemony and imperialism.
And lastly, India, Japan, Taiwan, Russia and Vietnam, economically influential in their own right, will not accept Chinese hegemony. The People's Republic - unlike the United States - is encircled. I mention these factors not to deny the inevitable rise of China. The Chinese economy will continue to grow while its international profile is likely to be further strengthened. But to trumpet the dawn of a new Chinese century might be premature. Der Spiegel should perhaps study Asia more closely.
The article refers to Chinese manufactures of cell phones, refrigerators and computers. Chinese firms purchased the computer wing of IBM, endeavored to buy the home appliance producer Maytag and almost bought over the California-based Unocal oil company, a move that was thwarted due to Congressional opposition in Washington. The Chinese had earlier purchased the Canadian oil firm, Petrokazakhstan, for a hefty sum of US$ 4.2 billion. Der Spiegel mentions that China had transformed bloated state-run companies into hard hitting enterprises while its biggest auto-parts producer, Wanxiang, had sales to the United States that exceeded US$ 400 million each year. It then refers to the "turbocharged breed of unbridled capitalism" poised to dominate international energy markets.
This is indeed an impressive account, one that Indian policy makers need to be mindful of. I would add that the nationalistic zeal in China ensures continued funding of an ambitious space program, investment in defence and success in international sports. The Chinese are investing in international energy, be it in Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Burma, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan and Sudan. China will no doubt be a significant player in international politics while its economy will continue to register high rates of growth. Any traveler to Beijing or Shanghai can not but be impressed at the rise of the Chinese dragon. The contrast with Delhi and Mumbai is evident. However, Der Spiegel misses out on other crucial pieces of the jig saw puzzle where predictions of a new Chinese century might be premature. Here's why.
For one, China lacks the intellectual space for cutting edge research and development. Its education system does not provide for creative innovation and discovery, the development of new technology and scientific breakthrough. It is still dependent on the United States in this respect, be it with regards to aviation, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, software or telecommunications. Like Japan of yesteryear, China excels in the mass manufacture of cheap consumer appliances designed elsewhere, but its system is not well positioned to develop innovative technology.
Two, China lacks the institutional resilience and legal systems that the North Atlantic states enjoy. While its low cost consumer items might have a field day in western markets, the absence of entrenched legal and institutional structures undermines the potential to create, innovate and discover - vital components of the capitalist world.
Three, China's coastal provinces have done extremely well. Fujian, Guangong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang stand out in this regard. Its landlocked interior provinces, however, lag behind in economic and social indicators. Recent accidents in the coal sector illustrate the travails of China's rust belt. The rates of poverty are significant inland. The " Chinese Mezzogiorno" is likely to impede continued economic take off. Vastly differential rates of economic growth between two sections of the same country bode ill for political stability.
Four, I remain skeptical of the overall health of China's banking sector. The state run banks are not subject to the same scrutiny and audit safeguards that financial institutions in the North Atlantic are governed by. Chinese accounting standards have much to be desired. There are reports of double counting and consequent exaggerated revenue figures, not to mention the lack of adequate watchdog functions in the system.
Five, China's restive Tibet and East Turkestan (i.e. Xinjiang in Chinese parlance) are likely to pose problems. Neither territory is ethnic Han Chinese by self-definition and would opt to secede if given the chance. China countered this possibility by settling several hundred thousand Han Chinese in the two regions. But settlers are unlikely to preempt the possibility of secession as witnessed in the recent history of Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Even if Islamist extremism were to fade away, a pan-Turkic consciousness is likely to ensure a modicum of sympathy for the Uighurs in the years to come. Furthermore, the question of Tibet would always remain on the international radar screen as the prime example of Chinese hegemony and imperialism.
And lastly, India, Japan, Taiwan, Russia and Vietnam, economically influential in their own right, will not accept Chinese hegemony. The People's Republic - unlike the United States - is encircled. I mention these factors not to deny the inevitable rise of China. The Chinese economy will continue to grow while its international profile is likely to be further strengthened. But to trumpet the dawn of a new Chinese century might be premature. Der Spiegel should perhaps study Asia more closely.
