Un Privilegio Raro

60's Italian version of #209 (Geordie) of Francis Child's collection of English and Scottish ballads.

Banishing Indian inequality through press conferences

Manmohan Singh on the Maoist threat recognizes that "“Rapid growth will have little meaning, however, unless social and economic inequalities, which still afflict our society, are not eliminated quickly and effectively.” He also urges civil servants to ensure that no area of the country is denied the benefits of the government’s developmental programmes.

Dear Mr.Singh,
Do you believe that

1. Our existing civil governance infrastructure with a notably specious record
2. With skewed incentives, rehashed development plans and large implementation gaps
3. Dealing with the same resource hungry corporate players

will suddenly heed your call and start super-effective/efficient execution of your government's plans just because more people might be watching them?

Do you believe that and do you expect us to seriously believe that? Are these the most concrete plans that the PM and Home Minister (ministers I consider to be of the highest calibre in the current government) have for eliminating social and regional economic inequalities? (after an incident that shows the appalling fallout of not doing so).

Opinions we can do without - C.V. Arvind in The Hindu

C.V. Arvind painstakingly writes in The Hindu about the perils of pre-marital sex and live-in relationships, an issue of undying importance to upholders of the definitive, untraceable collection of sacrosanct (Indian!) values (a shield usually deployed by morally-challenged, politically shrewd characters which includes the Shiv Sena, the RSS, Sri Ram Sena, random Mullahs issuing fatwahs against Sania's skirts etc).

I wonder how The Hindu let this completely WTF article slip through their usually reasonable quality gates. Note the flimsy assertions and generalizations unbacked by any data/research/findings/polls whatsoever other than the writer's (warped and repressed, I would say) opinions:

• "Indian society, by and large, continues to frown upon both pre-marital sex and live-in relationships"
• "In the West...couples walk in and out of relationships with consummate ease and with hardly any passion or affection characterizing these relationships"
• "Entering into a bond where there are no vows or values is something that cannot be endorsed"
• "One could well ask what sanctity is there in such live-ins"
• "Often, when these live-ins come apart, they could scar either the man or woman for life"
• "Pre-marital sex too is alien to our culture"
• "Awareness has to be created in these young minds"
• "It is in the interest of all that we continue to be old-fashioned and prude"

It must be admitted that one has to try very hard to retain any respect whatsoever for the intellect and education of such a writer and readers can choose to puzzle even harder as to how a respected national newspaper could allow such poor style and content. It is in the national interest for all concerned to do so... OMG, this is infectious. Stay away from this guy.

How do we wage a war against our own people?

In “Traffic”, Michael Douglas is a DEA official about to launch a “war against drugs”. At the last moment, he walks out of a press conference angrily recognizing the illogic of waging a war against one’s own own daughters and sons, victims and perpetrators in the uncharted waters of drug addiction.

The same question strikes me when I read the many arguments and counter-arguments about the Maoist struggle in the mineral laden states of India; the most recent of these were Arundhati Roy’s outstanding essay in Outlook and the CPI(Maoist) spokesperson interview’s in The Hindu. Anyone reading these (sometimes overly) impassioned pieces cannot but be moved by the poignant (and soon-to-be tragic?) struggle of illiterate men and women with muzzle loading rifles and pitchforks who take on the sophisticated legal might of Vedanta-like corporations, the financial and logistical muscle of the Indian government and the savagery of the Salwa Judum. Especially notable is Roy’s brief, acerbic dissection of the twisted language of war (“the Maoist infestation”, “The greatest threat to Indian democracy” etc). But all the literary eloquence of the world cannot mask the stench and horror of 75 dead CRPF men killed last week. So what is it that pits the Indian government to move battalions of police against terrorists… and also its own people? Minerals, apparently. Millions of tonnes of minerals.

A few good answers A couple of months back, I met an LSE grad who had done her PhD on the Maoist movement in India – she had visited Bihar, Jharkand, Uttaranchal etc and clocked miles and hours with both comrades and government officials. She summed up her findings thus - Wherever there are scarce natural resources, there are also fierce power struggles to control them. And inevitably, the local populace suffers and often suffers terribly. This is not a new chapter in human history: Red Indians were driven off their lands and away from their hunting grounds by American settlers looking for ranching land, gold and bison. The island of Nauru was thoroughly strip-mined of all its minerals by the British Phosphate Commission and left to die (or rather, to exist on pittances from becoming a tax haven and running detention centres for illegal Australian immigrants). “Avatar” rehashed this storyline, with humans attempting to wrest control of Unobtainium ore from the Pandorans. In an eerily similar real-life tale, a friend at Amnesty International shared with me their campaign against Vedanta’s attempt to mine the Niyamgiri Hills, sacred to the Dongria Kondh community.

