Bernard Shaw in emphasizing the glory of the English language in "Pygmalion" writes, "English, the language of Shakespeare, Milton and the Bible". Shaw, not very religious, included the Bible to underscore the soaring beauty of language in the King James version (Try reading God's secrataries by Adam Nichols). Shakespeare, more than Milton, has come to symbolise a language and an era. The Elizebethan age could very well have been called the Shakespearean age. There was Marlowe, Ben Johnson and others but nobody is today remembered by anyone who claims familiarity with the English alphabet as Shakespeare does. Most literate people have heard or read a play of Shakespeare in some form or other. Even the illiterate villager in Tamil Nadu has had a glimpse thanks to Sivaji's imitation of Laurence Olivier in portraying Hamlet.
When I stopped by London in 2006 I very strongly desired to see Stratford Upon Avon, Shakespeare's birth place. Stratford is a quaint little town. We passed by Cotswold, idyllic English countryside to reach Stratford. All tourist buses were stopped couple of blocks away from the home. It was thrilling to see hundreds coming to pay homage to a 15th century playwright. His wedding record and other records are available yet speculating the true authorship of his plays is a thriving industry. Francis Bacon is often cited as the most likely real author (Will Durant in his 'Story of Philosophy' summarily dismisses it saying is Bacon is too scholarly to make the historical inaccuracies in the plays nor is he so vulgar like the Bard). Shakespeare in his day was jeered as knowing "little Latin and less Greek".
The cottage itself is unremarkable except for the history. Tour guides make themselves worthwhile by explaining the Kitchen on 1500's, the stopper in the furnace, the diet, the utensils etc. The garden has a bust of Shakespeare.
A short walk from his home is Anne Hathaway's home. Anne was 6 years elder to Shakespeare. I remember my English professor saying, his tongue firmly in the cheek, "Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway, 6 years his senior, 7 months later she gave birth to a 10 month old child".
A shop outside Shakespeare's home caught my eye. It was a Jewellery shop named "Iago". I wondered why of all characters did the owner choose "Iago".
Then we went to a nearby park where there were minstrel kind of players performing scenes from Shakespeare's play. The entire city depends on the tourists who flock to see a playwright who wrote 35 plays almost 500 years ago. The crowd is drawn by the magnetism of not just the language but a playwright who has suffused into many civilizations crossing the boundaries of language and time. Anybody who utters "you too Brutus" without even having read Julius Caesar is still tapping into Shakespeare. A cliche like "Roadside Romeos" used in Tamil Nadu owes it to Shakespeare. More Tamilians probably know of Romeo's love than they do of Ambikapathi.
What is to be noted is that no government has erected monuments wasting taxpayer money, no fantastic eye popping vulgar statues. But then we are talking of Shakespeare not of any ordinary mortal who needs jingoistic governments to erect statues amidst an ocean to draw gawking crowds.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Oprah Winfrey: Refuge of bored housewives and pretend intellectuals
Oprah Winfrey, queen of talk show, billionaire, arbiter of everything under and above the sun and above all just mediocre. Oprah, to be sure, has a compelling life story. Abused as a child she has risen, as an Afro-American, to dizzying heights. Presidential contenders appear on her show. Corporates jockey to have their products featured in her magazine or better still on her show. Publishers pray to have their books chosen by her and skyrocket to bestseller list. She is therapist supreme, along with one time acolyte Dr Phil. Bored housewives, her mainstay, drool over her. Sometimes I think of the many jokes that are heaped at housewives in Tamil Nadu obsessed about serials, the American counterparts are not much different when they swoon over Oprah and other soaps. Of course Oprah is any day a shade finer than a crude Tamil serial but only by a shade.
What Oprah achieved is hugely creditable. No doubt. An Afro-American woman beamed into the living rooms of America managed to surmount racial divides and touch something in every heart (I specifically avoided saying "mind").
Jeremiah Wright hit the headlines as the bigoted screaming pastor when Obama ran for President. Obama feigned ignorance of Wright's hateful speeches and finally at a convenient moment dumped his pastor who had outlived his purpose of giving Obama, an upcoming politician in CHicago, a foothold in the community. Little is known of Oprah's own association with Wright. She too, mindful that any association with the fiery pastor would undermine cutting across the racial lines, dumped him very early on. Poor Wright. Some character of Oprah.
