Israel-Gaza Conflict: another chapter in deceit and lies.

Israel is at it again. Killing civilians.

According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights report on Sunday November 11, five Palestinian civilians including three children had been killed in the Gaza strip in the previous 72 hours, in addition to two Palestinian security personnel. Four of the deaths occurred as a result of Israeli military firing artillery shells on youngsters playing soccer.

Moreover, 52 civilians had been wounded, of which six were women and 12 were children.  (the toll rises as more intense attacks continue)

Articles that do report on the killings overwhelmingly focus on the killing of Palestinian security personnel. For example, an Associated Press article published in the CBC world news on November 13, entitled ‘Israel mulls resuming targeted killings of Gaza militants,’ mentions absolutely nothing of civilian deaths and injuries.

It portrays the killings as ‘targeted assassinations.

The fact that casualties have overwhelmingly been civilians indicates that Israel is not so much engaged in “targeted” killings, as in “collective” killings, thus once again committing the crime of collective punishment.

Another AP item on CBS news from November 12 reads ‘Gaza rocket fire raises pressure on Israel government.’ It features a photo of an Israeli woman gazing on a hole in her living room ceiling.  Again, no images, nor mention of the numerous bleeding casualties or corpses in Gaza.

Along the same lines, a BBC headline on November 12 reads ‘Israel hit by fresh volley of rockets from Gaza.’ Similar trends can be illustrated for European mainstream papers. Furthermore, articles that do mention the Palestinian casualties in Gaza consistently report that Israeli operations are in response to rockets from Gaza and to the injuring of Israeli soldiers.

However, the chronology of events of the recent flare-up began on November 5, when an innocent, apparently mentally unfit, 20-year old man, Ahmad al-Nabaheen, was shot when he wandered close to the border. Medics had to wait for six hours to be permitted to pick him up and they suspect that he may have died because of that delay.

Then, on November 8, a 13-year-old boy playing football in front of his house was killed by fire from the IDF that had moved into Gazan territory with tanks as well as helicopters. The wounding of four Israeli soldiers at the border on November 10 was therefore already part of a chain of events where Gazan civilians had been killed, and not the triggering event. 

An extract of a report sent by a Canadian medic who happened to be in Gaza and helped out in Shifa hospital ER over the weekend says:

“the wounded were all civilians with multiple puncture wounds from shrapnel: brain injuries, neck injuries, hemo-pneumo thorax, pericardial tamponade, splenic rupture, intestinal perforations, slatted limbs, traumatic amputations. All of this with no monitors, few stethoscopes, one ultrasound machine. …. Many people with serious but non life threatening injuries were sent home to be re-assessed in the morning due to the sheer volume of casualties. The penetrating shrapnel injuries were spooky. Tiny wounds with massive internal injuries. … There was very little morphine for analgesia.”

Apparently such scenes are not newsworthy for the New York Times, the CBC, or the BBC.

Bias and dishonesty with respect to the oppression of Palestinians is nothing new in Western media and has been widely documented. Nevertheless, Israel continues its crimes against humanity with full acquiescence and financial, military and moral support from our governments, the U.S., Canada and the EU.

How did it all begin ?

To begin to make sense of the escalating conflict in Gaza, we need to go back to the night of Oct. 23 in Khartoum. Around 11 p.m. that night, the Yarmouk weapons facility in the Sudanese capital was attacked, presumably by the Israeli air force. There were indications that Iran had been using this facility to stockpile and possibly assemble weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, guided anti-tank missiles and long-range Fajr-5 rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv and Jerusalem from Gaza. One of the major drivers behind Israel’s latest air and assassination campaign is its belief that Hamas has a large cache of long-range Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets in its possession. Israel’s primary intent in this military campaign is to deny Hamas the ability to use these rockets or keep them as a constant threat to Israel’s population centers.

This likely explains why in early October, when short-range rocket attacks from Gaza were still at a low level, Israeli officials began conditioning the public to the idea of an “inevitable” Israeli intervention in Gaza. Israel knew Hamas had these weapons in its possession and that it could require a war to eliminate the Fajr rocket threat. It began with the strike on the facility in Sudan, extended to the assassination of Hamas military commander Ahmad Jabari (the architect of the Fajr rocket program) and now has the potential to develop into an Israeli ground incursion in Gaza.

Oct. 23 was not the first time Israel allegedly attacked weapons caches in Sudanese territory that were destined for Gaza. In January 2009, Israel allegedly carried out an airstrike against a weapons convoy northwest of Port Sudan heading to Gaza. The convoy included Fajr-3 rockets and was unusually large, with more than 20 trucks traveling north toward Gaza. The rushed shipment was allegedly arranged by Iran to reinforce Hamas during Operation Cast Lead.

On Nov. 14, Jabari was assassinated, and Hamas had to work under the assumption that Israel would do whatever it took to launch a comprehensive military campaign to eliminate the Fajr threat. It is at this point that Hamas likely resigned to a “use it or lose it” strategy and launched Fajr rockets toward Tel Aviv, knowing that they would be targeted anyway and potentially using the threat as leverage in an eventual attempt at another truce with Israel. A strong Hamas response would also boost Hamas’ credibility among Palestinians.

Hamas essentially tried to make the most out of an already difficult situation and will now likely work through Egypt to try to reach a truce to avoid an Israeli ground campaign in Gaza that could further undermine its authority in the territory.

In Tehran, Iranian officials are likely quite content with these developments. Iran needed a distraction from the conflict in Syria. It now has that, at least temporarily. Iran also needed to revise its relationship with Hamas and demonstrate that it retains leverage through militant groups in the Palestinian territories as part of its deterrence strategy against a potential strike on its nuclear program.

Hamas decided in the past year that it was better off aligning itself with its ascendant parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, than remaining tethered to an ideological rival like Iran that was being  put on the defensive in the region.

Iran could still capture Hamas’ attention through weapons sales, however, and may have even expected that Israel would detect the Fajr shipments. The result is an Israeli military campaign in Gaza that places Hamas’ credibility in question and could create more space for a group like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which has close ties to Iran. The conflict will also likely create tension in Hamas’ relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan and Syria, since the Brotherhood, particularly in Egypt, is not prepared or willing to confront Israel beyond rhetoric and does not want to face the public backlash for not doing enough to defend the Palestinians from Israel Defense Forces.

————-

Whatever be the final denouement of this tragic sequence of events, Palestinians in Gaza will pay the price. As they always have. And the world will go on with business as usual.

Some integrity from world leaders will be like a whiff of fresh air!    Please.

 

 

 

 

Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will

The ink-well of poetic inspiration runs dry. I thought it would be remiss of me to attempt some half-baked atrocity on the beautiful medium of verse, while on this uninspired, cynical island that I find myself ship-wrecked in. It is often true for me, far too much for my liking, that I seem to derive all the energy that I need – from my reading. How I wish there will come a time when I finally have one “original” thought. Just a stupid, little insight would also do!

