An opposition Member of Parliament has alleged that he and his wife (also an MP) were made generous offers by ruling party luminaries to sit out a crucial parliamentary vote. He alleges he has tapes of these conversations.
Obviously, an uproar has broken out with demands that the tapes be made public. They will be, the MP says, after they've been translated into English from Punjabi!
Where is this scandal going on? Click to find out!! We've previously written on similar matters here.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Deep Throat's Identity Revealed
Via Drudge and Vanity Fair, Ex-FBI official says he's 'Deep Throat'; Magazine quotes him as saying he was 'doing his duty'.
This man almost single-handedly brought down the most powerful man in the world. Fascinating stuff.
This man almost single-handedly brought down the most powerful man in the world. Fascinating stuff.
On Temperance In Language
Here is Omar Khayyam on religious fanatics (see page 6):
And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret-and denied it me?
Well, well, what matters it? Believe that, too.
We imagine Nanopolitan & Dilip (see his comments on Nanopolitan's post) take strong offense to Mr. Khayyam's language! Also, that they object strongly to our characterizing Shiv Sena as neanderthals and loonies!! And, Nida Fazli's poetic assault on Advani ji must really numb their sensitive souls!!!
Or, is their ire only restricted for when offensive liberal ideas are confronted by folks like us, impossible to be dismissed as bigots or criminals?
And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret-and denied it me?
Well, well, what matters it? Believe that, too.
We imagine Nanopolitan & Dilip (see his comments on Nanopolitan's post) take strong offense to Mr. Khayyam's language! Also, that they object strongly to our characterizing Shiv Sena as neanderthals and loonies!! And, Nida Fazli's poetic assault on Advani ji must really numb their sensitive souls!!!
Or, is their ire only restricted for when offensive liberal ideas are confronted by folks like us, impossible to be dismissed as bigots or criminals?
Monday, May 30, 2005
Democracy in Asia
Francis Fukuyama (author of The End of History and the Last Man) credits Ronald Reagan (?!) for the now-blooming democracy in Asia:
This democratic revolution was helped along by a critical shift in American policy that occurred during the Reagan years, when the U.S. moved away from a "realist" policy of support for friendly dictators towards encouragement of democratic transition. This began in 1986, when Benigno Aquino's assassination three years earlier provoked the "people power" revolution that eventually brought Corazon Aquino to power as a democratically elected president of the Philippines. Paul Wolfowitz (who will soon become president of the World Bank and was at that time assistant secretary of state for East Asia), together with his boss George Shultz, played a key role in gently persuading President Reagan to give up on the dictator Ferdinand Marcos and take the risks of a plunge into democracy.
The following year, President Reagan quietly but firmly urged General Roh Tae-woo to support the establishment of democratic institutions when popular protests against military dictatorship in South Korea spread. This contrasts sharply with U.S. behavior seven years earlier, when Washington stood aside as General Chun Doo-hwan staged a bloody crackdown on demonstrators in Kwangju. The U.S. looked on favorably as well when Taiwan's ruler, Chiang Ching-kuo, prepared his country for a political opening in 1988 and was succeeded by the democratically elected Lee Teng-hui.
Everywhere but in Zia's Pakistan, eh?!
This democratic revolution was helped along by a critical shift in American policy that occurred during the Reagan years, when the U.S. moved away from a "realist" policy of support for friendly dictators towards encouragement of democratic transition. This began in 1986, when Benigno Aquino's assassination three years earlier provoked the "people power" revolution that eventually brought Corazon Aquino to power as a democratically elected president of the Philippines. Paul Wolfowitz (who will soon become president of the World Bank and was at that time assistant secretary of state for East Asia), together with his boss George Shultz, played a key role in gently persuading President Reagan to give up on the dictator Ferdinand Marcos and take the risks of a plunge into democracy.