As her empire expanded Oprah became the high priestess of everything. In order to provide some intellectual fig leaf to her audiences she started a "Book Club" and critiqued books. Any book selected by her became instant bestseller. I am amused seeing publications of Elie Wiesel's "Night" with the label "Oprah' book club selection". Weisel's holocaust memoir was a best seller decades ago and still is a powerful book that somebody needed Oprah's stamp to pick it up is disgusting. I wish publishers did not use that label, and I wish bookstores refused to sell it to anyone inquiring it as "oh is it selected by Oprah". Likewise for Gabriel Garcia Marquez and others. Nobody goes to a church via gutter. Anyone who chose these books based on just Oprah's advice does not deserve to be within 100 feet of a decomposed copy of those books. Jonathan Franzen, author of bestseller 'Corrections, snubbed Oprah by refusing to appear on her show when she tempted him with her offer to select his book. People like Howard Roark do exist.
Oprah's hubris finally had its comeuppance in James Frey's pseudo-autobiography "A million little pieces". James Frey's supposed memoir, filled with anecdotes from his life, was exposed as total fraud. Even while book critics were murmuring the fraud the pretentious Oprah selected the book, interviewed Frey on her and conferred stardom. When he was exposed Oprah became furious and hauled him again to her show and berated him on live TV. No apology from herself though.
As her empire grew into a media conglomerate she cheapened herself into giving freebies for her shows attendees "cars for everyone". Then followed ill managed scandal haunted charity schools.
Her show was the platform for quack theories. She had a show that had "experts" opine that mercury in vaccines caused autism. People who were invited to give the 'other view' were muzzled. The show and the theory was widely panned. Then followed dubious psychological counseling Dr Phil, a columnist dubbed him as 'Oprah's Oprah'. Dr Phil is now running his own controversy ridden show now. Newsweek recently an extensive cover story on the seamy side of Oprah.
Oprah's advocacy of Barack touched heights of hypocrisy. I can totally understand her supporting him but to pretend that his race had nothing to do with it was baloney. She drooled over him, calling him "the One", she claimed "the truth led me to Barack Obama". When a woman asked her why she is not supporting Hillary a woman, Oprah recounted it as "she 'dared' to ask me...". How dare the viewer ask her. When somebody endorsing a candidate speaks of the candidate in messianic terms we have to politely infer the objectivity involved.
Anyway she has brought happiness to many a housewife and for that America loves her
What Oprah achieved is hugely creditable. No doubt. An Afro-American woman beamed into the living rooms of America managed to surmount racial divides and touch something in every heart (I specifically avoided saying "mind").
Jeremiah Wright hit the headlines as the bigoted screaming pastor when Obama ran for President. Obama feigned ignorance of Wright's hateful speeches and finally at a convenient moment dumped his pastor who had outlived his purpose of giving Obama, an upcoming politician in CHicago, a foothold in the community. Little is known of Oprah's own association with Wright. She too, mindful that any association with the fiery pastor would undermine cutting across the racial lines, dumped him very early on. Poor Wright. Some character of Oprah.
As her empire expanded Oprah became the high priestess of everything. In order to provide some intellectual fig leaf to her audiences she started a "Book Club" and critiqued books. Any book selected by her became instant bestseller. I am amused seeing publications of Elie Wiesel's "Night" with the label "Oprah' book club selection". Weisel's holocaust memoir was a best seller decades ago and still is a powerful book that somebody needed Oprah's stamp to pick it up is disgusting. I wish publishers did not use that label, and I wish bookstores refused to sell it to anyone inquiring it as "oh is it selected by Oprah". Likewise for Gabriel Garcia Marquez and others. Nobody goes to a church via gutter. Anyone who chose these books based on just Oprah's advice does not deserve to be within 100 feet of a decomposed copy of those books. Jonathan Franzen, author of bestseller 'Corrections, snubbed Oprah by refusing to appear on her show when she tempted him with her offer to select his book. People like Howard Roark do exist.
Oprah's hubris finally had its comeuppance in James Frey's pseudo-autobiography "A million little pieces". James Frey's supposed memoir, filled with anecdotes from his life, was exposed as total fraud. Even while book critics were murmuring the fraud the pretentious Oprah selected the book, interviewed Frey on her and conferred stardom. When he was exposed Oprah became furious and hauled him again to her show and berated him on live TV. No apology from herself though.
As her empire grew into a media conglomerate she cheapened herself into giving freebies for her shows attendees "cars for everyone". Then followed ill managed scandal haunted charity schools.
Her show was the platform for quack theories. She had a show that had "experts" opine that mercury in vaccines caused autism. People who were invited to give the 'other view' were muzzled. The show and the theory was widely panned. Then followed dubious psychological counseling Dr Phil, a columnist dubbed him as 'Oprah's Oprah'. Dr Phil is now running his own controversy ridden show now. Newsweek recently an extensive cover story on the seamy side of Oprah.