The Toxic Wasted Deal
DAE chief Anil Kakodkar's recent broadside against the Indo-US nuclear deal is a very significant political moment.
By going public with his reservations, he has robbed Dr. Singh of his legacy -- respect for the deal on which he has staked so much.
If the deal goes down now, Dr. Singh would have been torpedoed by an underling. There are too many ambitious people in the Congress not to see this as an opportunity to try to topple him. There are the Natwar Singhs and Mani Shankar Aiyars of the world who Dr. Singh sidelined, and there is the Iran lobby that Dr. Singh betrayed. With little support from the BJP and the Left, he'll become even more dependent on Mrs. Gandhi's patronage to lead India. The caricature would have become entirely real.
If the deal goes through somehow, his opponents in his party and the vast majority of the opposition will use Dr. Kakodkar's comments to claim the deal was a sell-out. They'll tell India -- heavily propagandized to consider our nuclear scientists as heroes -- not to believe politicians but listen to Dr. Kakodkar and his scientist allies. Who would Indians believe on nuclear issues -- Dr. Singh or Dr. Kakodkar? This is heady stuff on which elections can be wagered. Dr. Singh's legacy would have become toxic waste from its own success.
Dr. Kakodkar is a political villain because he has deliberately destroyed Dr. Singh's leadership. Heads he wins, tails Dr. Singh loses.
This still leaves us the question of the nuclear deal. What are we to make of it now?
Let's understand the big picture. India needs civilian nuclear power and global respectability for its strategic nuclear capability. Absent amendments to the NPT (extremely unlikely), the only path forward is a de facto acceptance as a nuclear state. This is what the deal offers.
But, there is no free lunch. In return for this exceptional status, the nuclear godfathers seek to limit India's strategic capability. In a way, we put ourselves in this box when we proclaimed our interest in a "minimum credible deterrent". Why minimum? This concept -- Mr. Vajpayee's legacy -- is a ridiculous notion. Now that we are stuck with this self-inflicted constraint, America can safely argue we already have a "minimum" deterrent -- why not then cap our strategic capability at this minimum level?
This is the deal that's on the table -- whether or not we like it. The negotiations will not change this overall structure. All they can do is to change, on the margin, what the meaning of the word"minimum" is. To the extent, Dr. Kakodkar was willing to engage in negotiation in the first place, he'd already accepted the notion of limits on our strategic plan. Therefore, his outrage at this late stage is somewhat amusing -- and highly disingenuous.
Personally, we have a problem with Mr.Vajpayee's (and Brajesh Mishra's) notion of "minimum credible deterrent". If it were up to us, we'd have used a language like "maximum possible deterrent".
Then, we'd have leveraged India's expanding place in the world, the profit urges of American nuclear industry salivating to serve India, and the fact that a failed deal now means India will turn away from America again -- at least for one generation -- to cut a more favorable deal for India.
But, India rarely plays up to its strength; we negotiate as if we've already lost. Besides, if the deal goes down for fear of harming our strategic capability, it's not as though we are about to catch China or even Israel in terms of aggregate deterrent capacity with our own efforts.
These are the terrible cards we are dealt. Given this, Dr. Singh's deal is not as terrible an option as some seem to suggest. With this deal, we'll have significantly increased civilian nuclear power, will be accepted in NPT as a de facto (and in international law, de jure) nuclear weapons state, and will retain our minimum credible deterrent. Without this deal, we'll remain in nuclear isolation hence forever dependent on tricky hydrocarbon energy, without respect for our strategic strength, and with the same minimum deterrent as in the other scenario.
Neither option is perfect, or as we'd script it ourselves, but of the two, the first is clearly better. Dr. Singh's legacy may have been poisoned, but he has our full support to conclude the deal. And, oh by the way, he should fire Dr. Kakodkar.