But I am too comfortably nestled in the familiar worn-out ruts of my brain to be jolted by life whizzing past, to be shocked into “creative insight”, as it were. It is a pitiable state, when you have to resort to the reservoir of other’s cogitations to conjure up something. I am not just standing on the shoulders of giants, it seems I have constructed a nice little tent there — idling away on those mighty shoulder-blades! The view is great though!

But enough self-loathing.

Let me talk about the issue that I have encountered recently, and I shall make no attempts at coherence here.

1. Is the world a better place today than it was say 30-40 years ago ?

Before I begin to answer this – let me qualify – by saying that “better” is invitation to questions like “for whom”, “what does better mean” ?  I shall not attempt to answer these questions, because it is too broad for a puny blog-post. I shall try and list out certain areas where humanity has shown remarkable resilience and transformative ability. One of them is the sanctity of “free speech”. The internet and the whole host of inter-related technologies have meant a far, more democratic and level-playing field for citizens today. The culture of dissent is picking up and thankfully, it is not just the intellectual elites, who have realized it.

No one would have envisioned a Mohd. Bouazizi and the spark he set off, immolating himself and the entire facade of Arab dicatorships, a few decades back. There are a lot of dawns happening right now, in different parts of the world – the Malalas, the Venezuelan public majority that voted Chavez back (inspite of stringent US acrimony), the Mohd. Morsis of Egypt, the Julia Gillards (who delightfully put down chauvinistic politicians in media’s full glare), even Myanmar’s generals are reforming — in favour of free speech and democracy.  Some of these may turn out to be false dawns, as it often happens, whenever human nature is in play. But change is in vogue!

There are trenchant issues that still give cause for pessimism. The total lack of conviction from world leaders towards grappling with serious political, environmental issues. Witness the lip-service to Environmental Conservation that our PM Manmohan Singh dishes out at the recently concluded COP-11 Conference on Biological Diversity in Hyderabad. He promises a high-sounding $50 million “Hyderabad Pledge”, which is just pocket change — while at the same time, insidiously backing a draconian National Investment Board, to expedite and gloss over environmental concerns whenever serious business interests are in play. Going more global, the crisis is never-ending. the issues that need to be discussed are not. Pakistan – a far bigger threat to the stability of the world – than Iran or North Korea, keeps piling up the nuclear weapons like an avaricious banker! Israel and the US continue diplomatic calisthenics over Iran, carefully avoiding the stench from the Palestinian morass. Europe never seems to agree on a consensus on how to tackle its financial woes, flipping from austerity to populism at the drop of a hat. Japan and China are having another one of those days … their historic, and time-dilated menstrual cycles never ever seem to align. Now it is about the islands in Senkaku. Tomorrow, it will probably be about Nanjing war-crimes. Day after, it will just be about how both of them look too alike for each other’s comfort! I don’t talk about Africa because it is just too sad. And ignorance is better for my health sometimes.

But all in all, as long as the progressive left keeps making pro-active use of freedoms that technology gives us – I think there is still hope. The Vietnam War was not protested against until the US was 5-6 years in the conflict. On the contrary, massive public opinion and outcry prevented the US from intervening militarily in Libya or now in Syria (which is sad!)  — but all good things come with a bad after-taste, I guess. We have the tools now to weigh in and punch above our weight. Hierarchies can be defeated. Power structures can be unravelled.  It is up to us.

The left side of  Humanity.  (or should I say, the left morsels of our Humanity)

The cogent portion of the blog is over. Now for the headlines for this past day or so —

2. I hate stupid people. It’s true. I am surrounded by all these ignoramuses and I find that there is, actually, no point to their existence.   (Why am I so elitist? I am sure I will regret feeling this way some day.)  But these people do seem to be as evolutionarily useful as a mosquito is ecologically.

3. Stupid people can be understood and pitied. Which is something that I hold in their favour. But intelligent hypocrites are the worst — they are the dregs of humanity. Alan Dershowitz has recently been added to the rather short list of people – whom I would prefer to be a bit shorter (by a head maybe). Thomas Friedman, of course, leads the pack, grinning wildly like a typical moustache-host-organism. These educated “intellectuals” poison the lives of millions and shape their opinions and dogmas, all the while, maintaining their thin veneer of moral high-ground, which can be seen through so easily. I was watching Dershowitz debate Chomsky and all he could muster was lies, deceit, rhetoric and moral grand-standing. The sheer hypocrisy should have made the universe recoil in horror and swallow him up in the black hole where he belongs! These are the times when I wish there was a mighty Smiter up in the heavens, raining thunder-bolts.

4. “Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will”  is the latest mantra for me. Wonderful, because it combines Russell’s Skepticism with Nietzsche’s Will!   (you can have others, of course– Moore, Strawson, Hume for skepticism and Schopenhauer, more Nietzsche! for the will … pick your favourites)

5. I am finally beginning to understand a lot of the emotions that used to confuse me before. Distance is needed. And time. Memory and forgetting do the rest. The past is always beautiful, idyllic and tranquil. The future no longer looks as bleak. There is hope.

And I will survive.

Until I eventually die, of course.  Alone.  (but i will still be surviving right up to the last fucking moment. promise.)

P.S. on a happy note, this is something that everyone should watch. (well, every adult human being and no nuns/priests)                                      French awesomeness —  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPeaJBWXijo

Wislawa Szymborska and a reading in History

Hatred

“Look, how constantly capable  
and how well maintained
in our century: hatred.
How lightly she regards high impediments.
How easily she leaps and overtakes. 

She’s not like other feelings.
She’s both older and younger than they.
She herself gives birth to causes
which awaken her to life.
If she ever dozes, it’s not an eternal sleep.
Insomnia does not sap her strength, but adds to it.

Religion or no religion,
as long as one kneels at the starting-block.
Fatherland or no fatherland,
as long as one tears off at the start.
She begins as fairness and equity.
Then she propels herself.
Hatred. Hatred.
She veils her face with a mien
of romantic ecstasy.

Oh, the other feelings —
decrepit and sluggish.
Since when could that brotherhood
count on crowds?
Did ever empathy
urge on toward the goal?
How many clients did doubt abduct?
Only she abducts who knows her own.

Talented, intelligent, very industrious.
Do we need to say how many songs she has written.
How many pages of history she has numbered.
How many carpets of people she has spread out
over how many squares and stadiums!

Let’s not lie to ourselves:
She’s capable of creating beauty.
Wonderful is her aura on a black night.
Magnificent cloud masses at rosy dawn.
It’s difficult to deny her pathos of ruins
and her coarse humor
mightily towering above them columns.