Oprah's advocacy of Barack touched heights of hypocrisy. I can totally understand her supporting him but to pretend that his race had nothing to do with it was baloney. She drooled over him, calling him "the One", she claimed "the truth led me to Barack Obama". When a woman asked her why she is not supporting Hillary a woman, Oprah recounted it as "she 'dared' to ask me...". How dare the viewer ask her. When somebody endorsing a candidate speaks of the candidate in messianic terms we have to politely infer the objectivity involved.
Anyway she has brought happiness to many a housewife and for that America loves her
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Cold War Vs War on Terror
This month marks the 40th anniversary of moon landing. I was reading a TIME cover story on that and mused on the space race. Soviet Russia gave US quite a bit of a race. The first satellite, first living being in space, first human being, first female cosmonaut were all Russian achievements. Irked by this Kennedy made the famous pledge to beat the Russians to the moon. Sure we did beat the commies.
The Cold War was unique in affecting every sphere of human endeavor. A chess board was as much prestigious to win at as it was to win in Korea. The Olympics medals tally was keenly contested as much as the Berlin Wall was contested. Then there was 007, "I am Bond, James Bond" defending Queen and country from Russia. All James Bond movies were banned in Soviet Russia until "Golden eye" which was filmed in Russia (just Russia, no longer Soviet).
The space race, the race for missiles (nuclear and otherwise), the quarrel over better life style for labor spilled over into so many areas of competition. Who can forget the famous "Kitchen debate" between Nixon and Krushchev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate). Not many realise that May Day rallies originated in US. The 8 hour work day was started by Henry Ford while Stalin mowed down the factory workers who struck work. Ford, pioneer of the assembly line method, made it a point to pay his workers enough to buy cars they built, he gave profit share, communism shared not profits but misery amongst its workers.
Science and technology were the areas of keenest competition. The movie "A Beautiful Mind" based on the eponymous biography of John Nash by Sylvia Nasar, has the Dean of Princeton ask newcomers "who will be next Einstein, who will help US defeat communism". The RAND institute, MIT etc were hotbeds of research giving US its technical edge.
Nobel Prizes were anxiously awaited. A Nobel for Pasternak was seen as a snub to Soviet totalitarianism. Defection of agents was one thing, defection of a person like Solzhenitsyn was epochal. Solzhenitsyn, while safely cocooned in the liberties of US found it OK to berate his hosts who protected him for greedy consumerism.
While America was locked in an existential struggle with Communism the struggles many aspects tapped into the creative genius of the country, in some angles the competition itself had its ennobling moments.
Contrast this with America's current War on Terror. This is existential too but what is being tapped into is only the base raw instinct to outfight each other and at best only some vague defense of Western liberalism.
Two cheers for Cold War.
The Cold War was unique in affecting every sphere of human endeavor. A chess board was as much prestigious to win at as it was to win in Korea. The Olympics medals tally was keenly contested as much as the Berlin Wall was contested. Then there was 007, "I am Bond, James Bond" defending Queen and country from Russia. All James Bond movies were banned in Soviet Russia until "Golden eye" which was filmed in Russia (just Russia, no longer Soviet).
The space race, the race for missiles (nuclear and otherwise), the quarrel over better life style for labor spilled over into so many areas of competition. Who can forget the famous "Kitchen debate" between Nixon and Krushchev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Debate). Not many realise that May Day rallies originated in US. The 8 hour work day was started by Henry Ford while Stalin mowed down the factory workers who struck work. Ford, pioneer of the assembly line method, made it a point to pay his workers enough to buy cars they built, he gave profit share, communism shared not profits but misery amongst its workers.
Science and technology were the areas of keenest competition. The movie "A Beautiful Mind" based on the eponymous biography of John Nash by Sylvia Nasar, has the Dean of Princeton ask newcomers "who will be next Einstein, who will help US defeat communism". The RAND institute, MIT etc were hotbeds of research giving US its technical edge.
Nobel Prizes were anxiously awaited. A Nobel for Pasternak was seen as a snub to Soviet totalitarianism. Defection of agents was one thing, defection of a person like Solzhenitsyn was epochal. Solzhenitsyn, while safely cocooned in the liberties of US found it OK to berate his hosts who protected him for greedy consumerism.
While America was locked in an existential struggle with Communism the struggles many aspects tapped into the creative genius of the country, in some angles the competition itself had its ennobling moments.
Contrast this with America's current War on Terror. This is existential too but what is being tapped into is only the base raw instinct to outfight each other and at best only some vague defense of Western liberalism.
