Via Israeli website Debka:
An announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death appears Friday in one of his close aides’ most credible Web sites. It has sparked a storm of controversy in al Qaeda circles, some of whom claim notice is false.
Signed by the Pen of Jihad Warriors, the site provides no information on circumstances of death, only asks: Where are those who break out of borders? Where are the lamenters? Where are those who throw themselves from the tops of towers and skyscrapers? Where are the heart-rending cries?
Egyptian bin Laden adherent, Yasser Sari, calls notice a lie and promises new videotape soon in which leader announces end of al Qaeda truce in Europe. Other followers credit the announcement as “authentic and Islamic.”
Via Stratfor (subscription recommended):
A statement posted April 28 on a jihadist Web site said there are reports that Osama bin Laden has died. However, the message went on to say that he is still alive but could die soon and that Muslims should prepare for his death. Furthermore, the al Qaeda chief is expected to appear soon in a new videotape to be aired by an Arabic news channel. Bin Laden is likely hiding out in Pakistan's northwestern tribal belt, which has seen a great deal of movement by Pakistani and U.S. troops in recent weeks. Fearing that he could be captured soon, bin Laden probably will give his right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, even more air time than he has received so far.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Indian Golfer Bests Vijay Singh
Here's a cool newsflash. Arjun Atwal leads the field, including hall of famer Vijay Singh, after the second round of the Zurich Classic of New Orleans.
Now, this is pure jazz to Indian ears! Hope Mr. Atwal can keep up the great show.
Now, this is pure jazz to Indian ears! Hope Mr. Atwal can keep up the great show.
Finally, Some Good News From Bangladesh
Via BBC, Fall in Bangladesh acid attacks .
Even our strong opposition to the death penalty cannot dilute our cheer on this development.
Even our strong opposition to the death penalty cannot dilute our cheer on this development.
Theme Park OK, Fashion Show Not?
Via BBC, World's first Hindu theme park proposed on the banks of the mighty Ganges. Via Rediff, VHP flays mantra at US fashion show.
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
Squabble Among White Hats
In response to our post, My Country, Always Wrong?, challenging anti-nationalist (not anti-national) attitudes of Indian liberals, Dilip makes a strong retort. Game on!
First, a summary of Dilip's argument. He rejects chauvinism masquerading as patriotism. If India's project is self-evidently superior (our claim) then, he wonders, isn't it strong enough to withstand valid criticism? He dismisses our fear that liberals' India-bashing is driving Indians into the open political arms of cultural bigots. Finally, he suggests that real patriotism is about calling our nation to the greater things she is capable of.
We too reject chauvinism and bigotry (of all kinds, everywhere) -- indeed, we've written against it with some passion. See Shiv Sena Shoots Off Its Loony Mouth, Lynching of Books, Chaos in Bangladesh, Shame: Taslima Nasreen Revisited, Indian Beheaded in Saudi Arabia, The Arrack of Ostriches, Azadi Begins at Home, Blogger Freedom in Iran, Pogrom in Gujarat, and on and on and on.
But, rejecting blind obeisance to whatever our flag is should surely not blind us to the facts over which the flag flies.
We know India's political system is superior to our neighbors'. We can either minimize this out of exaggerated modesty or, as we advocate, we should assert our political values of freedom and tolerance all across our neighborhood by persuasion where possible, and by force where necessary. For liberals, such assertiveness is anathema, even though this is precisely, what Dilip calls, the greater things India is capable of.
Instead, liberals want to sue for "peace" with neighborhood dictators and chauvinists. Because free India has sometimes erred in its conduct, liberals make an equivalence with our infinitely worse foes. Equating India with the gutter of our neighborhood surely will leave us all filthy. We want to raise our neighbors to political modernity; liberals seek to pull us down in their mire. Who, then, among us calls India to the greater things it's capable of?
Does India have failings? Of course, it does -- and yes, our freedoms to criticize are essential for India to relentlessly erase these failings. We don't believe in smothering political ideas just because we happen to detest them to our core (see Narendra Modi). Criticism of India's failures versus its highest ideals isn't subversion; rejecting the factual superiority of the Indian project, that enables such criticism, is.
As to whether such criticism has led millions of Indians into the willing arms of cultural bigots, we must again point to facts. Apart from Indian-on-Indian bigotry, these political forces have few other ideas to offer. Yet, they were given the keys to Delhi, and to (the supposedly cosmopolitan & maximum) Mumbai, and to industrial Gujarat, and even the Hindi heartland. Surely Dilip, being a hands-on journalist, has read and heard the rhetoric that made this possible. Cultural bigots won in the past, and will again, by successfully painting secular liberals as a threat to India -- and millions lapped this up.