The following year, President Reagan quietly but firmly urged General Roh Tae-woo to support the establishment of democratic institutions when popular protests against military dictatorship in South Korea spread. This contrasts sharply with U.S. behavior seven years earlier, when Washington stood aside as General Chun Doo-hwan staged a bloody crackdown on demonstrators in Kwangju. The U.S. looked on favorably as well when Taiwan's ruler, Chiang Ching-kuo, prepared his country for a political opening in 1988 and was succeeded by the democratically elected Lee Teng-hui.
Everywhere but in Zia's Pakistan, eh?!
Sunday, May 29, 2005
War, Interrupted
To our friends puzzled by our bellicosity on Pakistan: we neither wish for war, nor -- conversely & crucially -- understand wishful thinking about war.
With Pakistan, we may presently have a war, interrupted -- but it's war all the same, an unprovoked war imposed on us by an unrepentant enemy. Many Indians -- good folks all -- wishfully interpret this present interruption as the war's end, this mere comma as a full stop. Instinctively, they now seek a win-win aftermath to war.
Yes, war is a terrible thing, however its unquenched embers are even worse; this still-smoldering coal is hardly good foundation even for castles in the air.
Let's be crystal clear about one thing: there may be win-win outcomes in love, but never in war. Here, either one prevails or one goes down.
By prevailing, we don't mean destroying cities and traumatizing the enemy's people (in Pakistan's case, its people are as much a victim of their rulers' dark hearts as Indians are); we mean defeating the enemy in his mind: savaging his assumptions, debasing his dreams, charring his resolve, and eliminating his war-waging capacity.
Only then, from this rubble of the enemy's neutered psyche, we can finally begin imagining a win-win future.
Have we learnt nothing from the ugly wars of the century just passed? After the first great European war, Versailles naively left intact defeated Germany's intent and capacity for war. A beaten, but unbroken, Germany then burned Europe to ground in less than 25 years. After the second great European war, Germany was psychologically crushed. Its post-war prosperity was then built on the foundation of Third Reich's rubble.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein was repulsed from Kuwait, but his megalomania and his war-machine wasn't smashed. He then portrayed himself as an Arab victim of American hegemony, and viciously crushed his Shia subjects. In 2003, after his globally-beamed dental exam, that game was finally over.
Let's return to Pakistan. India did not seek partition; it was imposed on us. India did not seek the subsequent wars; every one of them were imposed on us.
The Pakistani assumptions underlying this dark history, as we know well, are quite racist in nature. Most Pakistani kids are brought up on the tripe that Indians are lesser than them, a weak -- and immoral -- people, unfairly ruling a large geography that should be fragmented.
Pakistan dreams of being an equal to India in geo-political clout; some there even dream of hoisting their flag on Delhi's Red Fort.
In a supposedly conciliatory speech after December 13th, 2001, Pervez Musharraf spoke about Kashmir running in his blood. He was alluding there to his nation's -- his army's, his people's -- jihadist resolve to, one day, pry away the Himalayan territory from an inherently "weak" India. He's also repeatedly articulated his reasons for Pakistan's so-called "U-Turns" on terrorism and war: these are tactical adjustments given 9/11. Why should we assume this as a permanent change of heart?
As for Pakistan's war-making capacity, it has an economy sufficiently large to support, if necessary, a conventional war that can damage India greatly. It also has the bomb.
So, when our bellicose enemy stands proud with his racist assumptions, his covetous dreams, his jihadist resolve, and his war-machinery intact, how is it that thoughtful Indians think the war is over? Are we really sure we want to open up our greatest asset -- the ambition and enterprise of our free and heterogeneous people -- to an enemy whose uncreating and bigoted hand will burn it all down?
We pose these questions to our friends, and finally this: how can trading trinkets with evil possibly vanquish the darkness in its heart?
With Pakistan, we may presently have a war, interrupted -- but it's war all the same, an unprovoked war imposed on us by an unrepentant enemy. Many Indians -- good folks all -- wishfully interpret this present interruption as the war's end, this mere comma as a full stop. Instinctively, they now seek a win-win aftermath to war.