Two cheers for Cold War.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Russian Oppression of Poland: William Shirer Vs Eve Curie
I intend to write another blog titled "Writing History Soviet Style" in reaction to a column that appeared in Hindu by Vladimir Radyuhin. Radyuhin writes on Russian issues. His column was about how Western Historians dilute the heroic role of Soviet Union in defeating Hitler. I shall reserve my comments on that for the next blog. However, while trying to gather my thoughts on that subject I reached to William Shirer's masterpiece "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", which, after 40+ years still remains the most concise and most readable account of those years. The longest section of the book is titled "Road to War". Shirer traces the origins of WW-II from several angles, the rise of Hitler, fall of Wiemar republic, appeasements by the Western leaders etc. A critical angle is the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact signed between Hitler and Stalin.
To this day historians continue to quibble whether Stalin was compelled to sign that treaty because France and Britain were busy appeasing Hitler or Stalin just played Chamberlain and Hitler finally choosing to side with Hitler thinking that the Nazi warlord is the more fearful one. The quibbling is because much of Soviet war history papers are still classified. Basically Stalin was negotiating with both Germany on one side and the Franco-British alliance on the other side. With the Franco-British side the biggest point of friction, according to Shirer, was Stalin's demand that Poland should agree to Soviet troops on its soil to stop German troops much before they could reach the borders of Soviet union. Shirer almost portrays Poland as unwilling for this compromise without appreciating the historical nature of the forces that were shaping up. Reading the chapter I thought "If only Poland had compromised".It should be noted here that Shirer, was no professional historian, he was a journalist stationed in Berlin during the 1930's.
As luck would have it I came upon a wonderful book "Madame Curie" by Eve Curie. Good books have a way of beckoning me like the sirens beckoned Ulysses. With no prior knowledge and only out of curiosity I picked it up for 50 cents at an old book store. Later I checked it out and found that the book was by Marie Curie's daughter and is an acclaimed biography. The book was published in 1937. Here is another quirk of mine, I always check the publication date from the cover page, especially for an old book, more so if there is no dated preface or foreword. Eve Curie details life in Poland when Marie Curie grew up in the 1870's. A paragraph starts with a shocking "It was a cruel fate, in the year 1872, to be a pole, a 'Russian subject' ".
Poland was so thoroughly subjugated by Russia that Poles could not even speak or study in Polish. Poland, for all practical reasons, was a colony of Russia (not yet Soviet Russia). Every aspect of their life was deliberately devoid of anything remotely Polish. Not even India as a British colony could stand comparison to Poland under Russia.
I was amazed to learn this part of history, amazed that Shirer did not present this historical backdrop in reporting Poland's refusal to allow Soviet troops on its soil.
Stalin, had his revenge though. While Hitler pummeled Poland from its western side, Stalin plundered it from the east. Sep 1st 1939, when Nazi troops rolled into Poland is recognized as the official beginning of WW-II.Not much is spoken of how Russia too plundered Poland simultaneously. While Hitler was busy occupying France and bombarding Britain, Stalin had a free hand in plundering Eastern Europe. All those states, including Poland would eventually get some semblance of freedom only in 1980's as the decrepit Soviet state imploded. Until then Poland would be behind what Churchill famously characterised as the "Iron Curtain".
[ From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. --- Churchill , March 5, 1946Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri ,
Complete text of that speech http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa082400a.htm]
To this day historians continue to quibble whether Stalin was compelled to sign that treaty because France and Britain were busy appeasing Hitler or Stalin just played Chamberlain and Hitler finally choosing to side with Hitler thinking that the Nazi warlord is the more fearful one. The quibbling is because much of Soviet war history papers are still classified. Basically Stalin was negotiating with both Germany on one side and the Franco-British alliance on the other side. With the Franco-British side the biggest point of friction, according to Shirer, was Stalin's demand that Poland should agree to Soviet troops on its soil to stop German troops much before they could reach the borders of Soviet union. Shirer almost portrays Poland as unwilling for this compromise without appreciating the historical nature of the forces that were shaping up. Reading the chapter I thought "If only Poland had compromised".It should be noted here that Shirer, was no professional historian, he was a journalist stationed in Berlin during the 1930's.
As luck would have it I came upon a wonderful book "Madame Curie" by Eve Curie. Good books have a way of beckoning me like the sirens beckoned Ulysses. With no prior knowledge and only out of curiosity I picked it up for 50 cents at an old book store. Later I checked it out and found that the book was by Marie Curie's daughter and is an acclaimed biography. The book was published in 1937. Here is another quirk of mine, I always check the publication date from the cover page, especially for an old book, more so if there is no dated preface or foreword. Eve Curie details life in Poland when Marie Curie grew up in the 1870's. A paragraph starts with a shocking "It was a cruel fate, in the year 1872, to be a pole, a 'Russian subject' ".