Now, Dilip has the luxury of writing off such people for being easily seduced by bigotry. We don't. These people are the millions of Indians who vote and elect our governments. We have to persuade them by making credible arguments that simultaneously allay their fears and uphold India's superior values. Absent this, as liberals tend to do, we end up debating meaningless abstractions in our cushy lives where riots never happen. This is why Indian secularism has taken the blows it has taken in recent years.
First, a summary of Dilip's argument. He rejects chauvinism masquerading as patriotism. If India's project is self-evidently superior (our claim) then, he wonders, isn't it strong enough to withstand valid criticism? He dismisses our fear that liberals' India-bashing is driving Indians into the open political arms of cultural bigots. Finally, he suggests that real patriotism is about calling our nation to the greater things she is capable of.
We too reject chauvinism and bigotry (of all kinds, everywhere) -- indeed, we've written against it with some passion. See Shiv Sena Shoots Off Its Loony Mouth, Lynching of Books, Chaos in Bangladesh, Shame: Taslima Nasreen Revisited, Indian Beheaded in Saudi Arabia, The Arrack of Ostriches, Azadi Begins at Home, Blogger Freedom in Iran, Pogrom in Gujarat, and on and on and on.
But, rejecting blind obeisance to whatever our flag is should surely not blind us to the facts over which the flag flies.
We know India's political system is superior to our neighbors'. We can either minimize this out of exaggerated modesty or, as we advocate, we should assert our political values of freedom and tolerance all across our neighborhood by persuasion where possible, and by force where necessary. For liberals, such assertiveness is anathema, even though this is precisely, what Dilip calls, the greater things India is capable of.
Instead, liberals want to sue for "peace" with neighborhood dictators and chauvinists. Because free India has sometimes erred in its conduct, liberals make an equivalence with our infinitely worse foes. Equating India with the gutter of our neighborhood surely will leave us all filthy. We want to raise our neighbors to political modernity; liberals seek to pull us down in their mire. Who, then, among us calls India to the greater things it's capable of?
Does India have failings? Of course, it does -- and yes, our freedoms to criticize are essential for India to relentlessly erase these failings. We don't believe in smothering political ideas just because we happen to detest them to our core (see Narendra Modi). Criticism of India's failures versus its highest ideals isn't subversion; rejecting the factual superiority of the Indian project, that enables such criticism, is.
As to whether such criticism has led millions of Indians into the willing arms of cultural bigots, we must again point to facts. Apart from Indian-on-Indian bigotry, these political forces have few other ideas to offer. Yet, they were given the keys to Delhi, and to (the supposedly cosmopolitan & maximum) Mumbai, and to industrial Gujarat, and even the Hindi heartland. Surely Dilip, being a hands-on journalist, has read and heard the rhetoric that made this possible. Cultural bigots won in the past, and will again, by successfully painting secular liberals as a threat to India -- and millions lapped this up.
Now, Dilip has the luxury of writing off such people for being easily seduced by bigotry. We don't. These people are the millions of Indians who vote and elect our governments. We have to persuade them by making credible arguments that simultaneously allay their fears and uphold India's superior values. Absent this, as liberals tend to do, we end up debating meaningless abstractions in our cushy lives where riots never happen. This is why Indian secularism has taken the blows it has taken in recent years.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Would Be Comic If It Weren't So Tragic
Rezwan links to this ridiculous press release from Odhikar, supposedly a Bangladeshi human-rights organization. In this, Odhikar attributes all manner of evil to India.
Before assailing its foolish assertions, lets first mock its inability to perform basic spell-check. Here's a direct quote:
Seventy six people were killed by BSF and Indkan miscreants fvom 1 January, 2004 to 31 December 2004. During same period,/35 people were knjured, 9 were arrested and 73 were abducted while 5 incidents of snatching took place by BSF.
Now, lets look at Odhikar's claims. Check out this gem:
The gravest situation developed in the border areas during push-in attempts of BSF. Bangla speaking minority Indian citizens were brought in from various provinces of India by BSF in the Indo-Bangladesh border. Branding them as illegal Bangladeshis, BSF tried to push these people inside Bangladesh territory through various parts of the border areas. This has created tense and inhuman situation. Among these groups, majority were female and children whom BSF positioned in front of push-in groups as shield against resistance from Bangladesh border force BDR. Push-in attempts were made at the dead of night, early morning and in cold weather. The fateless Indian people caught stranded in the no-man's land in between weapons of border security forces of two neighbouring countries without food and water for long time. In most of the instances, BDR pushed these people back into Indian territory but they were not allowed to move from border areas by Indian BSF. Most of these people belong to low-income group and were forced to live in inhuman condition in border areas. Odhikar thinks that attempt of push-in of Bangla speaking Indian citizens might cause large scale border conflict anytime between the two neighbouring countries.