Yes, war is a terrible thing, however its unquenched embers are even worse; this still-smoldering coal is hardly good foundation even for castles in the air.
Let's be crystal clear about one thing: there may be win-win outcomes in love, but never in war. Here, either one prevails or one goes down.
By prevailing, we don't mean destroying cities and traumatizing the enemy's people (in Pakistan's case, its people are as much a victim of their rulers' dark hearts as Indians are); we mean defeating the enemy in his mind: savaging his assumptions, debasing his dreams, charring his resolve, and eliminating his war-waging capacity.
Only then, from this rubble of the enemy's neutered psyche, we can finally begin imagining a win-win future.
Have we learnt nothing from the ugly wars of the century just passed? After the first great European war, Versailles naively left intact defeated Germany's intent and capacity for war. A beaten, but unbroken, Germany then burned Europe to ground in less than 25 years. After the second great European war, Germany was psychologically crushed. Its post-war prosperity was then built on the foundation of Third Reich's rubble.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein was repulsed from Kuwait, but his megalomania and his war-machine wasn't smashed. He then portrayed himself as an Arab victim of American hegemony, and viciously crushed his Shia subjects. In 2003, after his globally-beamed dental exam, that game was finally over.
Let's return to Pakistan. India did not seek partition; it was imposed on us. India did not seek the subsequent wars; every one of them were imposed on us.
The Pakistani assumptions underlying this dark history, as we know well, are quite racist in nature. Most Pakistani kids are brought up on the tripe that Indians are lesser than them, a weak -- and immoral -- people, unfairly ruling a large geography that should be fragmented.
Pakistan dreams of being an equal to India in geo-political clout; some there even dream of hoisting their flag on Delhi's Red Fort.
In a supposedly conciliatory speech after December 13th, 2001, Pervez Musharraf spoke about Kashmir running in his blood. He was alluding there to his nation's -- his army's, his people's -- jihadist resolve to, one day, pry away the Himalayan territory from an inherently "weak" India. He's also repeatedly articulated his reasons for Pakistan's so-called "U-Turns" on terrorism and war: these are tactical adjustments given 9/11. Why should we assume this as a permanent change of heart?
As for Pakistan's war-making capacity, it has an economy sufficiently large to support, if necessary, a conventional war that can damage India greatly. It also has the bomb.
So, when our bellicose enemy stands proud with his racist assumptions, his covetous dreams, his jihadist resolve, and his war-machinery intact, how is it that thoughtful Indians think the war is over? Are we really sure we want to open up our greatest asset -- the ambition and enterprise of our free and heterogeneous people -- to an enemy whose uncreating and bigoted hand will burn it all down?
We pose these questions to our friends, and finally this: how can trading trinkets with evil possibly vanquish the darkness in its heart?
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Paris Hilton: A Sign Of Human Progress!!!
This is Wall Street Journal editor Tunku Varadarajan's, very astute, perspective.
In backward cultures, women are overprotected and invisible; so men lose all resistance to images--and all self-restraint. In downtown Kandahar, for example, a display of female ankle is proof of flooziness most damnable.
In backward cultures, women are overprotected and invisible; so men lose all resistance to images--and all self-restraint. In downtown Kandahar, for example, a display of female ankle is proof of flooziness most damnable.
In the West, by important contrast, men modulate their behavior when faced with seductive images. They have to. Women judge them by their ability to do so. And they are trained, at an early age, to take responsibility for their own lust.
Comprehend that with your Neanderthal brain, dear Shiv Sena!
Friday, May 27, 2005
Friday Musings
Over at India Uncut, Amit asks if one can make a phone call with a bar of soap? Don't know about that, but it seems like a bar of soap can trigger gender-bending!! (hat tip: Drudge Report)
While soap can weaken masculinity, Viagra can apparently blind its users!!! (via MSNBC)
Tough day to be a man!!!