By going public with his reservations, he has robbed Dr. Singh of his legacy -- respect for the deal on which he has staked so much.
If the deal goes down now, Dr. Singh would have been torpedoed by an underling. There are too many ambitious people in the Congress not to see this as an opportunity to try to topple him. There are the Natwar Singhs and Mani Shankar Aiyars of the world who Dr. Singh sidelined, and there is the Iran lobby that Dr. Singh betrayed. With little support from the BJP and the Left, he'll become even more dependent on Mrs. Gandhi's patronage to lead India. The caricature would have become entirely real.
If the deal goes through somehow, his opponents in his party and the vast majority of the opposition will use Dr. Kakodkar's comments to claim the deal was a sell-out. They'll tell India -- heavily propagandized to consider our nuclear scientists as heroes -- not to believe politicians but listen to Dr. Kakodkar and his scientist allies. Who would Indians believe on nuclear issues -- Dr. Singh or Dr. Kakodkar? This is heady stuff on which elections can be wagered. Dr. Singh's legacy would have become toxic waste from its own success.
Dr. Kakodkar is a political villain because he has deliberately destroyed Dr. Singh's leadership. Heads he wins, tails Dr. Singh loses.
This still leaves us the question of the nuclear deal. What are we to make of it now?
Let's understand the big picture. India needs civilian nuclear power and global respectability for its strategic nuclear capability. Absent amendments to the NPT (extremely unlikely), the only path forward is a de facto acceptance as a nuclear state. This is what the deal offers.
But, there is no free lunch. In return for this exceptional status, the nuclear godfathers seek to limit India's strategic capability. In a way, we put ourselves in this box when we proclaimed our interest in a "minimum credible deterrent". Why minimum? This concept -- Mr. Vajpayee's legacy -- is a ridiculous notion. Now that we are stuck with this self-inflicted constraint, America can safely argue we already have a "minimum" deterrent -- why not then cap our strategic capability at this minimum level?
This is the deal that's on the table -- whether or not we like it. The negotiations will not change this overall structure. All they can do is to change, on the margin, what the meaning of the word"minimum" is. To the extent, Dr. Kakodkar was willing to engage in negotiation in the first place, he'd already accepted the notion of limits on our strategic plan. Therefore, his outrage at this late stage is somewhat amusing -- and highly disingenuous.
Personally, we have a problem with Mr.Vajpayee's (and Brajesh Mishra's) notion of "minimum credible deterrent". If it were up to us, we'd have used a language like "maximum possible deterrent".
Then, we'd have leveraged India's expanding place in the world, the profit urges of American nuclear industry salivating to serve India, and the fact that a failed deal now means India will turn away from America again -- at least for one generation -- to cut a more favorable deal for India.
But, India rarely plays up to its strength; we negotiate as if we've already lost. Besides, if the deal goes down for fear of harming our strategic capability, it's not as though we are about to catch China or even Israel in terms of aggregate deterrent capacity with our own efforts.
These are the terrible cards we are dealt. Given this, Dr. Singh's deal is not as terrible an option as some seem to suggest. With this deal, we'll have significantly increased civilian nuclear power, will be accepted in NPT as a de facto (and in international law, de jure) nuclear weapons state, and will retain our minimum credible deterrent. Without this deal, we'll remain in nuclear isolation hence forever dependent on tricky hydrocarbon energy, without respect for our strategic strength, and with the same minimum deterrent as in the other scenario.
Neither option is perfect, or as we'd script it ourselves, but of the two, the first is clearly better. Dr. Singh's legacy may have been poisoned, but he has our full support to conclude the deal. And, oh by the way, he should fire Dr. Kakodkar.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Asian Superpowers
Washington Post's terrific columnist Jim Hoagland writes today about Tales of Asia Rising
This is a tale with two morals: One should always distrust neat symbols that fit handily into preconceived and popularized strategic theories.
The other is that the continental transfer of superpower is no more certain than was the popular "end of history" notion of the past decade. There is no straight line to a new unipolar hegemony in a world in which the fragmentation of state power is common to all regions. It is always more complicated tomorrow than we believe today.