Per Odhikar, it isn't Bangladeshi migrants who are invading India by the millions, rather it's India that is attempting ethnic-cleansing on Indian Bengalis. Oh boy!!
After you've picked up your gaping jaw off the floor, click here to see what might one day happen if India were to ignore this unacceptable Bangladeshi mass migration -- just visualize the linked billboard by replacing Los Angeles and Mexico with Calcutta and Bangladesh respectively. (link via Michelle Malkin).
If India doesn't address this menace now, Odhikar's worst fears may indeed come true. This situation might turn into a large scale border conflict between the two neighboring countries -- if this happens, one thing is certain: it won't turn out good for Bangladesh.
Before assailing its foolish assertions, lets first mock its inability to perform basic spell-check. Here's a direct quote:
Seventy six people were killed by BSF and Indkan miscreants fvom 1 January, 2004 to 31 December 2004. During same period,/35 people were knjured, 9 were arrested and 73 were abducted while 5 incidents of snatching took place by BSF.
Now, lets look at Odhikar's claims. Check out this gem:
The gravest situation developed in the border areas during push-in attempts of BSF. Bangla speaking minority Indian citizens were brought in from various provinces of India by BSF in the Indo-Bangladesh border. Branding them as illegal Bangladeshis, BSF tried to push these people inside Bangladesh territory through various parts of the border areas. This has created tense and inhuman situation. Among these groups, majority were female and children whom BSF positioned in front of push-in groups as shield against resistance from Bangladesh border force BDR. Push-in attempts were made at the dead of night, early morning and in cold weather. The fateless Indian people caught stranded in the no-man's land in between weapons of border security forces of two neighbouring countries without food and water for long time. In most of the instances, BDR pushed these people back into Indian territory but they were not allowed to move from border areas by Indian BSF. Most of these people belong to low-income group and were forced to live in inhuman condition in border areas. Odhikar thinks that attempt of push-in of Bangla speaking Indian citizens might cause large scale border conflict anytime between the two neighbouring countries.
Per Odhikar, it isn't Bangladeshi migrants who are invading India by the millions, rather it's India that is attempting ethnic-cleansing on Indian Bengalis. Oh boy!!
After you've picked up your gaping jaw off the floor, click here to see what might one day happen if India were to ignore this unacceptable Bangladeshi mass migration -- just visualize the linked billboard by replacing Los Angeles and Mexico with Calcutta and Bangladesh respectively. (link via Michelle Malkin).
If India doesn't address this menace now, Odhikar's worst fears may indeed come true. This situation might turn into a large scale border conflict between the two neighboring countries -- if this happens, one thing is certain: it won't turn out good for Bangladesh.
The Global War On Offensive Odor!
Via Drudge Report: Houston Bans Offensive Odor in Libraries.
Via Amit Varma: India Campaigns Against Offensive Odor in Cabs.
Via Amit Varma: India Campaigns Against Offensive Odor in Cabs.
Good News in the War on Terror
Via Times of India, it appears that terrorists in Kashmir are running short on money & supplies.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Shiv Sena Shoots Off Its Loony Mouth
Sometimes one just has to shake one's head in bewilderment at the neanderthal attitudes of some Indians.
Update: Over at India Uncut, Amit correctly laments the stunning polling support for Shiv Sena's outrageous views.
Update: Over at India Uncut, Amit correctly laments the stunning polling support for Shiv Sena's outrageous views.
My Country, Always Wrong?
If Indian liberals were to have a theme song, my country, always wrong would be its name.
Because, in many ways, we too are liberal -- albeit mugged by reality -- this sob-song of our co-travelers on India's road to secular modernity is enormously frustrating.
Sure, India is fallible -- but it's a nation unlike any other in our extended region. Our people are justifiably proud of our freedoms -- these freedoms make our system unique and superior to our neighbors'.
Liberals don't quite see it this way. They hissingly question even factual assertions of our superior freedoms, and demand we dilute our nationalist pride by recalling occasional Indian failings.
Indian liberals thus construct a parade of horribles and cherry-pick a few egregious examples of Indian lapses to diminish the self-evident superiority of the Indian project (vs. those of our neighbors) -- this is a profoundly subversive act. [Note: The italicized words are taken from the conservative dissent in a US Supreme Court ruling from earlier today; the language is terrific, and it applies well in the context of our post.]
Fortunately, most Indians can see through this subterfuge. They remain patriots at heart and their politics embraces nationalism. They are, however, puzzled by the constant drip-drip of India-bashing by our liberals who strain to find nuggets of good in our awful enemies, while dismissing the entire ocean of our nation's greatness.
This suicidal liberal attitude discredits liberalism itself. Consequently, India's instinctively nationalist heart turns away and, in desperation, opens itself even to faux-nationalist evangelism of India's cultural bigots.