While soap can weaken masculinity, Viagra can apparently blind its users!!! (via MSNBC)
Tough day to be a man!!!
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
We were flipping channels last night and settled on "The West Wing". The episode was named after the classic logical fallacy Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc [after, therefore because of it].
Earlier in the day, (via Amit) we'd read Jerry Rao's Indian Express column on English where he praises Macaulay, whose gift of English he credits for India's later genius. The self-styled Macaulay-putra (!) writes:
I, for one, am grateful to Macaulay. Without his gift to us, so many of us would be lesser individuals, not just different individuals. I use the word “lesser” quite deliberately. English is not just a medium or a means to an end; it is part of our very consciousness. The interesting thing is even while writing on completely Indian subjects, this consciousness has been a powerful force. Just consider the individuals and their writings: Vivekananda on Vedanta, Coomaraswamy on Indian Art, Aurobindo Ghose on Vedic Mysticism, Radhakrishnan on the Hindu View of Life, Krishnan on Indian Wildlife, Srinivas on Caste, Zakaria on Indian Muslims, Sircar on Indian History, Guha on Indian Cricket, Nandy on Indian Science, Kakkar on Indian Sexuality, Khushwant Singh on Indian Gossip. The list is endless.
We think quite highly of Jerry Rao, but on this he's missed the mark. It's true that English is a powerful force that's shaped modern Indian identity and ideas, but this is solely because history placed English in our context and resourceful Indians ran with it. If we'd not been touched by English, as was the case before our tumult with The British East India Company, we'd still be resourceful and Vivekanada would likely still write on Vedanta, Coomaraswamy on Indian Art, Aurobindo Ghose on Vedic Mysticism, Radhakrishnan on the Hindu View of Life, Krishnan on Indian Wildlife, Srinivas on Caste, Zakaria on Indian Muslims, Sircar on Indian History, Guha on Indian Cricket, Nandy on Indian Science, Kakkar on Indian Sexuality, Khushwant Singh on Indian Gossip. Their respective genius was surely not a consequence of English, rather it poured itself powerfully into English as a convenient expression-vessel.
Jerry Rao's argument is a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. It also goes against the brilliant Indic view that there are many rivers flowing to the ocean, each equally valid for our spiritual or material journeys. Elite India has traveled over English in search of great power status, but there are other rivers too we might have taken if English weren't available.
We do agree with him that India needs to get over its colonial hangover and accept history for what it is, then move on. But, lets please not swing excessively to the other side.
Earlier in the day, (via Amit) we'd read Jerry Rao's Indian Express column on English where he praises Macaulay, whose gift of English he credits for India's later genius. The self-styled Macaulay-putra (!) writes:
I, for one, am grateful to Macaulay. Without his gift to us, so many of us would be lesser individuals, not just different individuals. I use the word “lesser” quite deliberately. English is not just a medium or a means to an end; it is part of our very consciousness. The interesting thing is even while writing on completely Indian subjects, this consciousness has been a powerful force. Just consider the individuals and their writings: Vivekananda on Vedanta, Coomaraswamy on Indian Art, Aurobindo Ghose on Vedic Mysticism, Radhakrishnan on the Hindu View of Life, Krishnan on Indian Wildlife, Srinivas on Caste, Zakaria on Indian Muslims, Sircar on Indian History, Guha on Indian Cricket, Nandy on Indian Science, Kakkar on Indian Sexuality, Khushwant Singh on Indian Gossip. The list is endless.
We think quite highly of Jerry Rao, but on this he's missed the mark. It's true that English is a powerful force that's shaped modern Indian identity and ideas, but this is solely because history placed English in our context and resourceful Indians ran with it. If we'd not been touched by English, as was the case before our tumult with The British East India Company, we'd still be resourceful and Vivekanada would likely still write on Vedanta, Coomaraswamy on Indian Art, Aurobindo Ghose on Vedic Mysticism, Radhakrishnan on the Hindu View of Life, Krishnan on Indian Wildlife, Srinivas on Caste, Zakaria on Indian Muslims, Sircar on Indian History, Guha on Indian Cricket, Nandy on Indian Science, Kakkar on Indian Sexuality, Khushwant Singh on Indian Gossip. Their respective genius was surely not a consequence of English, rather it poured itself powerfully into English as a convenient expression-vessel.