She’s the mistress of contrast
between clatter and silence,
between red blood and white snow.
And above all she never tires of
the motif of the tidy hangman
above the defiled victim.

She’s ready for new tasks at any moment.
If she must wait she’ll wait.
She said she was blind. Blind?
She has the keen eyes of a sniper
and boldly looks into the future
–she alone. ” 

Pathetic, though it may seem to attempt to add a footnote of prose after these lines, I would nevertheless, attempt to draw attention to some oft-forgotten historical lessons brilliantly woven in these verses.

The history book of hatred is ceaselessly adding pages as well as epitaphs. Even as I type Muslims in Myanmar’s Rakhine province face existential threats, Syrian civilians are dying while the world “urges” restraint or “closely monitors” the situation, a mosque in Afghanistan blew up killing fifty or so innocents. Palestinians face a continually forgotten and denigrating existence under the shadow of US’s closest ally in the region – Isreal (a fact which both Romney and Obama mentioned at least half a dozen times in the last debate). Israel drums up anti-Iran hysteria. The ugly head of hatred is rearing up. But was it ever gone?

Hatred has leaped over, nay side-stepped with scorn, all impediments placed before it. A rapprochement was tried with Pakistan in 1999, and before that in 1984 and later in 2005– only to be unravelled by fanatic acts of minority elements within both nations. Pakistan’s grim tryst with the Taliban, British diplomacy of the 1930s bear testament to the fact that appeasement does not quell hatred. Hatred of the other, is itself, the cause of more hatred. She begets herself. Witness racial violence in USA of the 1960s, repeated communal conflagrations throughout India’s free history, anti-semitism and apartheid violence in South Africa. Many causes, many faces. And the lowest common denominator being the passion these feelings whip up. The Gandhis, the M.L. Kings, the Nelson Mandelas of history can only be mute witnesses to their world collapsing in front of them while Hatred’s frenzied minions tear their world apart, just before punctuating their victory with the finality of a gunshot, or worse -irrelevance. The Russells, the Chomskys, the Camuses,the Edward Saids of this world, the doubters, “the sane voices”,  can only wring their hands in vain as Huntingtons, Friedmans, even the Sartres and Hitchens stoop to becoming Hatred’s apologists!  (Sartre’s defence of French imperialism in Algeria and Hitchens’ credulous defence of the Iraq misadventure remain blots on otherwise exemplary lives) Clearly, Hatred is a wily seductress.

Ideologies are child’s play for her. Marx would have revulsed in horror at Stalin’s impression of Socialism, the very  egalitarian and ecumenical end for all- in the gulag! Or Khmer Rouge’s radical version of Mao’s philosophy, built on three million deaths. How easy it is to spin Mill’s utilitarianism or Adam’s capitalism into the napalmed, scorching reality of Vietnam or the tortured millions in Algeria (which was supposed to be France’s “civilizing mission”)? Sometimes not having an ideology is even worse, as Hatred twists the dagger of the world’s apathy into the hapless, eviscerated innocents (when 1700 civilians are butchered at Sabra and Shatila or a million Armenians are murdered by Turks, unknown and unheard).

And she has patience! It took decades of exploitation of the Middle East before the specter of terrorism was unleashed on the West. First came the Cold War, and puppet regimes and suppression of freedoms. Then came deliberate arming of desperate militias in order to battle another obsolescent ideology. Then came 9/11.

Hypocrisy is ever her most trusted confidante.

Iran’s official history of the 1980-1988 war shows that Iraq first used chemical weapons against its combatants on 13th January, 1981 — killing seven Iranians. Between 28 December 1980 and 20 March 1984, there were 63 separate chemical weapons attacks by the Iraqis. The world did not react. Never since the First World War had chemical weapons been used on such a scale and yet so great was the fear and loathing of Iran, so total the loyalty of Arabs to Saddam Hussein, so absolute the West’s support for Saddam against the spread of Khomeini’s revolution, that they were silent. These news items were never reported in the Arab press. In Europe and America, they were regarded as Iranian propaganda. Only in 1984 did New York Times grudgingly admitted that “Iraq used chemical weapons in repelling Iranian offensive.” The criticism was mild. There was no official criticism of Iraq’s policy. In 1994, the “United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the health consequences of the Persian-Gulf war ” report acknowledged that government-approved shipments of chemical weapons were sent by American companies to Iraq from 1985 or earlier. Throughout the war, America supplied Iraq with battlefield intelligence — which was used by the Iraqis to defeat Iranian offensives using poison gas. Iraq captured Fao on 19th April, 1988 using gas. They then used hydrogen cyanide gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja , by dropping it from jets, accusing the Kurdish Iraqis of collaborating with Iran. The chemicals were German, the jet was American and the 5000 dead, Iraqi Kurds.

This was one of the charges which the West used when it invaded Iraq in 2003. “Saddam gassed his own people.” They forgot to mention how and why.

If hypocrisy doesn’t work, She just creates an “other”, very subtly at times. In time, the “other” can be objectified and dealt with.

There is a routine bestialisation of Arabs and Muslims in Western cinema. In the movie, “O Jerusalem” based on the eponymous book by Lapierre and Collins, there is an honourable, kind-hearted, moderate Arab who is friends with a Jew. Similarly, the movie Exodus, based on the Leon Uris’ novel of 1948, also has a “good Arab”. In the much-acclaimed  “Ben Hur” and “Lawrence of Arabia”, there are “good Arabs” who lend horses! “The English patient”, a brilliant movie, has a blatantly racist scene, where a British army officer is torturing a suspected German spy by chopping off his thumb. For this barbarous act, he calls a Muslim woman nurse forward, saying — “The Muslims, they understand this sort of a thing. What’s the punishment for adultery ? ” This abhorrently racist dialogue has no basis in the book.

Once we have thus established that there are “good Arabs”, out there, somewhere — we are, of course, free to concentrate on the rotten kind and treat them as we will! 

Hatred is calling us ever more insistently, luring us with the a delicious offering of pawns — it is our move. Let us not get check-mated again.

(Kasparov is getting increasingly frustrated by our ineptitude at learning historical lessons. While he continues to hate Putin and fight.)

Nothing bad has taken place

What is absurdity?

“In a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between a man and his life the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.”  — Albert Camus, in the Burden of Sisyphus.

For a moment, you might read the above lines and be swept into the grim Palestinian page of World History – “the memory of a lost home“, you might also note with irony that the Jewish page follows eagerly – “or the hope of a promised land“, but these are the dusty, worn-out nooks of our collective inheritance and revisiting graves is, most decidedly, out of fashion. Public memory, intellectual fashions, pseudo-intellectual ideologies do concern me though. And I heard that there is an election to be won, somewhere in North America, and the results of that election will determine how much the world loses, at least in the next four years.