Poland was so thoroughly subjugated by Russia that Poles could not even speak or study in Polish. Poland, for all practical reasons, was a colony of Russia (not yet Soviet Russia). Every aspect of their life was deliberately devoid of anything remotely Polish. Not even India as a British colony could stand comparison to Poland under Russia.
I was amazed to learn this part of history, amazed that Shirer did not present this historical backdrop in reporting Poland's refusal to allow Soviet troops on its soil.
Stalin, had his revenge though. While Hitler pummeled Poland from its western side, Stalin plundered it from the east. Sep 1st 1939, when Nazi troops rolled into Poland is recognized as the official beginning of WW-II.Not much is spoken of how Russia too plundered Poland simultaneously. While Hitler was busy occupying France and bombarding Britain, Stalin had a free hand in plundering Eastern Europe. All those states, including Poland would eventually get some semblance of freedom only in 1980's as the decrepit Soviet state imploded. Until then Poland would be behind what Churchill famously characterised as the "Iron Curtain".
[ From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. --- Churchill , March 5, 1946Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri ,
Complete text of that speech http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa082400a.htm]
Monday, June 29, 2009
India's Babus, why officials rule India: Nilekani and Azhagiri
When Nandan Nilekani was appointed to oversee India's mammoth project of assigning ID's to a billion+ population, akin to US' Social Security numbers, there was all round applause. While I too applaud the larger idea and the appropriateness of Nilekani I find it distasteful that he is appointed with the rank of a Cabinet Minister, he is in charge if millions of dollars and is not "directly" answerable to the parliament. This is clear subversion of the spirit of the Constitution. In the least he should have been brought in via the Rajya Sabha which has legitimate rationale for a person like him. The Rajya Sabha was created exactly for people like him and Manmohan Singh. Those whose services and expertise is needed but could not survive in the rumble tumble world of populist politics are to be elected via Rajya Sabha. Why has no one objected to the nature of the appointment? Why is India, at least the white collar section, rejoicing at this appointments? A relevant question to ask is why do unelected officials wield the "real" power in India? Why do we still need IAS? Why is the officialdom, the Babu's, so powerful in India?
I was recently watching Chris Dodd, Connecticut Senator, ranking member of Senate Finance committee grill Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of treasury, live on TV. Let us put aside the finer aspects of Chris Dodd's role in the banking crisis, put aside quibbles on Geithner's mis-steps on the stimulus etc. Step away and consider the whole scenario a senator was grilling the Treasury Secretary in such detail showing deep knowledge of the subject matter. Geithner himself, very young 40-ish, has an accomplished resume. The intellectual standing of the questioner prods the secretary to be respectful. The secretary's stellar resume prods the senator to be mindful. How many ministers in the Indian cabinet, out of 74, can field such questions? How many MP's can question with knowledge of the subject matter? Can Azhagiri any day hold forth on the drug policy of India, does he have an iota of idea on what pressing International policy issues face India's drug policies, can he on his own develop any framework to address threats from world bodies on Intellectual property rights?
That a 24+ girl gets nominated to a cabinet post is a gross injustice to the taxpayer. It is easy to make fun of America today thanks to the financial crises but let us not lose sight that even today the dollar is seen as a refuge, even today America IS the engine of growth. This has not happened by accident, this did not happen outside of the portals of public policy. Barack Obama is the third consecutive Ivy League alumnus to rule US. Bill Clinton, his peccadilloes aside, can stun world leaders with his grasp of policy. Listening to Bill Clinton talk of health care crises is a treat by itself, no notes on hand he can cite figures, drill down to the real issues, frame the discussion intelligible to the lay audience. At the height of the Cuban missile crises JFK reaches to the lesson he gleaned from Barbara Tuchman's "Gun's of August". The intellectual gravitas of American policymakers is really a pretty high bar compared to Indian policymakers, save Nehru.
Nehru, while suffering from the ideological bent of his era, when it came to Science and Technology rose to the occasion. The IIT's and IIM's are a testimony to his vision. A vision that would be impossible to match in any successor because none had the intellectual ability to see the need for such institutions and none could even remotely appreciate the need for such graduates. Again I cannot see Homi Bhaba answering to Deve Gowda or presenting any idea. Karunanidhi famously wrote a poem decrying the value of education practically suggesting that the educated achieve nothing. Its an intellectual travesty of the worst order.