I do not possess the legal, political or philosophical bandwidth to discuss issues of whom the land belongs to and which is the greater good; but whomsoever it belongs to and whatever its worth, surely there must be a more humane process to work this issue through… a process that does not completely condemn barely literate tribals to the mercies of unscrupulous corporations (make no mistake, I am a U.Chicago grad, all in favor of capitalism and free markets, but I was also alive when Bhopal happened to my countrymen), money-making chief ministers and masochistic vigilante organizations.

In this context, I disagree with Shankar Aiyyar of India Today who declares Maoists as terrorists (Yes!) and calls for a new strike force (considering sketchy human rights record of such forces, strike against whom exactly?) brushing aside what he calls “pacifist”(as opposed to a government’s war against its citizens?) objections. His strongest premise is particularly weak in an Indian context: that “a democracy affords many avenues to seek justice and violence is not an option”. I would invite Mr.Aiyyar to the Indian hinterland and ask him to go through the simple motions of registering any kind of complaint in a police station - what a joke! The only avenues of justice available in the Indian democracy are limited to those with one or more of the following:
A. An education
B. An income or wealth that can support bribery and legal costs
C. Extensive contacts in the political or bureaucratic system.
D. The means to inflict violence.
Let us try to guess which of these opulent options an Adivasi in the jungles of Jharkand could (not would) choose. Duh.

I suppose one should be relieved that the Honorable Home Minister of India and the Air Chief Marshall are unsure about the option of using air power for fear of collateral damage; apparently, it’s not just our government servants who are weighing such mighty choices – Harper’s Magazine (currently absconding behind a pay-wall) in a recent article by Ando Arike chronicles the many slippery-slope measures that authorities are considering against protesting and pestering populations. Options include microwaving people, low intensity lasers to make crowds singe and piss, flash-bang grenades that puncture ear-drums, all adding to a range of strategies & tactics to ensure success in “asymmetric confrontation” against restless civilian elements. Us unruly masses need to be taught unforgettable, humiliating, painful lessons on the consequences of naughty behavior, apparently.

Rants aside, why Pandora cannot exist It is stupid to argue that the earth be left in its pristine glory with minerals safely ensconced in their ore… it is only a matter of time before someone discovers/creates shortcuts to make a grab at such resources. Human need has driven human action and will do so forever, wherever, flattening the mountains of America and damning the rivers of China.

Neither does it make sense to always rant against MNCs the way Roy goes on about the Tatas, Vedanta and every other large company. The world does not possess enough resources that match the gentle alternative model that Roy suggests nor do its inhabitants possess the time and patience to wait for such a model’s results. Every day, the iPhones and Priuses of the world demand Bolivian lithium, lithe Formula 1 machines need Nigerian petroleum and millions of Indians want their feisty steel-clad Nanos - now! Such a world we have chosen and wrought, go figure. Rather than confining our reflections to the beauty of a night in the Jharkand jungle, we need to ask more pertinent, more realistic and more urgent questions, like:

PREMISE: Given that large corporations, mining industries, well-paid lobbyists and giant Chinese, American, Russian and Brazilian metal extractors and the irrepressible appetites of global consumers are here to stay…

QUESTION 1: How can we ensure that the transfer of scarce resources from traditional regional inhabitants (guardians?/ owners?/ people?) to industrial economies happens in the most civilized manner possible with the least costs inflicted upon human inhabitants?

QUESTION 2: How can the resultant benefits be spread across fairly across the chain - from the dwellers of the land to the sellers of the metals?

I know, I know, infinitely easier said than carried out. One would think that the world's largest democratic system would at least make an attempt to answer this with some modicum of decency … but no, the Indian government seems to have utterly failed. By abandoning legal and moral responsibilities to the whims of rapacious industrial partners and local politicians out for a quick buck, state and central governments have created a power vacuum, one that dacoits/ extortionist mafias/ Maoists moved to fill in quickly.