Following the Presidential Obama-Romney debates has been an exercise in discovering absurdity, and the power it holds over people. The American Right and its sheer paucity of ideas needs no further excoriation.

Consider their views on rape :

“legitimate rape does not produce babies. Female body has ways to stop that.”  or

” birth of children out of rape is something that God intended” .

You would think that it could get no worse. That educated politicians could commit no bigger gaffes. You would be wrong. Recent statements about rape emanating from the anachronistic-medieval Haryana politicians would put above comments in a far more respectable light.

“Rape is caused by fast foods and resulting hormonal disturbances!” or “Rape can be countered by child marriage.”

This is what happens when religious dogmas seep into political discourse. A rape of ideas!  And talking about ideas, there were far too few of them from the Republican challenger. He promises tax cuts, increased military spending without a care about where the money comes from.  And his views are remarkable in their protean abilities. So changeable! A humorous take on his fiscal policy can be found here —

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/  . Obama, the silver-child of 2008, the White-Knight of idealism, the most undeserved Nobel Peace Prize winner in history, who has been taking painful lessons in pragmatism from long-dead G.E. Moore and Machiavelli for the last four years – still represents the much saner view of world-affairs. And that is all that we can hope for: a sane US President, who does not sleep with interns (Clinton), talk to paintings (Nixon), confuse movies with reality (Reagan and StarWars) or play bumbling idiot all the time (Bush Jr.).

Things much closer home seem far more “Up in the Air”!

Vadra. Gadkari. Virbhadra Singh. Navin Jindal and Zee, S.M. Krishna. Rajat Gupta. The closet is pullulating with skeletons!  Bal Thackeray says “India is a land of cheats. ” And I agree with him. Yes, I agree with Bal Thackeray.  Szymborska’s lines on the Soul should be required reading for Indians in this hour, ”

We have a soul at times. No one’s got it non-stop, for keeps.

Day after day,
year after year
may pass without it. …… 

For every thousand conversations
it participates in one,
if even that,
since it prefers silence.

Just when our body goes from ache to pain,
it slips off-duty.  …… 

It’s picky:
it doesn’t like seeing us in crowds,
our hustling for a dubious advantage
and creaky machinations make it sick.…….

It won’t say where it comes from
or when it’s taking off again,
though it’s clearly expecting such questions.

We need it
but apparently
it needs us
for some reason too. ”    

Let us not prefer silence now. When Europe and the world came face to face with the stark realities of World War 2, they chose silence. Konrad Adenaur wanted people to forget what had just happened. The scope of tragedy, the gloom of cynicism and the gargantuan efforts at de-nazification needed that interregnum – that pause, before they could open their eyes and question the past. We need not let things get that far. And if you think all this is hyperbole, think twice. Narendra Modi harbours realistic ambitions of leading the country. There exists a TV channel in Gujarat with the name “NaMo” . If that does not chill us to the bone and evoke Orwellian memories, I fear I might have to emigrate!

What is most certainly not desirable is to heed to this distinctly Indian-remedy, which was nevertheless, issued by Isocrates to the Athenians at the close of the Peloponnesian Wars:

Let us govern collectively as though nothing bad had taken place.

Arrant Nonsense

I don’t make jokes. I just observe governments and report facts.  — Will Rogers.

Laughter is supposed to be contagious. But I don’t see too many people guffawing at the world’s jokes. So, I shall try to spread the cheer.  (if you don’t find this funny, pretend this post is your lover’s text message and reply with ROTFL!)

ACT 1. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall,  Who’s the Second Greatest Indian of them all ?

Anil Ambani, CNN-IBN and History Channel did us a great service recently. An issue which was keeping me up at nights, gnawing at my insides like a claustrophobic termite trapped in me, has been resolved. Aah, the relief.

B.R. Ambedkar is the 2nd greatest Indian after Mahatma Gandhi .  How Ambedkar will be chuffed with himself !

Of course, the Greatness Pageant was decided by an online poll of young India. And Gandhi was excluded from the list of venerable nominees. Lest the world suddenly find out how much the Indian masses care for Gandhi today. Instead Ambedkar had to fight off stiff competition from stalwarts like Sachin Tendulkar, APJ Abdul Kalam, Jawaharlal Nehru, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lata Mangeshkar. Such august company for the man, who drafted the constitution, fought a lone battle against caste in India, revived Buddhism among other things.

Subplot 1. Obviously Gandhi is the greatest Indian mortal ever. Gandhi and Ambedkar cannot be mentioned in the same breath.

Even though, I actually agree with the first position – I find the fake idolization of Gandhi abhorrent and another reminder that we, as a society, are more in thrall of hero-worship than the ideas which the heroes represent.

Subplot 2. Since young India has voted Ambedkar to be the greatest Indian after Gandhi. It is clear that caste is dead. Let us forget the fact that dalit oppression, injustices and caste-violence continues unabated. Let us pretend that we have slain this evil. We, young India! Congratulations to ourselves.

This happy occasion gives me ideas for resolving one of my long-standing issues. So here it goes —

Issue-of-Grave-Importance :   Who is the second most Arrogant Indian alive ?

Yours truly, of course, takes the cake! My friends circle is also disqualified from the competition. (they are drooling at the prospect of winning this coveted prize. But this is a contest for human beings. Tanmai can scarcely be confused as one. Prasant is disqualified on account of being-in-a-relationship and getting all his arrogance squashed by his girlfriend. Amrita – not Indian!)

So, is it Narendra Modi, of the “hang me if I am guilty” fame ?  Is it Manmohan Singh for his arrogant silence and not deigning to even oblige us with a word or two in his entire term ? Or is it someone’s anonymous pet blind cat ?

You, young India, can now decide!

ACT 2.  Tweeting for Freedom of Misinformation.

Recent ethnic violence in Assam triggered a unique sequence of events. Social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter were used malevolently to spread rumours about grisly communal attacks against Muslims and a threatened backlash against people from the region. There was a mass exodus from major cities in India.

Which brings us to the Government’s considered, deliberate and astute response —

1.  It restricted text messaging and blocked around 300 webpages.

2.  It even blocked pages of newspapers like the Independent ! On account of the Independent carrying political caricature, which is such a crime.

3.  The government tried blocking twitter accounts of 300 malicious fellows. Unfortunately, it did not succeed in this endeavour in time. The accounts continued to operate for a day, spewing misinformation like a politician at an election rally.

4.  The Government however succeeded in blocking the twitter account of one prime suspect — (wait for it… ) Mr. Sachin Pilot — the Union Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting !   For a day, Mr. Pilot was tweet-less!  I am still speechless at our bureaucrats’  marvellous sense of humour.