This is a tale with two morals: One should always distrust neat symbols that fit handily into preconceived and popularized strategic theories.
The other is that the continental transfer of superpower is no more certain than was the popular "end of history" notion of the past decade. There is no straight line to a new unipolar hegemony in a world in which the fragmentation of state power is common to all regions. It is always more complicated tomorrow than we believe today.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Now They Tell Us
Via New York Times, Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks
This calls for a Jalebi & Samosa party! With fat Coke -- of course!!
This calls for a Jalebi & Samosa party! With fat Coke -- of course!!
On Infidelity
Via Guardian, columnist Zoe Williams points out an interesting conundrum:
Anyway, what this all unleashes is the age-old debate between, on the one hand, people who are loath to judge infidelity too harshly because they're only, you know, human, and on the other, people who think infidelity is inherently misogynistic, since it's always men and they never tell their wives, and the wives can stand by them or leave them but they will always end up weeping in a corner somewhere. Really, it's buyer-beware on either position - if you take the first, you effectively toss out all that most of us have that amounts to a moral position of any kind on anything. If you take the second, you ram home the women-as-victims message that is partly plain wrong, but mainly just annoys me.
Ms. Williams leaves out the possibility of infidelity by women -- but her point remains since even there our natural concern is the victimhood of the innocent spouse. What man likes to be seen as a victim?!
Anyway, what this all unleashes is the age-old debate between, on the one hand, people who are loath to judge infidelity too harshly because they're only, you know, human, and on the other, people who think infidelity is inherently misogynistic, since it's always men and they never tell their wives, and the wives can stand by them or leave them but they will always end up weeping in a corner somewhere. Really, it's buyer-beware on either position - if you take the first, you effectively toss out all that most of us have that amounts to a moral position of any kind on anything. If you take the second, you ram home the women-as-victims message that is partly plain wrong, but mainly just annoys me.
Ms. Williams leaves out the possibility of infidelity by women -- but her point remains since even there our natural concern is the victimhood of the innocent spouse. What man likes to be seen as a victim?!
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Freedom of Speech, or Not
Given such intense debate on the cartoon row, we'll chime in with our two cents. We don't understand why there is so much confusion around the issue of Freedom of Speech (FOS). Here's how we make the distinction. We think:
(Leaving aside high-minded issues like FOS and its limits, the cynical view is that some of the protest is being fueled by Iran and Syria who gain by changing the global agenda and accelerating the clash of civilizations. But that's material for another blog post).
- Jyllands-Posten has the FOS right to publish the cartoons.
- We exercise the same FOS in calling them idiots (or worse) for exercising bad judgment.
- Those offended have the FOS right to express verbal outrage or boycott goods.
- Burning embassies, rioting, issuing fatwas and demanding bans is not FOS, in fact the opposite.
- The Iranian newspaper has the FOS right to publish the Holocaust cartoons.
- The rest of us can exercise the same right and dismiss them as idiots, too.
(Leaving aside high-minded issues like FOS and its limits, the cynical view is that some of the protest is being fueled by Iran and Syria who gain by changing the global agenda and accelerating the clash of civilizations. But that's material for another blog post).
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Mick & Sania
Rolling Stones just performed at the Superbowl -- Sir Mick remains timeless & cool!
Then we asked ourselves, is there an Indian -- any Indian -- who carries his/her unrelenting cool like the Stones?
Sania maybe -- among Indians, she alone struts her swagger on the world stage and outcools her billion compatriots. Is anyone else as brash, as tough, and as entirely worthy?
Ideas invited.
Then we asked ourselves, is there an Indian -- any Indian -- who carries his/her unrelenting cool like the Stones?
Sania maybe -- among Indians, she alone struts her swagger on the world stage and outcools her billion compatriots. Is anyone else as brash, as tough, and as entirely worthy?
Ideas invited.