With policy makers who have no idea of subject matter and no intellectual abilities the IAS officer steps in. Enter the babu. There are 5 IAS officers in Tamil Nadu Health ministry, http://www.tnhealth.org/organisation%20structure.htm . Only three medical professionals at the director level. The bureaucrat outnumbers subject expert by 2:1, not including the minister. Going back to Azhagiri who lacks any quality education, reads nothing beyond the party newspaper, has almost zero intellectual ability one wonders what would be his input on any policy, one wonders how he would decide when two opposing ideas are presented.
That Shatrughan Sinha was India's minister of health is a crime. A country of billion people, highest number malnourished, high infant mortality, ranked at the bottom in Human development Index by UN, has health care challenges that can bewilder the keenest of minds, that such a department was given to an actor who treated politics as a sideshow and had no inkling on policy making is nothing short of a crime.
India has had as education ministers those who had not progressed beyond school education. Kamaraj, is often cited as an example of an illiterate but commendable achiever. Kamaraj's policies on education took Tamil Nadu way ahead but let us understand that Kamaraj lacked opportunities not the desire to study also the heady days of freedom struggle took him in. Aware of his own limitations when he was within striking distance of Prime Ministership Kamaraj stepped aside. When somebody like R.M.Veerappan becomes an education minister it is a sad day for education.
Not appointing ministers with intellectual gravitas is bad and appointing as ministers those who "devalue" intellectual substance, is the worst one can do.
Appointing vermins like S.S.Chandran and Sarath Kumar to Rajya Sabha was a practical sabotage of the spirit behind the creation of Rajya Sabha. When Phoolan Devi, as MP, decides how every Indian must pay taxes, educate his/her child, live his life, that is when the parliament becomes a puppet in the hands of the ever thriving official.
I was recently watching Chris Dodd, Connecticut Senator, ranking member of Senate Finance committee grill Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of treasury, live on TV. Let us put aside the finer aspects of Chris Dodd's role in the banking crisis, put aside quibbles on Geithner's mis-steps on the stimulus etc. Step away and consider the whole scenario a senator was grilling the Treasury Secretary in such detail showing deep knowledge of the subject matter. Geithner himself, very young 40-ish, has an accomplished resume. The intellectual standing of the questioner prods the secretary to be respectful. The secretary's stellar resume prods the senator to be mindful. How many ministers in the Indian cabinet, out of 74, can field such questions? How many MP's can question with knowledge of the subject matter? Can Azhagiri any day hold forth on the drug policy of India, does he have an iota of idea on what pressing International policy issues face India's drug policies, can he on his own develop any framework to address threats from world bodies on Intellectual property rights?
That a 24+ girl gets nominated to a cabinet post is a gross injustice to the taxpayer. It is easy to make fun of America today thanks to the financial crises but let us not lose sight that even today the dollar is seen as a refuge, even today America IS the engine of growth. This has not happened by accident, this did not happen outside of the portals of public policy. Barack Obama is the third consecutive Ivy League alumnus to rule US. Bill Clinton, his peccadilloes aside, can stun world leaders with his grasp of policy. Listening to Bill Clinton talk of health care crises is a treat by itself, no notes on hand he can cite figures, drill down to the real issues, frame the discussion intelligible to the lay audience. At the height of the Cuban missile crises JFK reaches to the lesson he gleaned from Barbara Tuchman's "Gun's of August". The intellectual gravitas of American policymakers is really a pretty high bar compared to Indian policymakers, save Nehru.
Nehru, while suffering from the ideological bent of his era, when it came to Science and Technology rose to the occasion. The IIT's and IIM's are a testimony to his vision. A vision that would be impossible to match in any successor because none had the intellectual ability to see the need for such institutions and none could even remotely appreciate the need for such graduates. Again I cannot see Homi Bhaba answering to Deve Gowda or presenting any idea. Karunanidhi famously wrote a poem decrying the value of education practically suggesting that the educated achieve nothing. Its an intellectual travesty of the worst order.
With policy makers who have no idea of subject matter and no intellectual abilities the IAS officer steps in. Enter the babu. There are 5 IAS officers in Tamil Nadu Health ministry, http://www.tnhealth.org/organisation%20structure.htm . Only three medical professionals at the director level. The bureaucrat outnumbers subject expert by 2:1, not including the minister. Going back to Azhagiri who lacks any quality education, reads nothing beyond the party newspaper, has almost zero intellectual ability one wonders what would be his input on any policy, one wonders how he would decide when two opposing ideas are presented.