Jerry Rao's argument is a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. It also goes against the brilliant Indic view that there are many rivers flowing to the ocean, each equally valid for our spiritual or material journeys. Elite India has traveled over English in search of great power status, but there are other rivers too we might have taken if English weren't available.
We do agree with him that India needs to get over its colonial hangover and accept history for what it is, then move on. But, lets please not swing excessively to the other side.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Great Wall of India
Via Pakistani daily The Nation, here's an eye-popping assertion by columnist M.A. Niazi:
It may be unenlightened and immoderate to mention this, but Kashmir is an emotional issue not just for Pakistanis, but other Muslims around the world. The much maligned extremists, whether militant jihadis like Al-Qaeda, or political militants like the Ikhwanul Muslimeen or the Hizbut Tahrir, are now the only foreign friends Pakistan has on the Kashmir issue. Their hostility to India is not based on some separate conflict with India, but exactly on the same basis as Pakistan's: Kashmir. These groups have done more than Pakistani diplomatic missions to keep alive the Kashmir issue on the Arab street, even as their governments curry favour with India.
Wow!! And this is a country India thinks it can do business with? Instead, maybe, we need a "great wall of India" on the frontier to keep out evil influences from this benighted nation!
It may be unenlightened and immoderate to mention this, but Kashmir is an emotional issue not just for Pakistanis, but other Muslims around the world. The much maligned extremists, whether militant jihadis like Al-Qaeda, or political militants like the Ikhwanul Muslimeen or the Hizbut Tahrir, are now the only foreign friends Pakistan has on the Kashmir issue. Their hostility to India is not based on some separate conflict with India, but exactly on the same basis as Pakistan's: Kashmir. These groups have done more than Pakistani diplomatic missions to keep alive the Kashmir issue on the Arab street, even as their governments curry favour with India.
Wow!! And this is a country India thinks it can do business with? Instead, maybe, we need a "great wall of India" on the frontier to keep out evil influences from this benighted nation!
Colonialism?
The nauseatingly liberal editorial page of The Hindu asks India to firm up its support to Palestine.
Among other reasons, it suggests that this be done because the Indian people know colonialism for the evil it is.
Yes, they do, BUT the matter of Palestine is hardly about colonialism. Regrettably, brought up on propaganda, too many Indians see it in precisely these invalid terms.
This Indian understanding defies the weight of history. India was member of UN's special commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) which endorsed the creation of Israel. It was Palestinians that rejected the compromise that was then on offer to them. Subsequently, on multiple occasions, Israel was attacked by Arab nations allied with Palestine. The so-called occupation of the West Bank & Gaza is a consequence of repeated Arab defeats in wars Israel did not provoke. These territories were taken not from Palestinians, but from Jordan and Egypt respectively. If Israel could be called a colonizer now, then we wonder if The Hindu would call Jordan and Egypt likewise for having ruled these territories before 1967. Our suspicion is that it won't.
Is the occupation perfect? Hardly so. But lets at least understand why it exists, before viciously jumping on Israel.
Notwithstanding the history of it being constantly attacked, Israel offered a deal at Taba which -- for all intents and purposes -- would have created a viable Palestinian state. Yasser Arafat turned the deal down in a staggering display of poor political calculation. The consequence has been five more years of bloodshed, which only his passing has begun to reverse.
Israel has repeatedly expressed interest in a deal that would create Palestine and would ensure security for Israel. This is completely reasonable and if we don't have a sovereign Palestine in existence at the moment, it's because Palestinians haven't got their house in order. Hopefully, Mr. Abbas can overcome internal challenges within Fatah and from Hamas to create the necessary conditions for peace to be secured.