If we are to sustain a secular, modern, and tolerant public space in India, our fellow liberals need to re-assess their constant India-bashing. If they don't feel comfortable making this sacrifice, well, then they should consider relinquishing, to secular-nationalists, their self-seized mantle of being secularism's defenders. Absent this, liberals risk tainting secularism by their association -- this would be a horrible tragedy.
As they might say in American, Indian liberal dogma don't hunt no more!
Because, in many ways, we too are liberal -- albeit mugged by reality -- this sob-song of our co-travelers on India's road to secular modernity is enormously frustrating.
Sure, India is fallible -- but it's a nation unlike any other in our extended region. Our people are justifiably proud of our freedoms -- these freedoms make our system unique and superior to our neighbors'.
Liberals don't quite see it this way. They hissingly question even factual assertions of our superior freedoms, and demand we dilute our nationalist pride by recalling occasional Indian failings.
Indian liberals thus construct a parade of horribles and cherry-pick a few egregious examples of Indian lapses to diminish the self-evident superiority of the Indian project (vs. those of our neighbors) -- this is a profoundly subversive act. [Note: The italicized words are taken from the conservative dissent in a US Supreme Court ruling from earlier today; the language is terrific, and it applies well in the context of our post.]
Fortunately, most Indians can see through this subterfuge. They remain patriots at heart and their politics embraces nationalism. They are, however, puzzled by the constant drip-drip of India-bashing by our liberals who strain to find nuggets of good in our awful enemies, while dismissing the entire ocean of our nation's greatness.
This suicidal liberal attitude discredits liberalism itself. Consequently, India's instinctively nationalist heart turns away and, in desperation, opens itself even to faux-nationalist evangelism of India's cultural bigots.
If we are to sustain a secular, modern, and tolerant public space in India, our fellow liberals need to re-assess their constant India-bashing. If they don't feel comfortable making this sacrifice, well, then they should consider relinquishing, to secular-nationalists, their self-seized mantle of being secularism's defenders. Absent this, liberals risk tainting secularism by their association -- this would be a horrible tragedy.
As they might say in American, Indian liberal dogma don't hunt no more!
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Standing With Our Soldiers
We just read a Dilip D'Souza blogpost, Rashomon on the border, where he makes the following offensive argument:
So I know Indians, outraged by this incident, who are calling for a strong military response against Bangladesh. They rail against the pusillanimity of a country that would be pushed around by a minnow like Bangladesh. Even if there was provocation, they say, Bangladesh cannot do this to an Indian soldier. That country seems to think it is India's equal, and our response should be so overwhelming as to rid them of such grandiose pretensions.
And I'm left to wonder, why is it that the way we consider incidents like this must be coloured by our national loyalties? Why must we believe our own country's version of events, even if it has holes, over the other's? (Then again, the other country's version also has holes).
Is it so hard to accept that when you have a tense border, you're going to have incidents like this one, and that's really why it happened? That if we want no more futile deaths like these, the real answer is for both countries to learn to live like neighbours, which they never have managed?
As our readers know, this blog has taken precisely the position Mr. D'Souza condemns. The following is our response to his argument.
The reason for Indians to stand with our soldiers -- and their version of what happened -- is that they stand vigil on the border, placing their lives at stake, so that we can live the free lives (a rarity in our hemisphere) that we lead.
Liberals seemingly revel in taking potshots at our boys -- just to make abstract points. It's all well & good to talk about the nature of truth, ala Rashomon, in smoke-filled parties and consequence-less blogs, but we're talking here about real Indians who've been tortured and killed -- so we can have these parties and blogs.
Mr. D'Souza is free to make an equivalence between the soldier who died protecting us, and the foreigners who care little about our interests; he should go right ahead. Afterall, he lives in a free country where such obscenity too is protected speech.
As for this blog, that takes the unabashedly hardline Indian view but, like others with similar views, mourns even the Bangladeshi dead -- a point Mr. D'Souza conveniently omitted in his post, the life of an Indian soldier matters a heck of a lot more than the lives of those who he has died protecting our freedoms from. If we do not stand with our boys when they're under fire, in the trenches, who will? Arundhati Roy? Noam Chomsky? Khaleda Zia?
Any other attitude insults the memory of our amar jawans. That we cannot let happen.
So I know Indians, outraged by this incident, who are calling for a strong military response against Bangladesh. They rail against the pusillanimity of a country that would be pushed around by a minnow like Bangladesh. Even if there was provocation, they say, Bangladesh cannot do this to an Indian soldier. That country seems to think it is India's equal, and our response should be so overwhelming as to rid them of such grandiose pretensions.
And I'm left to wonder, why is it that the way we consider incidents like this must be coloured by our national loyalties? Why must we believe our own country's version of events, even if it has holes, over the other's? (Then again, the other country's version also has holes).