5.  The Government also succeeded in breaking its own laws. It had laid down norms that blocked accounts will be listed online and a webpage with appropriate reasons shall be made public. None of this happened. I guess, breaking rules is just too much fun. Especially when the rules are your own.

Subplot 1. The new rules for governing the internet gives the government unacceptable and draconian powers. It is a curtailment of fundamental rights.

Subplot 2. Hate speech and deliberate dissemination of disinformation cannot be a right. There has to be a sustained debate on the checks and balances needed to monitor social media.

Subplot 3. Online media has given a powerful tool to the masses. It provides the individual with so much information that it is difficult to “manufacture consent”. But there is also a threat, that with ubiquitous communication, it is also very easy for malafide interests to wreak havoc with impunity and anonymity.

ACT 3.   Agricultural Imperialism and Special Exploitation Zones (SEZs).

In 1991, Meles Zenawi came to power in Ethiopia after a long civil war, in which he was backed by the United States. He recently died in August. He left behind an autocratic state where there is a single party, tight state control, where the ruling party has a direct stake in the economy through a business conglomerate. And he left behind a legacy of large-scale land acquisition by foreign investors.

Over the next 3 years, the Ethiopian Government plans to identify , prepare and transfer 3.3 million hectares of land, under the ironically named Growth and Transformation Plan, to foreign agricultural investors. Despite food scarcity in the country, the government offers these investors incentives for using the land for export crops. The resources granted to them include not just land but water resources.

There has been no consultation with local communities while giving away their land. There is a desperate threat to peasant agriculture, deprivation of pasture lands and lack of access to water resources for the people of the region. People are being displaced and resettled to provide the investors with “unencumbered access” to resources. Any additional employment generated is likely to be short-term, seasonal and low wage unskilled labour. The investors are under no contractual obligation to do something about the food security of Ethiopia.

Indian and American companies are in a mad rush to acquire lands, some of which are as large as the Delhi-NCR region!

But all this is not funny. Here is what is funny —

Nobel Peace Prize Winner and US President Barack Obama has hailed Zenawi’sunyielding commitment to Ethiopia’s poor .. his desire to lift millions of Ethiopians out of poverty through his drive for food security.

Unyielding commitment, desire, drive for food security indeed.   Quelle Horreur !!

ACT 4.  Searching for “sense” in Libya.  (Beware,  boring final Act alert.)

Last week, four American diplomats were killed when armed men attacked the US consulate in Benghazi. The attackers’ apparent motivation was that someone, apparently American but with an uncertain identity, posted a video on YouTube several months ago that deliberately defamed the Prophet. The attack in Benghazi was portrayed as retribution for the defamation, with the attackers holding all Americans equally guilty for the video, though it was likely a pretext for deeper grievances.

In order to make sense of these attacks, one must observe that they took place in Benghazi, the city that had been most opposed to Muammar Gadhafi.  The intervention occurred because it was believed that Gadhafi would carry out his threats in Benghazi and because it was assumed that he would quickly capitulate in the face of NATO air power, opening the door to democracy.

That Gadhafi was capable of mass murder was certainly correct.

The idea that Gadhafi would quickly fall proved incorrect.

That a democracy would result after the intervention proved the most dubious assumption of them all.

What emerged in Libya is what you would expect when a foreign power overthrows an existing government, however thuggish, and does not impose its own imperial state: ongoing instability and chaos. The opposition was a chaotic collection of tribes, factions and ideologies sharing little beyond their opposition to Gadhafi.

Opponents of tyranny assume that deposing a tyrant will improve the lives of his victims. This is sometimes true, but only occasionally. The czar of Russia was clearly a tyrant, but it is difficult to argue that the Leninist-Stalinist regime that ultimately replaced him was an improvement. Similarly, the Shah of Iran was repressive and brutal. It is difficult to argue that the regime that replaced him was an improvement. There is no assurance that opponents of a tyrant will not abuse human rights just like the tyrant did. There is even less assurance that an opposition too weak and divided to overthrow a tyrant will coalesce into a government when an outside power destroys the tyrant. The outcome is more likely to be chaos, and the winner will likely be the most organized and well-armed faction with the most ruthless clarity about the future. There is no promise that it will constitute a majority or that it will be gentle with its critics.

The alternative to one thug may simply be another thug. This is a matter of power and will, not of political philosophy. Utter chaos, an ongoing struggle that leads nowhere but to misery, also could ensue. But the most important reason Western human rights activists might see their hopes dashed is due to a principled rejection of Western liberal democracy on the part of the newly liberated. To be more precise, the opposition might embrace the doctrine of national self-determination, and even of democracy, but go on to select a regime that is in principle seriously opposed to Western notions of individual rights and freedom.

While some tyrants simply seek power, other regimes that appear to Westerners to be tyrannies actually are rather carefully considered moral systems that see themselves as superior ways of life. There is a paradox in the principle of respect for foreign cultures followed by demands that foreigners adhere to basic Western principles. It is necessary to pick one approach or the other. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that someone can have very distinct moral principles, be respected, and yet be an enemy of liberal democracy. Respecting another moral system does not mean simply abdicating your own interests. The Japanese had a complex moral system that was very different from Western principles. The two did not have to be enemies, but circumstances caused them to collide.

The NATO approach in Libya assumed that the removal of a tyrant would somehow inevitably lead to a liberal democracy. Indeed, this was the assumption about the Arab Spring in the West, where it was thought that that corrupt and tyrannical regimes would fall and that regimes that embraced Western principles would sprout up in their place.

Implicit in this was a profound lack of understanding of the strength of the regimes, of the diversity of the opposition and of the likely forces that would emerge from it.  What took Gadhafi’s place was ongoing warfare between clans, tribes and ideologies. From this chaos, Libyan Islamists of various stripes have emerged to exploit the power vacuum.

The desire to overthrow Gadhafi came from two impulses.

The first was to rid the world of a tyrant.

The second was to give the Libyans the right to national self-determination.

Not carefully considered were two other issues: whether simply overthrowing Gadhafi would yield the conditions for determining the national will, and whether the national will actually would mirror NATO’s values and, one should add, interests.

Unintended Consequences

The events of last week represent unintended and indirect consequences of the removal of Gadhafi. Gadhafi ruthlessly suppressed radical Islam. In the absence of his suppression, the radical Islamist faction appears to have carefully planned the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The attack was timed for when the U.S. ambassador would be present. The mob was armed with a variety of weapons. The public justification was a little-known video on YouTube that sparked anti-American unrest throughout the Arab world.