That Shatrughan Sinha was India's minister of health is a crime. A country of billion people, highest number malnourished, high infant mortality, ranked at the bottom in Human development Index by UN, has health care challenges that can bewilder the keenest of minds, that such a department was given to an actor who treated politics as a sideshow and had no inkling on policy making is nothing short of a crime.
India has had as education ministers those who had not progressed beyond school education. Kamaraj, is often cited as an example of an illiterate but commendable achiever. Kamaraj's policies on education took Tamil Nadu way ahead but let us understand that Kamaraj lacked opportunities not the desire to study also the heady days of freedom struggle took him in. Aware of his own limitations when he was within striking distance of Prime Ministership Kamaraj stepped aside. When somebody like R.M.Veerappan becomes an education minister it is a sad day for education.
Not appointing ministers with intellectual gravitas is bad and appointing as ministers those who "devalue" intellectual substance, is the worst one can do.
Appointing vermins like S.S.Chandran and Sarath Kumar to Rajya Sabha was a practical sabotage of the spirit behind the creation of Rajya Sabha. When Phoolan Devi, as MP, decides how every Indian must pay taxes, educate his/her child, live his life, that is when the parliament becomes a puppet in the hands of the ever thriving official.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Berlin Wall, The Chinese firewall and Iran's high tech Wall
"Man is born free and he is in chains everywhere", attributed to Rousseau, is truer in the modern world than it was in the days of 1700's. The Berlin Wall was unique, not in concept, but in brazenness. Soviet Russia had indeed put many restrictions on its citizenry from interacting with the wider world, emigration, visas, travel, radio, TV, news papers, were all heavily curtailed and censored. For the first time a country erected walls, not to keep out invaders but to keep its citizenry inside. Houses have walls. Prisons have walls. The crucial difference is that in homes walls prevent outsiders bearing ill will from entering in wheras prison walls prevent those inside from escaping. East Germany was a prison.
Emboldened by what they read of Gorbachev, students in their naivete beseeched a visiting Gorbochev to impress upon Chinese government to democratise. Gorbachev, no Reagan, just passed by. 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of Tianenmen. It is ironical that this year the autobiography of Zhao Ziyang was smuggled to the west and published. That a country's Premier was deposed and placed in house arrest in 1989 tells us something of the age we live in. Zhao then, in typical fashion common to deposed leaders in Communist countries, composed his biography in great secrecy. The biography exposed the myths around Deng Xio Ping and portrayed how the men at the helm decided to unleash a massacre. I need to record an anomaly here. I had many Chinese colleagues, who, without exception were still patriotic towards China to the extent that they dismissed any pro-democracy voice as "pro-America", also they considered the policies of censorship etc as "not a big deal".
Today Wall Street Journal published a report about Iran and China using technology in denying freedoms to their citizenry. China is now stipulating PC makers to install monitoring software in PC's sold in China. Dell, HP and the rest are demurring and working through advocacy groups to pressurise Chinese government to give up this heinous demand. Chinese refer to their government's rules on internet access as "the great chinese firewall".Let it be noted that Obama administration's stated policy on human rights in China, is that it does not matter. Earlier administrations while doing so atleast did not have the gumption to say so.
Iran is now in the news. Twitter and facebook are seen as tools that have enabled a population to circumvent government clampdown. WSJ today laid bare how Iran, while railing against corrupt Western imperialism, uses technology from a consortium of Nokia and Siemens to monitor everything on their network. The technology used is pervasive to reach into every "data packet" that is transmitted, each packet is parsed for images and keywords that are analysed for inimical content and then blocked or is used to track down the user for punishments.
Whether its Chechnya or Iran or Sri Lanka or China, the shameful strategy, of denying access to world press and suppressing any information, is adopted without exception.
It would not be out of place to reminisce the failed uprising in Prague in 1968. Why do I get the feeling that Oscar Wilde is smiling in his grave?
Obama, the pontificator, decried US involvement in Iran in Cairo speech. Today an Iranian protester, on CNN, pleaded for US to get involved. Damned if you do and damned if you do not.
Emboldened by what they read of Gorbachev, students in their naivete beseeched a visiting Gorbochev to impress upon Chinese government to democratise. Gorbachev, no Reagan, just passed by. 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of Tianenmen. It is ironical that this year the autobiography of Zhao Ziyang was smuggled to the west and published. That a country's Premier was deposed and placed in house arrest in 1989 tells us something of the age we live in. Zhao then, in typical fashion common to deposed leaders in Communist countries, composed his biography in great secrecy. The biography exposed the myths around Deng Xio Ping and portrayed how the men at the helm decided to unleash a massacre. I need to record an anomaly here. I had many Chinese colleagues, who, without exception were still patriotic towards China to the extent that they dismissed any pro-democracy voice as "pro-America", also they considered the policies of censorship etc as "not a big deal".