One final point. Many are upset that the Taba deal offered slightly less than 100% of the West Bank & Gaza to Palestine. True. But that's what happens when a nation loses a war. Palestine has comprehensively lost it's (very dirty) war with Israel, and it needs to come to terms with this reality. That it'll still get a viable state, likely with a toehold in Jerusalem, speaks well of the victors -- for the losers to quibble with this is precious.
So, let India support Palestine strongly, but lets cut out the simultaneous barbs at Israel -- a democracy, a friend, and a strategic ally.
Among other reasons, it suggests that this be done because the Indian people know colonialism for the evil it is.
Yes, they do, BUT the matter of Palestine is hardly about colonialism. Regrettably, brought up on propaganda, too many Indians see it in precisely these invalid terms.
This Indian understanding defies the weight of history. India was member of UN's special commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) which endorsed the creation of Israel. It was Palestinians that rejected the compromise that was then on offer to them. Subsequently, on multiple occasions, Israel was attacked by Arab nations allied with Palestine. The so-called occupation of the West Bank & Gaza is a consequence of repeated Arab defeats in wars Israel did not provoke. These territories were taken not from Palestinians, but from Jordan and Egypt respectively. If Israel could be called a colonizer now, then we wonder if The Hindu would call Jordan and Egypt likewise for having ruled these territories before 1967. Our suspicion is that it won't.
Is the occupation perfect? Hardly so. But lets at least understand why it exists, before viciously jumping on Israel.
Notwithstanding the history of it being constantly attacked, Israel offered a deal at Taba which -- for all intents and purposes -- would have created a viable Palestinian state. Yasser Arafat turned the deal down in a staggering display of poor political calculation. The consequence has been five more years of bloodshed, which only his passing has begun to reverse.
Israel has repeatedly expressed interest in a deal that would create Palestine and would ensure security for Israel. This is completely reasonable and if we don't have a sovereign Palestine in existence at the moment, it's because Palestinians haven't got their house in order. Hopefully, Mr. Abbas can overcome internal challenges within Fatah and from Hamas to create the necessary conditions for peace to be secured.
One final point. Many are upset that the Taba deal offered slightly less than 100% of the West Bank & Gaza to Palestine. True. But that's what happens when a nation loses a war. Palestine has comprehensively lost it's (very dirty) war with Israel, and it needs to come to terms with this reality. That it'll still get a viable state, likely with a toehold in Jerusalem, speaks well of the victors -- for the losers to quibble with this is precious.
So, let India support Palestine strongly, but lets cut out the simultaneous barbs at Israel -- a democracy, a friend, and a strategic ally.
HIV in India
We've written previously about HIV in India . Now we read, on BBC, a curious headline: Clinton lauds India Aids campaign.
India has gone from being the world's number one worry to being the world's number one marvel, Mr. Clinton said in the Indian capital Delhi.
Why such applause? Because, per newly published data, initial estimates showed only 28,000 people became infected in 2004, compared to 520,000 in 2003. If true, this would indeed be a staggering development.
Forgive us for injecting cynicism here, but Indians would be wise to resist premature self-congratulation based on this curious data. Indeed, the new Aids figures were released by India's National Aids Control organization (Naco). But Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss said there would be an independent assessment of the estimates before a final figure could be released.
Hmmm.
India has gone from being the world's number one worry to being the world's number one marvel, Mr. Clinton said in the Indian capital Delhi.
Why such applause? Because, per newly published data, initial estimates showed only 28,000 people became infected in 2004, compared to 520,000 in 2003. If true, this would indeed be a staggering development.
Forgive us for injecting cynicism here, but Indians would be wise to resist premature self-congratulation based on this curious data. Indeed, the new Aids figures were released by India's National Aids Control organization (Naco). But Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss said there would be an independent assessment of the estimates before a final figure could be released.