Is it so hard to accept that when you have a tense border, you're going to have incidents like this one, and that's really why it happened? That if we want no more futile deaths like these, the real answer is for both countries to learn to live like neighbours, which they never have managed?
As our readers know, this blog has taken precisely the position Mr. D'Souza condemns. The following is our response to his argument.
The reason for Indians to stand with our soldiers -- and their version of what happened -- is that they stand vigil on the border, placing their lives at stake, so that we can live the free lives (a rarity in our hemisphere) that we lead.
Liberals seemingly revel in taking potshots at our boys -- just to make abstract points. It's all well & good to talk about the nature of truth, ala Rashomon, in smoke-filled parties and consequence-less blogs, but we're talking here about real Indians who've been tortured and killed -- so we can have these parties and blogs.
Mr. D'Souza is free to make an equivalence between the soldier who died protecting us, and the foreigners who care little about our interests; he should go right ahead. Afterall, he lives in a free country where such obscenity too is protected speech.
As for this blog, that takes the unabashedly hardline Indian view but, like others with similar views, mourns even the Bangladeshi dead -- a point Mr. D'Souza conveniently omitted in his post, the life of an Indian soldier matters a heck of a lot more than the lives of those who he has died protecting our freedoms from. If we do not stand with our boys when they're under fire, in the trenches, who will? Arundhati Roy? Noam Chomsky? Khaleda Zia?
Any other attitude insults the memory of our amar jawans. That we cannot let happen.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Christian Science Monitor: Exquisite Timing, NOT
See this CSM article on the glory of Indian Railways published the same day as, what Nitin calls, the world's largest terrorist network has killed more people.
A brief aside to acknowledge Patrix's concern about Indian blogosphere's linking patterns. Some of this likely has to do with the prolificacy and consistency of various bloggers. This is to say, if a blogger writes a lot and well, one can always find a good post on his/her blog to link to -- for adding color to a story the linking blogger might independently have interest in. At least, this is clearly the case in our linking preferences.
On the rail accident story, for example, of all those blogs we read daily, including Nerve Endings Firing Away, only The Acorn (who we link to a great deal) has (predictably) written about it, and written well. Therefore, the link.
Nevertheless, Patrix makes a good point -- perhaps one resolution could be for blog readers to alert the blogger (via comments, for example) of other bloggers with interesting takes on the topic at hand. This will likely make the bloggers in question click through to these other blogs, thereby discovering more great writing they simply weren't aware of.
A brief aside to acknowledge Patrix's concern about Indian blogosphere's linking patterns. Some of this likely has to do with the prolificacy and consistency of various bloggers. This is to say, if a blogger writes a lot and well, one can always find a good post on his/her blog to link to -- for adding color to a story the linking blogger might independently have interest in. At least, this is clearly the case in our linking preferences.
On the rail accident story, for example, of all those blogs we read daily, including Nerve Endings Firing Away, only The Acorn (who we link to a great deal) has (predictably) written about it, and written well. Therefore, the link.
Nevertheless, Patrix makes a good point -- perhaps one resolution could be for blog readers to alert the blogger (via comments, for example) of other bloggers with interesting takes on the topic at hand. This will likely make the bloggers in question click through to these other blogs, thereby discovering more great writing they simply weren't aware of.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Christian Science Monitor: Lazy Writing, Bigoted Thought
The ordinarily terrific Christian Science Monitor has run this terrible editorial today on the Indo-Pak "peace" process.
There's nothing particularly notable about this editorial. Similar thought, seemingly everywhere, has drowned out sensible thinking in recent days. There is, however, a profoundly illiterate and deeply offensive section in the editorial that merits being called out for what it is, lazy and bigoted.
India can't let this moment slip, nor just string Pakistan along. It must make trust-building concessions, such as on a proposed dam that would restrict water flow to Pakistan. Largely Hindu India must eventually be flexible in redefining the status of largely Muslim Kashmir.
Shame on you, CSM for such bigotry. What makes you think that religious affiliation determines a people's nationality? You may wish to re-read US' own constitution to comprehend why India, that shares similar values, cannot accept your absurd suggestion. We hope an apology is forthcoming.
There's nothing particularly notable about this editorial. Similar thought, seemingly everywhere, has drowned out sensible thinking in recent days. There is, however, a profoundly illiterate and deeply offensive section in the editorial that merits being called out for what it is, lazy and bigoted.
India can't let this moment slip, nor just string Pakistan along. It must make trust-building concessions, such as on a proposed dam that would restrict water flow to Pakistan. Largely Hindu India must eventually be flexible in redefining the status of largely Muslim Kashmir.
Shame on you, CSM for such bigotry. What makes you think that religious affiliation determines a people's nationality? You may wish to re-read US' own constitution to comprehend why India, that shares similar values, cannot accept your absurd suggestion. We hope an apology is forthcoming.