In the mines and quarries of Bellary, Naxalbari and Keonjhar, we sowed the wind… And an angry whirlwind visits us in Dantewada, reminding us of the questions we forgot to answer and the bodies that we need to bury. Thanks to the Roys, the Muhajirs, the Sainaths and the Hindus of the world who force us to confront the truth, almost swept under the carpet of economic growth.

Convoluted PS: The act of labeling something as “terrorism” and undertaking all further action based on that premise should not hold one back from recognizing, understanding and ultimately preventing the conditions that led to its formation in the first place. (Prevention not necessarily limited to scorched earth tactics that create desolation and call it peace). No?

PPS: Noompa does a neat job of explaining exactly where Arundhati Roy went too far and why it is a great “disservice to the compelling power of her underlying arguments”. Also note her links which lead on to some measured and rational responses.

What does Anupam Kher think?

Dear Anupam Kher,

I read your comment on The Hindu questioning why anyone should support Shah Rukh Khan during the recent Shiv Sena controversy. You said “Why should we come out together? We come out together when there is a national calamity. We come out together when there are issues related to the nation”.

First of all, I would like to understand your idea of a national calamity – perhaps you imagine that only earthquakes, genocidal riots, terrorist attacks and the like can damage our 2000 year old civilization and therefore it is only the occurrence of these events that call for a show of national unity and support.

• But I ask you for a moment to consider these acts of vandalism perpetuated time and again by the Shiv Sena on anyone who does not toe it's line. Is this something that you consider normal in the modern Indian nation?
• The fact that an Indian citizen, artiste or a producer in BOMBAY (now deal with that, Sena!) cannot express his/her/their opinion without being subject to ugly threats reinforced by vandalism and violence, isn’t that a more fundamental and more dangerous threat to all that our country represents?
• If every movie, every sports event, every public service examination in India's most happening metropolis must gain the hallowed blessings of a few bigots... do you think this is not cause enough to protest in unity?
• Must we wait for extreme measures like these to be enacted or can we be more civilized in unifying and expressing our dissent?

Unless, of course, if you believe that our prerogative to unite as a nation is limited to natural disasters or wars in which case I think you are surely underestimating and almost insulting the intelligence of the Indian people.

Secondly, I completely agree with your other comment that “It’s important everybody has an individual (opinion)”. In this context, I would like to know what your opinion is...

• As a respected artiste who has commented in media about why this may not be worth supporting, you no doubt have formed a well thought-out opinion about the Sena’s threats and vandal actions against any form of cultural expression that does not fit in with their specific world-view.
• Do you believe this is right or wrong? Do you think this is justified or should it be punished? Or will your opinion on this be always politically correct and/or forever withheld?

What do you really think, Mr.Kher?

PS: Sorry, Amit, for riding on your format - will buy you a beer if ever we meet.

Only at U.Chicago...

... could a geo-physicist professor take on a NY Times best selling econ professor and come out on top!

... could this attract 652 comments citing references to long forgotten academic papers!

Raymond Pierrehumber of the Geophysical sciences Dept. shreds Levitt's arguments on global warming here. Quoting easily available resources, he turns some of the arguments in 'Superfreakonomics' on their head. From what I have seen till now (and from 652 comments quoting every kind of academic journal and cross referenced studies), Levitt seems to have drawn some shoddy conclusions from superficial facts... a pity, because, Malcolm Gladwell already makes a living out of it. But seriously, c'mon, a Clark medallist couldnt have slipped up so badly... so much so that Liz Kolbert at the NYer tears it apart, quoting 18th century horseshit and Al Gore... sheesh. My GSB tee cringes while my U.Chicago flag flies high!

And if that wasnt enough, Krugman at the NY times gets all wistful that he isnt being allowed to do this....Awwwww.

Scathing, fascinating, Darwinian U.Chicago culture at it's best and no holy cows, not even the ones that win Clark medals... do check out the map at the end!

Even the Bean

... is frozen! Its - 26C outside...they did warn me that Chicago is a tough city, but after the madness of Madurai, I thought I knew it all. Well, come Sunday, some skating and sledding shall happen and then we will know what's tough and what's not. The man in the mirror rolls his eyes: "Here we go again"

The right to die... is not ours to give.

Since we're on a rebellious rant streak here, here I start again on why euthanasia (the right of a person, usually in mortal sickness, to choose to die) needs to be respected... obviously the seers of the Church don't agree.