For the Libyan jihadists, tapping into anger over the video was a brilliant stroke. Having been in decline, they reasserted themselves well beyond the boundaries of Libya. In Libya itself, they showed themselves as a force to be reckoned with — at least to the extent that they could organize a successful attack on the Americans. The four Americans who were killed might have been killed in other circumstances, but they died in this one: Gadhafi was eliminated, no coherent regime took his place, no one suppressed the radical Islamists, and the Islamists could therefore act. How far their power will grow is not known, but certainly they acted effectively to achieve their ends. It is not clear what force there is to suppress them. It is also not clear what momentum this has created for jihadists in the region, but it will put NATO, and more precisely the United States, in the position either of engaging in another war in the Arab world at a time and place not of its choosing, or allowing the process to go forward and hoping for the best.

A distinction is frequently drawn between the idealist and realist position. Libya is a case in which the incoherence of the distinction can be seen. If the idealist position is concerned with outcomes that are moral from its point of view, then simply advocating the death of a tyrant is insufficient. To guarantee the outcome requires that the country be occupied and pacified, as was Germany or Japan. But the idealist would regard this act of imperialism as impermissible, violating the doctrine of national sovereignty. More to the point, the United States is not militarily in a position to occupy or pacify Libya, nor would this be a national priority justifying war. The unwillingness of the idealist to draw the logical conclusion from their position, which is that simply removing the tyrant is not the end but only the beginning, is compounded by the realist’s willingness to undertake military action insufficient for the political end. Moral ends and military means must mesh.

Removing Gadhafi was morally defensible but not by itself. Having removed him, NATO had now adopted a responsibility that it shifted to a Libyan public unequipped to manage it. But more to the point, no allowance had been made for the possibility that what might emerge as the national will of Libya would be a movement that represented a threat to the principles and interests of the NATO members. The problem of Libya was not that it did not understand Western values, but that a significant part of its population rejected those values on moral grounds and a segment of the population with battle-hardened fighters regarded them as inferior to its own Islamic values. Somewhere between hatred of tyranny and national self-determination, NATO’s commitment to liberty as it understood it, became lost.

….

Epilogue.  Why the boring final Act ?

Those who skipped Act 4 will be tried for sedition. It is the new rage.)  

I have always believed that things must even out in the end.  Religion, people say, has caused wars and bloodshed. Yes, but isn’t it boring to sit through a church service or a Hindu ceremony ? So it evens out.

Your doctor warns you about alcoholism and you are depressed. But then you go home and find your secret vodka stash, and you are happy. Things just even out. Let’s say you have a nice cupcake. You are happy and then you eat it. Cupcake is not there anymore! Or you are holding french fries and they seem to be not so hot. Then you put them in your mouth, and it is really hot.

You call your friend who is hosting a party, and he says that the party is cancelled. You call, in a different voice, and suddenly, there is a party.  You send someone a death threat and then the police come to your home, mysteriously, and threaten you. You notice an ant drifting away on a leaf in the water. Then you notice your aunt drifting away in life. Eventually, things must even out.

One day you ask someone to look at your skin rashes. Then the next day you are looking at their rashes. You see a pebble on a river bank, throw it across the water. It skips several times. Then the next pebble you cannot even pry it loose, because of this glue-mud!

Hence I write a few paragraphs and you laugh. And by the end of the post, you are crying and muttering for me to stop. Things even out in the end.

Musings

I have been called arrogant, patronizing, condescending and labelled with various similar epithets in connection to my last post. It is quite rewarding – this recognition of your foibles. After all, if not for this subliminal (or sometimes quite overt) posturing in my posts, would they be interesting ?

But now some would clamour and say — Well, your posts are not interesting anyways. So you might as well eat the humble pie, abandon all your pretensions, get off that “fucking pedestal” from which you seem to radiate such banality-couched-as-wisdom . I would reply to these detractors with .. wait, I wouldn’t deign to reply to these detractors. Arrogant already, see!

Let me begin with a short recapitulation of events that have captured attention .. and some which have not.

India is on the “reforms path” again. Manmohan Singh has announced FDI in retail and aviation, disinvestment of public sector entities, significant deregulation of fuel prices over the last 2 days. While the timing puts a question-mark on the process (deflecting attention from the surfeit of corruption scams), most of these are much-needed steps. While proper regulation and delicate balancing of public interests is needed with all these measures, the industry and “big economy” needed such a fillip.

ECB (European Central Bank) has come to the rescue of crisis-torn European states with its renewed and conditional entry into the government-bonds market. Spain, Italy can breathe a sigh of relief. But that sigh, will remain a painful one, because they now have to contend with fiscal reorganization under ECB rules. ECB is now financing governments, something which goes against its philosophy — but is the need of the hour. The euro might be saved yet growth prospects in the near future look grim.

Libya has had a violent week. And the US is rushing its military assets in that region after the assassination of the US ambassador over Quran-desecration, via a youtube video! This incident gives further ammunition to Pentagon hawks to assert more military control in the Middle-East.

Syria continues to burn. The new UN peace envoy Brahimi has very few viable ideas to bring the conflict to an end. The world continues to watch.The saber-rattling by Israel against Iran has become too boring to comment on. Just move on, guys.

Japan bought the Diayou islands, completely heedless of the violent keyboard-thumping by gazillions of Chinese micro-bloggers. The islands are a bone of contention between China and Japan. Japan is looking to re-assert itself in the international waters. The US watches in anticipation. Sustained diplomatic hostilities between China and Japan will mean a more militarized Japan and the likelihood of the US-Japan-South Korea coming together in a more explicit arrangement to curtail China’s growing clout.

On to more important matters, I am still single. Surprising, right ? Given that I continue to share such pearls on my blog. Girls, do your homework. Find me.

Addition and Subtraction  Some people try to identify their real self through a process of addition, some by subtraction.

I look in the mirror, marvel at my face — then realize that this is not me. At some point in my early childhood, I convinced myself that my face was me. Imagine a world without mirrors. What horror, if a grown-up adult in this fantasy world, were shown his face in a newly invented mirror, and then told — This is You ! He must have such a refined, long-pondered over understanding of himself. An abstract idea of his various eccentricities, his strengths and weaknesses, his existential crisis and its resolution. How petty the notion that your visage determines you ? How delusional ?

So some people go through this long, systematic stripping-away of delusions, until they either come to grasp their essence — the core of their being. Or find themselves close to nothingness, turn into raving lunatics and live a contented life ever after.

Au contraire, some people just keep piling on accoutrements to their self, seldom satisfied with what they are. They keep adding to their self. I am a writer. I am also a connoisseur of music and wine. I am an idealist who wants to change the world. I am also a philosopher. I am more. Always more. The threat, in this case, lies in losing a sense of perspective about what you really want or who you are. And this drive to be more, this eternal avarice, might just be a cover for that goading fear that “you are mediocre. you are less.”

Personally, I don’t know if I fall into this neat categorization. I keep flitting sides. I am a fence-sitter, I think. The view is great, though!