Hmmm.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
On Death
With so much news of death, Mike Nichol's extraordinary 2001 film Wit comes to mind, where the protagonist (a stunning Emma Thompson) draws strength from (a Gita-esque) John Donne:
Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell;
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.
Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell;
And poppy or charms can make us sleep as well
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.
King Fahd
Per Stratfor:
Information received from the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh May 25 indicates that troop movements around Riyadh have increased "substantially" over the past 48 hours, and private flights going into Khalid International Airport have also increased. Additionally, Stratfor has noticed that the key players of the Saudi royal family, including Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz, Defense Minister Prince Sultan and Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal are all currently in the kingdom. A medical source close to a Saudi prince has also indicated that one of the princes in the Saudi royal family has been prohibited from leaving the palace. This could indicate that Saudi King Fahd bin Abdel-Aziz al Saud may be rapidly approaching his death.
Information received from the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh May 25 indicates that troop movements around Riyadh have increased "substantially" over the past 48 hours, and private flights going into Khalid International Airport have also increased. Additionally, Stratfor has noticed that the key players of the Saudi royal family, including Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz, Defense Minister Prince Sultan and Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal are all currently in the kingdom. A medical source close to a Saudi prince has also indicated that one of the princes in the Saudi royal family has been prohibited from leaving the palace. This could indicate that Saudi King Fahd bin Abdel-Aziz al Saud may be rapidly approaching his death.
Ismail Merchant Is No More
Death is stalking India's cultural icons today -- first, Sunil Dutt, and now Ismail Merchant.
Mr. Merchant turned Faiz into song for his directorial debut "In Custody". His passing will bring sadness to, paraphrasing Faiz, haakim-e-shehar bhi, majmaa-e-aam bhi.
What a terrible day this has turned out to be.
Mr. Merchant turned Faiz into song for his directorial debut "In Custody". His passing will bring sadness to, paraphrasing Faiz, haakim-e-shehar bhi, majmaa-e-aam bhi.
What a terrible day this has turned out to be.
Sudoku
Via The Economist, here's a new game -- Sudoku -- that could, eventually, threaten even the dominance of crossword puzzles.
Sudoku—the Japanese word combines “number” and “single”—seems perfectly suited to modern times, a puzzle for an era when people are more numerate than literate. And like globalism itself, sudoku transcends borders by requiring no translation.
Cool.
Sudoku—the Japanese word combines “number” and “single”—seems perfectly suited to modern times, a puzzle for an era when people are more numerate than literate. And like globalism itself, sudoku transcends borders by requiring no translation.
Cool.
IIT Update
Recently, we had lamented the proposed sissification Of IITs.
Last night, we had a chance to share our disquiet with the Director of one of the IITs. He surprised us by agreeing with us completely, adding that as long as there are hundreds of thousands competing for the few thousand seats at IIT, making the JEE simpler will do very little to reduce applicant stress.
Amen.
Last night, we had a chance to share our disquiet with the Director of one of the IITs. He surprised us by agreeing with us completely, adding that as long as there are hundreds of thousands competing for the few thousand seats at IIT, making the JEE simpler will do very little to reduce applicant stress.
Amen.
Sunil Dutt
We join India Uncut in mourning the death of Sunil Dutt, veteran actor and member of parliament.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
The Jewel In The Cobra's Mouth
McGill University's professor Eric Ormsby reviews The Clay Sanskrit Library, a compilation of masterpieces in Sanskrit poetry, drama and prose in a dual-language format. Great stuff.
For example, here's Bhartrihari translated:
Armlets do not embellish a man,
Nor necklaces bright as the moon,
Nor a bath, nor ointment, nor flowers,
Nor well-adorned hair.
Only perfectly cultivated speech
Thoroughly adorns a man.
All adornments fade away always.
Adornment of speech is the real adornment.
Why don't Indians author such translations of Sanskrit classics? Or perhaps they do -- but are not as well publicized. Any thoughts?