Mahesh Bhatt: Terrible Writing, Foolish Thought
Check out this gem from the Pakistani newspaper, Dawn.
He had tasted death - I could see that. It's not what he said, but how he said what he said that demolished my preconceived notions about him. I was watching President Musharraf interacting with Indian editors at a breakfast meeting on television, while oscillating between dread and hope.
"We need to find solutions for our problems now," he said, or words to that effect. "We need to do so now because tomorrow, India and Pakistan will be there, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf may not be... and these unresolved problems will resurface... we owe this to posterity."
His words touched me and broke through my self-imposed barricade of suspicion. The prism of the past through which my blinked vision was being filtered just dissolved. Suddenly this image that we all have of a blood-thirsty general out to destroy India evaporated.
He had tasted death - I could see that. It's not what he said, but how he said what he said that demolished my preconceived notions about him. I was watching President Musharraf interacting with Indian editors at a breakfast meeting on television, while oscillating between dread and hope.
"We need to find solutions for our problems now," he said, or words to that effect. "We need to do so now because tomorrow, India and Pakistan will be there, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf may not be... and these unresolved problems will resurface... we owe this to posterity."
His words touched me and broke through my self-imposed barricade of suspicion. The prism of the past through which my blinked vision was being filtered just dissolved. Suddenly this image that we all have of a blood-thirsty general out to destroy India evaporated.
Dictatorship of Relativism
So, the new pope, Benedict XVI, promises to save the world from the "dictatorship of relativism", perhaps by introducing the democracy of absolutism. Oh, I forgot, the last elections already saved the US. Bush and the Pope will make good friends.
Independent of your viewpoint, it's always fascinating to see cunning linguists develop new "weapons" in the war of words. Pro-choice or Pro-life, Death-tax or Estate-tax, Coalition of the willing or Coalition of the co-erced, the unfaithful and the infidels, the Axis of Evil, political and religious leaders have mastered them all. (Click here for more).
If you want to get away from it all, check out this amusing program written by MIT students, just for laughs, that randomly juxtaposes words, albeit grammatically correctly, to "maximize amusement rather than coherence".
Independent of your viewpoint, it's always fascinating to see cunning linguists develop new "weapons" in the war of words. Pro-choice or Pro-life, Death-tax or Estate-tax, Coalition of the willing or Coalition of the co-erced, the unfaithful and the infidels, the Axis of Evil, political and religious leaders have mastered them all. (Click here for more).
If you want to get away from it all, check out this amusing program written by MIT students, just for laughs, that randomly juxtaposes words, albeit grammatically correctly, to "maximize amusement rather than coherence".
Put The UN Out Of Its Misery, Please
First, a confession. We detest the UN system -- the simultaneous mirth and rage its naive, therefore dangerous, idealism evokes in us cannot be overstated.
UN is where all nations come together, as equals, for world peace. Yeah, right. Rampant corruption is more like the UN's slice of brie. And standing up for the sovereign rights of miserable dictators like Saddam Hussain, and cretinesque dictaorships like Pakistan seeking "self-determination" for another nation's people. Give us a break.
The UN is socialist in its design -- therefore deeply flawed, even immoral. Even if we set aside its corruption and ineffectiveness, the UN's funding and expenditures, in theory, are based on that evil idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Evil? Is that not too harsh?
A system that eliminates positive incentives that impel people and nations, no matter what their station in life, to quit complaining, chin-up, and bootstrap out of their present misery is surely evil. For UN to sustain itself, human misery has to stay in place (as it has remained even after half a century of UN benevolence -- it's even arguable that in parts of the world today people live more miserable lives than any of their ancestors have ever lived). Thanks a lot, UN.
Idealists among us have tasked the UN to attack human misery, thereby committing organizational hara-kiri (what, afterall, is the UN's value in a post-misery world?). Anyone who knows bureaucracies knows this ain't gonna' happen.
So, here's a suggestion. Once the upcoming, so-called reform is through, and India is predictably denied the Security Council seat it so (pathetically) covets, it should quit whining, chin-up, and bootstrap itself out of the UN.
Imagine the aftershocks. A billion people democracy disawows a corrupt and unrepresentative UN. WOW! Now that's an act of demonstrated power and confidence.
The world's going to have to deal with India, UN or no UN. In the high-noon shoot-out between the immoral East River bureaucracy and the moral Indian democracy, guess who'll come out ahead. By showing leadership and confidence, India would have made the first great-power splash of the 21st century -- believe us, there are many other nations who will then follow India's lead and that will, finally, thankfully end this blue-helmet charade we call the UN.
You want to be a great power, India -- here it is, a whopper of an opportunity. Put the UN out of its misery, please.