Stuck In Our Ancient, Exotic Mud
We are often in awe over the extraordinary recent revolutions in India.
Unlike export-led China, India's economic miracle is largely consumption-led. We haven't had much economic reform, export barely a fraction of what China does, and haven't quite begun investing in infrastructure. Still, Indians feel great about their future; their consumption has spiked accordingly.
This is a cultural revolution of sorts in a humble people long wary of conspicuous consumption.
Another -- likely more significant but less remarked on -- revolution is the notoriously introverted India turning its confident gaze overseas.
Given this new-found interest in the world one might expect our cultural expressions would echo the theme. This is to say, our literature and cinema and theatre should be about Indians sailing abroad -- looking at the world anew with Indian eyes and interpretation.
Instead, our culture remains introverted. The movies we nominate for Oscars, for example, are all about interpeting the exotic -- and often lapsed -- India for foreigners.
The books we sell -- and embarrassingly buy -- are also focused on Indian exoticism and social complexity. The much celebrated Maximum City is a classic case in point. How much more do Indians really need to understand India? Still, the book was a runaway success among India's elite. Had Suketu Mehta written about his life as an Indian in America instead, his book would likely not have been quite as successful.
This blog has long been a critic of contemporary Indian culture -- which invents nothing, has no insight, and offers very little to inspire the world. Our intellectual generation is culturally deficient -- this is why, even as our businesses have gone 21st century and global, our culture remains stuck in our ancient, exotic mud.
Unlike export-led China, India's economic miracle is largely consumption-led. We haven't had much economic reform, export barely a fraction of what China does, and haven't quite begun investing in infrastructure. Still, Indians feel great about their future; their consumption has spiked accordingly.
This is a cultural revolution of sorts in a humble people long wary of conspicuous consumption.
Another -- likely more significant but less remarked on -- revolution is the notoriously introverted India turning its confident gaze overseas.
Given this new-found interest in the world one might expect our cultural expressions would echo the theme. This is to say, our literature and cinema and theatre should be about Indians sailing abroad -- looking at the world anew with Indian eyes and interpretation.
Instead, our culture remains introverted. The movies we nominate for Oscars, for example, are all about interpeting the exotic -- and often lapsed -- India for foreigners.
The books we sell -- and embarrassingly buy -- are also focused on Indian exoticism and social complexity. The much celebrated Maximum City is a classic case in point. How much more do Indians really need to understand India? Still, the book was a runaway success among India's elite. Had Suketu Mehta written about his life as an Indian in America instead, his book would likely not have been quite as successful.
This blog has long been a critic of contemporary Indian culture -- which invents nothing, has no insight, and offers very little to inspire the world. Our intellectual generation is culturally deficient -- this is why, even as our businesses have gone 21st century and global, our culture remains stuck in our ancient, exotic mud.
Iran
New York Times reports, World Nuclear Panel to Refer Iran to U.N. Security Council
In a move that could change the course of international diplomacy towards Iran, the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency approved a resolution on Saturday to report the country's nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council.The resolution, which passed 27-3 with five abstentions, opens the door for the first time to possible punitive action against Iran in the New York body over fears that it is developing a nuclear weapon.
Cuba, Syria and Venezuela voted against the resolution. Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained.
On January 15th, we'd predicted as follows:
Oh, and by the way, Iran will be referred to the Security Council -- likely unanimously. Why? Because, if everyone casts their vote against Iran, Iran couldn't pick on anyone for retribution.
Well, we didn't get full consensus -- but did get the next best thing. The three no-votes are from countries facing ongoing conflict with the West -- the abstentions, other than South Africa, are not really surprising.
We did get here a consensus (after much posturing) among the world's great powers, including India. This clears the deck for a laser-like focus on the more important US-India Nuclear Deal.
In a move that could change the course of international diplomacy towards Iran, the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency approved a resolution on Saturday to report the country's nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council.The resolution, which passed 27-3 with five abstentions, opens the door for the first time to possible punitive action against Iran in the New York body over fears that it is developing a nuclear weapon.