For example, here's Bhartrihari translated:
Armlets do not embellish a man,
Nor necklaces bright as the moon,
Nor a bath, nor ointment, nor flowers,
Nor well-adorned hair.
Only perfectly cultivated speech
Thoroughly adorns a man.
All adornments fade away always.
Adornment of speech is the real adornment.
Why don't Indians author such translations of Sanskrit classics? Or perhaps they do -- but are not as well publicized. Any thoughts?
The Hague vs. Camp Cropper
First, some context. We consider ourselves neo-conservative, strongly support America's war on terror (including Iraq), and hail President Bush's foreign policy revolution. Also, we have little sympathy for terrorists and their so-called "root causes".
So, when we find ourselves baffled by certain aspects of the war, we wish neither to diminish the war's purpose, nor to malign its prosecution. However, if even people like us -- as hawkish as we are -- are baffled on these aspects, no wonder many worldwide simply do not understand what the US is doing. This is too bad.
For example, we're baffled about why America allies with the barbaric tyranny of Uzbekistan.
We're also baffled about the staggering difference in how the alleged war criminals from Serbia are treated at The Hague (quite well) versus how the alleged war criminals are treated in Camp Cropper in Iraq (horribly). What explains this?
How is it even possible for degrading photographs of Saddam Hussein to escape the iron-clad security of the infinitely competent US military? Why haven't we seen similar photos of Slobodan Milosevic? Why are there two standards of war-criminal prosecution?
Finally, on Charlie Rose yesterday, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff (whose story about Quran being desecrated at Guantanamo apparently set off Imran Khan provoked riots in Pakistan) said mea culpa on how his story came about, but did not really back off its contents. Now, we agree with Varnam that the rioting in Pakistan is precious coming from folks who likely wouldn't know what respecting other faiths implies, but this isn't an issue about how the pathologically violent react; rather, this is about how we -- the good guys in this war -- feel when we finally realize that there might yet be a small possibility that this awful story is true. We aren't Muslim but we're sick to our guts on this realization. We're baffled about how this became a story about Newsweek's journalism and the reaction of rabid Pakistani fundamentalists rather than the core issue at hand.
We remain as steadfast as ever in our support for the war and the brave soldiers who risk their lives each day to secure global freedom. But we're baffled about some things we see and we're not sure it's reasonable to brush these frustrations under the carpet.
So, when we find ourselves baffled by certain aspects of the war, we wish neither to diminish the war's purpose, nor to malign its prosecution. However, if even people like us -- as hawkish as we are -- are baffled on these aspects, no wonder many worldwide simply do not understand what the US is doing. This is too bad.
For example, we're baffled about why America allies with the barbaric tyranny of Uzbekistan.
We're also baffled about the staggering difference in how the alleged war criminals from Serbia are treated at The Hague (quite well) versus how the alleged war criminals are treated in Camp Cropper in Iraq (horribly). What explains this?
How is it even possible for degrading photographs of Saddam Hussein to escape the iron-clad security of the infinitely competent US military? Why haven't we seen similar photos of Slobodan Milosevic? Why are there two standards of war-criminal prosecution?
Finally, on Charlie Rose yesterday, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff (whose story about Quran being desecrated at Guantanamo apparently set off Imran Khan provoked riots in Pakistan) said mea culpa on how his story came about, but did not really back off its contents. Now, we agree with Varnam that the rioting in Pakistan is precious coming from folks who likely wouldn't know what respecting other faiths implies, but this isn't an issue about how the pathologically violent react; rather, this is about how we -- the good guys in this war -- feel when we finally realize that there might yet be a small possibility that this awful story is true. We aren't Muslim but we're sick to our guts on this realization. We're baffled about how this became a story about Newsweek's journalism and the reaction of rabid Pakistani fundamentalists rather than the core issue at hand.
We remain as steadfast as ever in our support for the war and the brave soldiers who risk their lives each day to secure global freedom. But we're baffled about some things we see and we're not sure it's reasonable to brush these frustrations under the carpet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)