UN is where all nations come together, as equals, for world peace. Yeah, right. Rampant corruption is more like the UN's slice of brie. And standing up for the sovereign rights of miserable dictators like Saddam Hussain, and cretinesque dictaorships like Pakistan seeking "self-determination" for another nation's people. Give us a break.
The UN is socialist in its design -- therefore deeply flawed, even immoral. Even if we set aside its corruption and ineffectiveness, the UN's funding and expenditures, in theory, are based on that evil idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Evil? Is that not too harsh?
A system that eliminates positive incentives that impel people and nations, no matter what their station in life, to quit complaining, chin-up, and bootstrap out of their present misery is surely evil. For UN to sustain itself, human misery has to stay in place (as it has remained even after half a century of UN benevolence -- it's even arguable that in parts of the world today people live more miserable lives than any of their ancestors have ever lived). Thanks a lot, UN.
Idealists among us have tasked the UN to attack human misery, thereby committing organizational hara-kiri (what, afterall, is the UN's value in a post-misery world?). Anyone who knows bureaucracies knows this ain't gonna' happen.
So, here's a suggestion. Once the upcoming, so-called reform is through, and India is predictably denied the Security Council seat it so (pathetically) covets, it should quit whining, chin-up, and bootstrap itself out of the UN.
Imagine the aftershocks. A billion people democracy disawows a corrupt and unrepresentative UN. WOW! Now that's an act of demonstrated power and confidence.
The world's going to have to deal with India, UN or no UN. In the high-noon shoot-out between the immoral East River bureaucracy and the moral Indian democracy, guess who'll come out ahead. By showing leadership and confidence, India would have made the first great-power splash of the 21st century -- believe us, there are many other nations who will then follow India's lead and that will, finally, thankfully end this blue-helmet charade we call the UN.
You want to be a great power, India -- here it is, a whopper of an opportunity. Put the UN out of its misery, please.
HIV in India
Among even the most voluble Indians, who write and talk incessantly about national security issues, there exists a deafening silence about India's HIV near-epidemic.
Embarrassment and denial abound in our officialdom (as today's BBC story illustrates) -- consequently, our populace remains woefully ill-informed about the threat to them as individuals, and to the strategic security of their State. Our media too is light on the subject -- perhaps the Indian blogosphere can act more responsibly in bringing out the brutal Indian reality about the subject.
In this context, it's useful to read Nicholas Eberstadt's alarming 2002 essay that appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine. Once one absorbs the implications of Mr. Eberstadt's model, one cannot but place the HIV problem at the same level as issues like Pakistan, China, Security Council, Missiles Defense, and Terrorism.
In January 2004, we attended a party in Delhi honoring a visiting CSIS taskforce investigating HIV in India. In addition to Mr. Eberstadt's essay, the taskforce's report is also worth reading.
In our interaction with members of the taskforce, among other things we observed that India's apathy to this disease matches America's own similar apathy in the '80s, when the disease was assumed localized only in certain high-risk populations. Nothing could be farther from the truth -- the full realization of this came to America only after the basketball hyperstar Magic Johnson revealed he had the virus.
Mr. Johnson was hardly part of the "high-risk" populations everyone assumed the disease was localized in. He was a virile super-athlete, and if he was vulnerable, who was safe?
So, we observed to the taskforce, while we hope no one comes down with this horrible affliction, India needs our own Magic Johnson -- a national idol (a cricketer perhaps, or a Bollywood star) who publicly reveals his/her battle with the virus. This requires courage, of course, and a heroic commitment to the nation's well-being.
We await such a genuine Indian hero.
Embarrassment and denial abound in our officialdom (as today's BBC story illustrates) -- consequently, our populace remains woefully ill-informed about the threat to them as individuals, and to the strategic security of their State. Our media too is light on the subject -- perhaps the Indian blogosphere can act more responsibly in bringing out the brutal Indian reality about the subject.
In this context, it's useful to read Nicholas Eberstadt's alarming 2002 essay that appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine. Once one absorbs the implications of Mr. Eberstadt's model, one cannot but place the HIV problem at the same level as issues like Pakistan, China, Security Council, Missiles Defense, and Terrorism.
In January 2004, we attended a party in Delhi honoring a visiting CSIS taskforce investigating HIV in India. In addition to Mr. Eberstadt's essay, the taskforce's report is also worth reading.
In our interaction with members of the taskforce, among other things we observed that India's apathy to this disease matches America's own similar apathy in the '80s, when the disease was assumed localized only in certain high-risk populations. Nothing could be farther from the truth -- the full realization of this came to America only after the basketball hyperstar Magic Johnson revealed he had the virus.
Mr. Johnson was hardly part of the "high-risk" populations everyone assumed the disease was localized in. He was a virile super-athlete, and if he was vulnerable, who was safe?