Actually, Margo McDonald is way better than me at explaining about this here in The Daily Telegraph- to quote her, ''What I find immoral is the insistence of these people who presume that they can impose their moral code on people for whom life has become totally intolerable". Or more bluntly, if you haven't been stuck in a bed completely paralyzed with someone wiping your ass 7/365 or with half of your body missing after an accident, how can you presume to impose your unfair moral code on someone for whom life is a daily struggle?

I've reached this conclusion after seeing people suffer endlessly and also after playing out quite a few ethical arguments like the parallels to suicide and murder and of course, the inevitable Biblical stances. I completely respect people,who in in similar conditions, choose to live and fight it out against tremendous odds - it is an individual choice that requires amazing willpower and dauntless courage... stuff that most of us will probably never draw upon in one entire lifetime. But like I said, it is an individual choice and I stand by my argument.

Being a X'ian - Of faith and its failings

So matters of faith have always been a sticky issue for me - because of a Catholic upbringing, my default has always been belief in the existence of a Christian God. But growing up in India with its ancient, evocative and powerful epics and with Hindu/Muslim friends who live by the faith of different books has made me wonder about the wisdom of professing that only "believers" of a Christian god would be saved. Add the usual existential angst of college years and the mandatory Ayn Rand and Nietzche reads, you can imagine why I opted for the more physical horrors of the NCC.

So here I am, after a while, faith in a year where matters of religious faith have manifested themselves in forums ranging from the US Presidential elections to the Mumbai attacks. As a X'ian, I have serious rants about the institution of the Catholic Church - its' beliefs about saints, its stance on abortion and stem cell research...there's quite a few "official" opinions that I strongly resent. At the same time, I think the Church has been a force of good for humanity, the causes of poverty alleviation, literacy, health-care and political change. There are many strong arguments for and against the Church and its behavior - but I have also come to realize that such issues and differences exist among any body of people on probably any topic under the sun... and the only way to address such issues are to engage and talk about them, rather than ignore them them to a point of explosive isolation.

Consider this debate between a preacher and a public policy expert on the spiritual legitimacy of gay marriage - this was subsequent to a Newsweek article by Lisa Miller where she argues that with the coming of Jesus (and therefore based on the New Testament) the Bible does not exclude any particular group of people based on criteria such as race, region, church or... sexuality. Not only do I appreciate the content of this discussion between these experts but I also have great regard for tone and respect inherent in the discussion. I will leave aside the actual arguments to your interest, but look at how the counter-arguments start:

"Thank you for this. We are actually engaging one another. By my lights, a rarity between our sorts. Please forgive me for being surprised. Our conversation may be more important than I first guessed. And I'm going to be emboldened to say some hard things in response"

"I think we've had a very good exchange. Thanks for being open with me, and letting me understand your thinking. I hope I have adequately communicated why I take the position I do on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage."

Whenever I've tried to start a reasonable debate with the evangelical Xians that I know (sometimes even with my brother, cousins, aunts etc), I get the v"Revelations" and half the scary verses of the Old Testament thrown at me with such vigor and passion that it becomes impossible to be objective, especially with the usual condescending scorn comes along with this "Ha, he argues with his mind and not with his spiritual soul".

In the face of such biased "faith", what does one conclude? That God fearfully and wonderfully made the brilliant mechanism of the human brain so that we could dump it cold storage when we go to Church or when we read the Bible? That we adhere to what we like about the Holy Book and listen to the preachers we are comfortable with, rather than search ourselves for meaning and relevance? Here's to hoping to more reasonable, vitriolic, more inclusive, less bigoted discussions and debate on "Faith" in the year to come.

NYT IDEAS OF THE YEAR 2008

An interesting list that includes...

• The implications of dancing cockatoos
• Airbags for the walking elderly
• A bio-mechanical energy harvester (I had trouble with that one the first time around)
• A new+radical auto-engine design that consumes 50% less fuel (Nah, not yet, its just at the R&D stage)
• Endlessly burstable bubble wrap toy - could be only from a company called Mugen Puchi Puchi and only from the country of...Japan!
• The bus wait formula-what if you could minimize the time you wait for a bus?
• How real warmth (as in heat) melts a cold heart- no, seriously!
• The best way for a goalkeeper to stop penalty kicks is to stay still?!?
• Crows with vending machines of their own
• Spray-on condoms
• Moonvertising - yes, lasers on the moon that spell,what else, COKE!
• Minicattle
• And a national 10% off sale,thats likely to work better than the eco-stimulus cash that the US Govt sends in right now.

The rest of a mostly interesting list is here