Cuba, Syria and Venezuela voted against the resolution. Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained.
On January 15th, we'd predicted as follows:
Oh, and by the way, Iran will be referred to the Security Council -- likely unanimously. Why? Because, if everyone casts their vote against Iran, Iran couldn't pick on anyone for retribution.
Well, we didn't get full consensus -- but did get the next best thing. The three no-votes are from countries facing ongoing conflict with the West -- the abstentions, other than South Africa, are not really surprising.
We did get here a consensus (after much posturing) among the world's great powers, including India. This clears the deck for a laser-like focus on the more important US-India Nuclear Deal.
The Unknown Indian vs. European Bigots
Wall Street Journal writes today, admiringly, of Laksmi Mittal.
A takeover of Arcelor would take Mr. Mittal a long way toward realizing his vision of a dominant global steelmaker in an industry for decades characterized, and brought low, by fragmentation. To pull it off, Mr. Mittal needs to break an Old World taboo against takeovers, hostile or otherwise, involving a company dear to Continental protectionists' heart. That this task falls to a man born in Rajasthan, and raised in Calcutta, is one of the more delicious gifts of globalization.
Contrast this favorable attitude of the American conservative establishment with the typical (continental) European bigotry Mr. Mittal is currently enduring.
The attacks on him have been vicious. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, warned against giving into economic "laws of the jungle." A former French finance minister referred to Mr. Mittal as "an Indian predator," although his company is traded and based in Europe and he hasn't lived in India for 30 years. Mr. Dollé, the Arcelor boss, said Rotterdam-based Mittal Steel is a "company full of Indians" that wants to buy his with "monnaie de singe." The expression means "monopoly money"--Mittal's offer is mostly shares--but the literal translation is "monkey money." That double-entendre wasn't lost on people.
Let there be no mistake. The arrogant and pathetic Europe is frightened of India -- it's exactly the place where Indians need to feast on as we build up our global power. Given the myopia of their fading years, they see us as a barbarian enemy, and we respectfully -- and with compund interest dating back to the years of their barbaric colonialism -- reciprocate the sentiment. In a long twilight struggle, it's Europe that will eventually bite the dust.
That America will likely be our ally in this, is the real "delicious gift of globalization"!
A takeover of Arcelor would take Mr. Mittal a long way toward realizing his vision of a dominant global steelmaker in an industry for decades characterized, and brought low, by fragmentation. To pull it off, Mr. Mittal needs to break an Old World taboo against takeovers, hostile or otherwise, involving a company dear to Continental protectionists' heart. That this task falls to a man born in Rajasthan, and raised in Calcutta, is one of the more delicious gifts of globalization.
Contrast this favorable attitude of the American conservative establishment with the typical (continental) European bigotry Mr. Mittal is currently enduring.
The attacks on him have been vicious. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, warned against giving into economic "laws of the jungle." A former French finance minister referred to Mr. Mittal as "an Indian predator," although his company is traded and based in Europe and he hasn't lived in India for 30 years. Mr. Dollé, the Arcelor boss, said Rotterdam-based Mittal Steel is a "company full of Indians" that wants to buy his with "monnaie de singe." The expression means "monopoly money"--Mittal's offer is mostly shares--but the literal translation is "monkey money." That double-entendre wasn't lost on people.
Let there be no mistake. The arrogant and pathetic Europe is frightened of India -- it's exactly the place where Indians need to feast on as we build up our global power. Given the myopia of their fading years, they see us as a barbarian enemy, and we respectfully -- and with compund interest dating back to the years of their barbaric colonialism -- reciprocate the sentiment. In a long twilight struggle, it's Europe that will eventually bite the dust.
That America will likely be our ally in this, is the real "delicious gift of globalization"!
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Friday, February 03, 2006
Neoconservatives Agree
We consider ourselves neoconservatives and support the ongoing war on terror -- including in Iraq.