On Love

I feel that I am terribly inexperienced. I think my definitions of love have ranged from “cognitive empathy” to just an excess of respect. What I am mortally afraid of, is this process that I cannot quite seem to control … I call it — “ The Construction “. So what happens when you meet someone, prepare to fall in love, you begin this transcendental mental computation — where you Construct. You imagine this person, build on his/her strengths, blatantly ignore anything that annoys you, heedless of all sage warnings from your closest friends, you build this image. Such a captivating image.

Reality seldom fails to disappoint.

You either deny reality and delude yourself further or you proceed with caution. With disastrous consequences in either case. Caution means you are always too late. “Early birds catch the worm”, you are left lurching in the wind. And reckless abandon in pursuit of  “Constructed Love” means a fatal denouement on the first winding of the path.

What does a young boy do ?  I fear that my amygdala plays tricks with me. I hope that this profound respect that I have, this “right feeling”, is not just a mirage. Just infatuation running around in circles, making faces at my ego, teasing, mocking and forever out-of-reach for my intellect. If only I could grasp this state-of-mind, where dreams take a whole, new meaning — leaving you far too vulnerable, I would understand myself so much better. The feeling is its own reward though, excitement, anticipation, dread (sometimes!) all intertwined and misunderstood. I love the human brain.

But what do I mean by love ? I don’t know yet.

Knowledge and Fear

What do we mean when we say we want knowledge ? Nothing more than this : something unfamiliar is traced back to something familiar. We are used to the familiar, we no longer marvel at it, it is commonplace. It makes us feel at home. And isn’t our thirst for knowledge precisely this need for the familiar, the will to uncover among everything strange, unusual and doubtful something which no longer unsettles us ? Is it not the instinct of fear that bids us to know ? And isn’t the rejoicing of someone who has attained knowledge, the rejoicing from a new-found sense of security ?

People think that the familiar is known. What error!  The familiar is what we are used to, and it is often the most difficult to know, the most difficult to view as a problem, as something “outside us”. The great success of science, in contrast to the efforts of understanding consciousness, rests on the fact that they take something strange as their object.

Things closer to us are harder to see. Consider, as an example, the problem of “Being” ? What is the meaning of being ? I am. Understanding the question itself, grasping that it is not merely a linguistic question, is difficult. Our understanding of our own existence is so implicit, so ontologically close to us, it is hard to even question it or begin to understand it. Martin Heidegger claims that all our understanding of being rests on Time. Time is the horizon of our being. What exists ? Something that is here, and remains here in the next moment. This temporal substantiality is the only way we recognize our existence. But more on “Being and Time” later.

On how I writ

I must confess I do not want to be understood when I write. Not always. Everyone wants to select audiences when one talks or writes, and in selecting audiences, one makes “others”, those who are kept at a distance. All subtle laws of style do that, in music, art, writing, they create a simultaneous barrier, which only the targeted audience can climb.  And let me say this, I let neither my ignorance or impatience come in the way of understanding for my audience (however small). I try to approach philosophical issues, with brevity and levity (which I cannot manage most of the time).

I try to approach deep problems like I approach cold showers : fast in, fast out.  Those who say that  this is not the way are the enemies of water, the enemies of cold water. It is the great cold, that makes me fast! Does something stay unrecognized only because it has been touched in flight ? Does one absolutely have to sit on a problem, mull over it, chew your fingernails, twiddle thumbs, ponder, deliberate, and then realize something ? Some truths might be shy or ticklish, which have to be caught unawares, like in flight ! And my brevity has an added value — I say things briefly, so that I am heard even more briefly. As an amoral being, I would like to avoid corrupting innocence. It will be a funny sight indeed if some innocent gets inspired by something I write. Hence the brevity.

Also, things are worse with my ignorance. I am deeply ashamed about it, I spend precious minutes regretting it. Then I spend more minutes ashamed of my shame. I know too little. But then I wonder, it would be even worse, if I knew too much. Imagine the heights of my arrogance and the depths of my pity for the rest of humanity. That would have led to such condescending prose! There is no formula for how much knowledge makes for a good writer. I want to have a taste for independence, for quick coming and going, for wandering, for adventures which only the swiftest are capable of. The soul of my writing would rather live free with less knowledge than be stuffed and bound. Like a good dancer, who wants suppleness and nourishment and not fat from his food.

And what I want, foremost with my writing, is to be a good dancer.

 

Language and the Politics of War : A critique of journalism, academia & mass media.

“The struggle of man against power is a struggle of memory against forgetting. ” — Milan Kundera.

This struggle is played out every day, in our living rooms, in news media, in the scholarly articles that some of us read and we are quite oblivious of this battle. The warriors in this struggle are numerous, the foreign correspondent is the “foot soldier”, the self-proclaimed “pundits” are the “commanders”, the op-ed columnist is the “general” while scholars might be the “Sun Tzus” of our time. Let me dissect the role that each plays with a few typical instances —

Journalism :

The Iran-Iraq War : 1980-1988 — Iran’s official history of the war shows that Iraq first used chemical weapons against its combatants on 13th January, 1981 — killing seven Iranians. Between 28 December 1980 and 20 March 1984, there were 63 separate chemical weapons attacks by the Iraqis. The world did not react. Never since the First World War had chemical weapons been used on such a scale and yet so great was the fear and loathing of Iran, so total the loyalty of Arabs to Saddam Hussein, so absolute the West’s support for Saddam against the spread of Khomeini’s revolution, that they were silent. These news items were never reported in the Arab press. In Europe and America, they were regarded as Iranian propaganda. Only in 1984 did New York Times grudgingly admitted that “Iraq used chemical weapons in repelling Iranian offensive.” The criticism was mild. There was no official criticism of Iraq’s policy.

In 1994, the “United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the health consequences of the Persian-Gulf war ” report acknowledged that government-approved shipments of chemical weapons were sent by American companies to Iraq from 1985 or earlier. Throughout the war, America supplied Iraq with battlefield intelligence — which was used by the Iraqis to defeat Iranian offensives using poison gas.Iraq captured Fao on 19th April, 1988 using gas. They then used hydrogen cyanide gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja , by dropping it from jets, accusing the Kurdish Iraqis of collaborating with Iran. The chemicals were German, the jet was American and the 5000 dead, Iraqi Kurds.

This was one of the charges which the West used when it invaded Iraq in 2003. “Saddam gassed his own people.” They forgot to mention how and why.

Israel-Palestine : Peace Process & after ..

25th February, 1994 : Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli Army reserve officer in uniform, decided to massacre Palestinian worshippers in the mosque at Abraham’s tomb in Hebron. He was an educated man, an American-born doctor. More than fifty Palestinians died. 170 were wounded. The survivors literally beat him to death. Israeli military killed 25 out of the 50 or so total dead : enraged Palestinians as they tried to storm the mosque in the aftermath.