So, we observed to the taskforce, while we hope no one comes down with this horrible affliction, India needs our own Magic Johnson -- a national idol (a cricketer perhaps, or a Bollywood star) who publicly reveals his/her battle with the virus. This requires courage, of course, and a heroic commitment to the nation's well-being.
We await such a genuine Indian hero.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The Demise of Brokerage Parties?
Recently, we wrote about the Bihar-like Corruption in Canada.
In today's New York Times, Canada-native David Frum (author of the brilliant but now-notorious words "axis of evil") writes about the Canadian Liberal Party's scandal. The following passage, referencing India's own Congress Party, caught our eye (hat tip: Instapundit):
Unlike their supposed analogues, the Democrats in the United States or Great Britain's Labor Party, Canada's Liberals are not a party built around certain policies and principles. They are instead what political scientists call a brokerage party, similar to the old Italian Christian Democrats or India's Congress Party: a political entity without fixed principles or policies that exploits the power of the central state to bribe or bully incompatible constituencies to join together to share the spoils of government.
As countries modernize, they tend to leave brokerage parties behind. Very belatedly, that moment of maturity may now be arriving in Canada. Americans may lose their illusions about my native country; Canadians will gain true multiparty democracy and accountability in government. It's an exchange that is long past due.
We suspect that India is unlikely to leave Congress Party behind -- unless there emerges a robust, viable secular-right alternative to the cultural bigotry that masquerades as right-wing politics in India today.
In today's New York Times, Canada-native David Frum (author of the brilliant but now-notorious words "axis of evil") writes about the Canadian Liberal Party's scandal. The following passage, referencing India's own Congress Party, caught our eye (hat tip: Instapundit):
Unlike their supposed analogues, the Democrats in the United States or Great Britain's Labor Party, Canada's Liberals are not a party built around certain policies and principles. They are instead what political scientists call a brokerage party, similar to the old Italian Christian Democrats or India's Congress Party: a political entity without fixed principles or policies that exploits the power of the central state to bribe or bully incompatible constituencies to join together to share the spoils of government.
As countries modernize, they tend to leave brokerage parties behind. Very belatedly, that moment of maturity may now be arriving in Canada. Americans may lose their illusions about my native country; Canadians will gain true multiparty democracy and accountability in government. It's an exchange that is long past due.
We suspect that India is unlikely to leave Congress Party behind -- unless there emerges a robust, viable secular-right alternative to the cultural bigotry that masquerades as right-wing politics in India today.
Murder on the Bangladesh Border
The stupefying torture and murder of a BSF officer by his counterparts in Bangladesh's BDR requires a tough stance by India.
By tough we mean, India should demand that the BDR killers be extradited to India where they should be tried for murder.
Now, there are conflicting stories (well described here and here) about the violence. There are also Bangladeshi civilians dead, who we mourn.
BUT, no matter what the underlying cause, Bangladesh does not have the authority to kidnap, torture, and kill an Indian soldier. For such transgression, the piper must be paid and India should make a harsh example of the Bangladeshi perpetrators.
Can we even imagine what might happen if dependent North Korea killed a Chinese soldier, or Mexico killed an American border patrol agent? Why India is taking this outrage lying down, mystifies us.
We have much goodwill for the people of Bangladesh, whose dysfunctional and pathetic Government is eroding the very foundations of their State. Dhaka now seems to think itself a geo-political equal to New Delhi, and if not equal at least the same as Pakistan in terms of trouble-making capacity versus India. Dhaka should be promptly disabused of this delusion.
Our hardline message to Bangladesh: quit messing with India or there'd be a heavy price to pay, sooner or later. Don't mistake India's current era of strategic softness as a lasting phenomenon -- the pendulum will swing back in time, and when it does, look out.
By tough we mean, India should demand that the BDR killers be extradited to India where they should be tried for murder.
Now, there are conflicting stories (well described here and here) about the violence. There are also Bangladeshi civilians dead, who we mourn.
BUT, no matter what the underlying cause, Bangladesh does not have the authority to kidnap, torture, and kill an Indian soldier. For such transgression, the piper must be paid and India should make a harsh example of the Bangladeshi perpetrators.
Can we even imagine what might happen if dependent North Korea killed a Chinese soldier, or Mexico killed an American border patrol agent? Why India is taking this outrage lying down, mystifies us.
We have much goodwill for the people of Bangladesh, whose dysfunctional and pathetic Government is eroding the very foundations of their State. Dhaka now seems to think itself a geo-political equal to New Delhi, and if not equal at least the same as Pakistan in terms of trouble-making capacity versus India. Dhaka should be promptly disabused of this delusion.
Our hardline message to Bangladesh: quit messing with India or there'd be a heavy price to pay, sooner or later. Don't mistake India's current era of strategic softness as a lasting phenomenon -- the pendulum will swing back in time, and when it does, look out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)