Still, a couple days ago, we criticized the blatantly offensive Danish caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad -- and were treated to several surprising responses from people who erroneously think the issue is about freedom of expression.
Now, the aggressively neoconservative US government has echoed our view.
State Department: Cartoons Depicting Muhammad Offensive
This makes all the sense in the world and should give pause to those who are blindly supporting the cause of the cartoonists and their publishers.
Yes, freedom of expression needs to be respected, and violent protests condemned -- but lost in all this discussion is the intrinsic bigotry of the cartoons in question. With the US -- a champion of free expression -- now making its view plain, a whole lot of apologies are in order.
Still, a couple days ago, we criticized the blatantly offensive Danish caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad -- and were treated to several surprising responses from people who erroneously think the issue is about freedom of expression.
Now, the aggressively neoconservative US government has echoed our view.
State Department: Cartoons Depicting Muhammad Offensive
This makes all the sense in the world and should give pause to those who are blindly supporting the cause of the cartoonists and their publishers.
Yes, freedom of expression needs to be respected, and violent protests condemned -- but lost in all this discussion is the intrinsic bigotry of the cartoons in question. With the US -- a champion of free expression -- now making its view plain, a whole lot of apologies are in order.
Mindnumbing Music
Via Opinion Journal, Doug Ramsey meditates on music's post-modern ubiquity and the virtues of silence!
As someone who writes about and plays music, I would be the last to disagree with William Congreve that music hath charms. But silence has charms, too, and it's getting hard to find. When Congreve wrote his famous line, circa 1700, people who wanted music had to make it themselves or go find it. The technological revolution in the past century changed that. Now music pursues us in the supermarket, the gas station, The Gap, the dentist's office, the elevator, even the street. That's bad news when I'm trying to think, let alone write. But it's good news when I'm on the NordicTrack; the steady beat of music makes the workout easier. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.
For most of us, physical activity is akin neither to war nor to competition. We use it to promote health, fitness and relaxation. The brain tells the body when to fight or run from danger. Exercise can help the body return the favor by freeing the brain for reflection, a mental commodity in shorter and shorter supply as music occupies every facet of our lives. A solitary run, a friendly tennis match, a few laps in the pool or a long walk can promote contemplation, but we set the mind a difficult task if we keep it saturated with rhythmic pounding. Perhaps that's worth contemplating.
As someone who writes about and plays music, I would be the last to disagree with William Congreve that music hath charms. But silence has charms, too, and it's getting hard to find. When Congreve wrote his famous line, circa 1700, people who wanted music had to make it themselves or go find it. The technological revolution in the past century changed that. Now music pursues us in the supermarket, the gas station, The Gap, the dentist's office, the elevator, even the street. That's bad news when I'm trying to think, let alone write. But it's good news when I'm on the NordicTrack; the steady beat of music makes the workout easier. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.
For most of us, physical activity is akin neither to war nor to competition. We use it to promote health, fitness and relaxation. The brain tells the body when to fight or run from danger. Exercise can help the body return the favor by freeing the brain for reflection, a mental commodity in shorter and shorter supply as music occupies every facet of our lives. A solitary run, a friendly tennis match, a few laps in the pool or a long walk can promote contemplation, but we set the mind a difficult task if we keep it saturated with rhythmic pounding. Perhaps that's worth contemplating.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Political Infants
We read with interest about the birth of a new political party, Paritrana, founded by a few recent IIT graduates. It has gotten much press play and buzz in the IIT circles.
With what little information there is to read, the founders seem idealistic, their heart seems to be in the right place, are smart individuals, seem to be people of integrity, and have some relevant experience working for social and political causes. There is also a deep reservoir of discontent, at least among the elites, with the current political choices. All major movements start with a small group of committed individuals, and there may be hope here.
On the flip side, they lack funding or serious backing, and maybe naive in their idealism. It remains to be seen if they have the ability and means to fulfill their vision, or will go down as unrealized potential. Executing on their plan will involve the usual startup challenges, compounded by political intrigue and deeply entrenched vested interests who will stop at nothing, including violence, to retain their power.