Within hours, the Associated Press altered the statistics. It claimed that Baruch killed only 29, and these were the official statistics. The identity of the Israeli suicide killer underwent a mysterious transformation. He was a Jewish settler and a reserve army officer in uniform. But he was called “an American Jewish immigrant”. His Israeli identity had begun to fade in twelve hours and American was touched by the crime. The man was not called a “terrorist” by any Western news outlet. Bill Clinton described the events as a “terrible tragedy” — the victims were not victims of terrorism, but of a tragedy, like a natural disaster, earthquake, tsunami perhaps!

These double standards in reporting are not the only instances. Palestinians are repeatedly demonized and bestialized in news reporting in the West. Here’s a small sample —

Rafael Eytan, the former Israeli chief of staff, has referred to Palestinians as “cockroaches in a glass jar” .Menachem Begin called them – “two-legged beasts”. The Shas party leader suggested that God should send the Palestinian “ants” to hell, also called them “serpents”. In August 2000, Ehud Barak called them “crocodiles”. Israeli chief of staff, Moshe Yalon described them as a “cancerous manifestation” and equated the military action in the occupied territories with “chemotherapy”. In March 2001, Israeli tourism minister, Rehavem Zeevi, called Arafat, a “scorpion”.

Clearly brutal, inhuman tactics are permitted against animals. If only enough people are convinced about the Palestinians being sub-human ! My last piece of evidence regarding the high standards of journalism that we seem to uphold is …

Thomas Friedman : The celebrated New York Times op-ed columnist, author of numerous books (“The World is Flat”), who reaches out to a very wide audience in America and Europe — is an example of the rot that has set in journalism. Here are some of his choicest remarks —

(on Iraq)

“Let’s all take a deep breath, and repeat after me: Give war a chance.”

“This is the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched — a war of choice to install some democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.”

“What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?” You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This.”

“…I never believed or wrote that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could threaten us…….the right reason for the war was not W.M.D. It was to deal with the problem of P.M.D. — people of mass destruction.”

“This war is the most important liberal revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan. We got off to an unnecessarily bad start but it’s one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad, and it’s a moral and strategic imperative that we give it our best shot.”

“The next six months in Iraq… are the most important… ” November 2003 ..  “Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months.” November 2004 … “We’re in a six-month window here…” September 2005  … “We’re going to know after six to nine months…” January 2006 … “It’s going to be decided in the next weeks or months…” April 2006 … “We’re going to find out… in the next year to six months.” May 2006

(on Afghanistan)

“It turns out many of those Afghan ‘civilians’ were praying for another dose of B-52s to liberate them from the Taliban, casualties or not.”

(on Yugoslavia)

“Let’s at least have a real air war. The idea that people are still holding rock concerts in Belgrade, or going out for Sunday merry-go-round rides, while their fellow Serbs are ‘cleansing’ Kosovo, is outrageous. It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted.”

“Let’s at least have a real war. It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted…Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too.”

On Racist stereotypes

“If you can’t explain something to Middle Easterners with a conspiracy theory, then don’t try to explain it at all – they won’t believe it.”

“After every major terrorist incident the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed.”

On democracy

“Had we properly occupied the country, and begun political therapy, it is possible an American iron fist could have held Iraq together long enough to put it on a new course.

As long as voices like Friedman’s  are heard above saner voices like Amira Hass, Robert Fisk, Eva Stern … journalism is going to be a “cheerleader for war” . But why is he so important ? What happened to our scholars, our professors, academics –who know better ?

 Academia :  I recently came across a book by Marc Gopin, visiting associate professor of international diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Tufts University and a visiting scholar in the programme on negotiation at Harvard. His book was titled “Holy War, Holy Peace : How Religion can bring Peace to the Middle East. ” It sounds very promising. But when you are confronted with phrases like “universalist mythic constructs” and “romanticised, amoral constructs of culture” and  “fundamental dialogic immediacy” and “prosocial tendencies” .. you begin to lose hope very quickly. The author goes on to talk about the “the Abrahamic myth of a loving Patriarch and a loving God who care for a special people has created a home and a meaning system for millions of human beings.”  The author grew up, in a ” self-consciously exilic spirituality”. He mentions the “interplay of political and mythic interdependencies” and the “ubiquitous psychological process of othering” . He wants to “problematise” intervention at “elite levels”. He says that a rabbi was “awash in paradoxicality” which proved that “cognitive dissonance is good for intractable conflicts”. There was more : “dialogic injuries”, “cultural envelope”, “family psychodynamics” , “the rich texture of hermeneutic possibility” , “porous barriers of spiritual identity” and, my favourite — “social intercourse” ! “Dialectic apologetics” makes a guest appearance, alongside “persecutorial othering” and several other “otherings”, including a reference to “pious transformation of old cognitive constructs as an end to othering : remythification. ”

Why this preposterous academic language ? This snobbishness. There is no such “exclusivist, secret language” in the works of Edward Said, Avi Shlaim, Martin Gilbert or Noam Chomsky. This prevents the masses from understanding the issues in their complexity. Academic rigour can go hand in hand with clarity. If our academia continue to encourage such mumbo-jumbo, it is no wonder that the masses look at Thomas Friedman for understanding and answers. It is up to the students in universities to rebel against this —  the merest hint of “emics” and “constructs” and “otherings” or “hermeneutic possibilities” and we should walk out of class, shouting Winston Churchill’s famous retort — “This is English up with which I will not put. ”

Cinema and Mass Media : There is a routine bestialisation of Arabs and Muslims in Western cinema. I have several instances —

In the movie, “O Jerusalem” based on the eponymous book by Lapierre and Collins, there is an honourable, kind-hearted, moderate Arab who is friends with a Jew.

Similarly, the movie Exodus, based on the Leon Uris’ novel of 1948, also has a “good Arab”.

In the much-acclaimed  “Ben Hur” and “Lawrence of Arabia”, there are “good Arabs” who lend horses !

“The English patient”, a brilliant movie, has a blatantly racist scene (which has no place in the book on which it is based), where a British army officer is torturing a suspected German spy by chopping off his thumb. For this barbarous act, he calls a Muslim woman nurse forward, saying — “The Muslims, they understand this sort of a thing. What’s the punishment for adultery ? ” This abhorrently racist dialogue has no basis in the book.

Once we have thus established that there are “good Arabs”, out there, somewhere — we are, of course, free to concentrate on the rotten kind and treat them as we will !

Unless we can put an end to this “language war”, the slow and seductive radicalization of pubic opinion by propaganda , the historical conflicts in the Middle east shall linger. Peace can only be achieved with understanding. We have our “eyes wide shut” right now.