We admire their idealism. And we sincerly hope they can execute. They'll need much more than what IIT taught them to win this one.
With what little information there is to read, the founders seem idealistic, their heart seems to be in the right place, are smart individuals, seem to be people of integrity, and have some relevant experience working for social and political causes. There is also a deep reservoir of discontent, at least among the elites, with the current political choices. All major movements start with a small group of committed individuals, and there may be hope here.
On the flip side, they lack funding or serious backing, and maybe naive in their idealism. It remains to be seen if they have the ability and means to fulfill their vision, or will go down as unrealized potential. Executing on their plan will involve the usual startup challenges, compounded by political intrigue and deeply entrenched vested interests who will stop at nothing, including violence, to retain their power.
We admire their idealism. And we sincerly hope they can execute. They'll need much more than what IIT taught them to win this one.
European Bigots
Recently, Iran's new President Ahmadinejad made a series of repugnant anti-semitic remarks. Most sensible folks the world-over condemned his outrageous behavior.
Our's is a free world and he is the elected leader of a sovereign state. Clearly, he has the right to say what he wishes -- equally, the civilized world has the right to question his judgment and call him a bigot.
Bigotry, however, is not the preserve of middle-eastern dictators alone.
In Denmark, a newspaper recently published a series of caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammad. One of these apparently even portrayed the Prophet as a terrorist. If the latter does not count as prejudice against a faith, it's not clear what does.
Freedom of expression implies even such repugnant thoughts have a space in our public square. Equally, the Islamic world is entirely within its rights to protest this, likely deliberate, insult.
A boycott of Danish products has ensued in Arabia. This is a market reaction to a public event -- we are entirely fine with this. Free expression, afterall, is sometimes expensive.
Now, a French paper has entered the fray and reprinted the offensive caricatures.
"Because no religious dogma can impose its view on a democratic and secular society, France Soir publishes the incriminated cartoons," the paper said.
France Soir, which is in financial difficulties and looking for a buyer, devoted two inside pages to the Danish cartoons, with editor Serge Faubert unapologetic.
Frankly, this is ridiculously obscene. Mr. Faubert's financially troubled newspaper is ginning up publicity by deliberately offending Muslims, then taking cover under the noble virtues of secularism and free expression. As proponents of secularism and liberty ourselves, we take strong offence to his pathetic -- commercially motivated -- prejudice.
Surely, Mr. Faubert belongs in the same category of bigots as Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Our's is a free world and he is the elected leader of a sovereign state. Clearly, he has the right to say what he wishes -- equally, the civilized world has the right to question his judgment and call him a bigot.
Bigotry, however, is not the preserve of middle-eastern dictators alone.
In Denmark, a newspaper recently published a series of caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammad. One of these apparently even portrayed the Prophet as a terrorist. If the latter does not count as prejudice against a faith, it's not clear what does.
Freedom of expression implies even such repugnant thoughts have a space in our public square. Equally, the Islamic world is entirely within its rights to protest this, likely deliberate, insult.
A boycott of Danish products has ensued in Arabia. This is a market reaction to a public event -- we are entirely fine with this. Free expression, afterall, is sometimes expensive.
Now, a French paper has entered the fray and reprinted the offensive caricatures.
"Because no religious dogma can impose its view on a democratic and secular society, France Soir publishes the incriminated cartoons," the paper said.
France Soir, which is in financial difficulties and looking for a buyer, devoted two inside pages to the Danish cartoons, with editor Serge Faubert unapologetic.
Frankly, this is ridiculously obscene. Mr. Faubert's financially troubled newspaper is ginning up publicity by deliberately offending Muslims, then taking cover under the noble virtues of secularism and free expression. As proponents of secularism and liberty ourselves, we take strong offence to his pathetic -- commercially motivated -- prejudice.
Surely, Mr. Faubert belongs in the same category of bigots as Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)