Today Wall Street Journal published a report about Iran and China using technology in denying freedoms to their citizenry. China is now stipulating PC makers to install monitoring software in PC's sold in China. Dell, HP and the rest are demurring and working through advocacy groups to pressurise Chinese government to give up this heinous demand. Chinese refer to their government's rules on internet access as "the great chinese firewall".Let it be noted that Obama administration's stated policy on human rights in China, is that it does not matter. Earlier administrations while doing so atleast did not have the gumption to say so.
Iran is now in the news. Twitter and facebook are seen as tools that have enabled a population to circumvent government clampdown. WSJ today laid bare how Iran, while railing against corrupt Western imperialism, uses technology from a consortium of Nokia and Siemens to monitor everything on their network. The technology used is pervasive to reach into every "data packet" that is transmitted, each packet is parsed for images and keywords that are analysed for inimical content and then blocked or is used to track down the user for punishments.
Whether its Chechnya or Iran or Sri Lanka or China, the shameful strategy, of denying access to world press and suppressing any information, is adopted without exception.
It would not be out of place to reminisce the failed uprising in Prague in 1968. Why do I get the feeling that Oscar Wilde is smiling in his grave?
Obama, the pontificator, decried US involvement in Iran in Cairo speech. Today an Iranian protester, on CNN, pleaded for US to get involved. Damned if you do and damned if you do not.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
D-Day and the "Last Great Good War myth"
Every year June 6th is celebrated in Europe and US as "D-Day" in memory of the day when Allied forces landed in the beaches of Normandy beginning the invasion of Europe. World War II is often referred as the "Last great good war" meaning that forces of good and evil, clearly demarcated, faced of against each other and in an idyllic manner good triumphed over evil. It is no doubt a triumph over murderous ideologies of Nazism and Fascism. However the conflict did not start as a righteous reaction to that, every nation state was drawn into the conflict for their own strategic reasons and the results of the war spawned its own horrors in the form of equally murderous Communism and Cold War conflict.
Churchill was the biggest hypocrite of all. The Bull Dog warrior growled incessantly about protecting liberty all the while philosophically convinced about the "right" to rule over India and other colonies. He famously thundered "I've not become his majesty's first minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire".
France's role in Algiers and Africa is more shameful and more repressive. Post-War French repression in Indochina sowed the seeds for Vietnam war. The word "Vietnam" only conjures up images of America's greatest military defeat but little is known widely of its origins in French tyranny. The same France which piously opposes American unilateralism today.
The worst duplicitous actor in war was Stalin. Seeing Chamberlain and the Western world capitulate to Hitler, Stalin and Molotov hurried to sign pacts of "non-aggression" with Germany. Having bought time Stalin consolidated his hold on many nation states around Russia. Then of course when Hitler's Operation Barbarossa hit home Stalin lost no time in defending "liberty". The height of his hypocrisy was when the Red Army sat across the Vistula while Nazi's slaughtered Poles in Warsaw. Stalin's logic was simple "why fight the Nazis today when they are killing people who we would have to kill anyway later".
FDR who understood the necessity of US joining the war was hamstrung by the Congress which wanted to keep US out of "the European conflict". Pearl Harbor changed it. Even then 2 congressmen voted against going to war. The least hypocritical of all nations was US. One could pick beef with US involvement in Philippines.
Much is made of US dropping atomic bombs wiping out hundreds of thousands. As a technology of warfare it was frightening. Mankind was at cross roads with the technology which had immense power to do good or evil depending on the mind which used it. Let me remind the peaceniks that dropping the bomb was a simple decision for Truman. The war in Europe had concluded, Hitler committed suicide, Mussolini was hung, yet Japan remained belligerent refusing to yield. The battle of Iwo Jima had proved that Japan would not hesitate to lose millions to continue fighting. The question before Truman was should he, as US president, prolong the war losing American lives or end it by demonstrating to Japan that he could kill thousands of theirs without losing much. As a good President he chose the latter course. It had the desired effect.
Two more points worth noting are what Japan did in China and the post-war reconstruction of Japan BY USA. Japanese forces unleashed unspeakable horrors in China wiping out entire villages, women were raped and killed by the tens of thousands. Iris Chang in her "Rape of Nanking" superbly documented it. Reading it haunted me for a week. US unlike how Europe treated Germany after World War I decided to rebuild Japan. That Japan became an economic powerhouse is a testimony to not just the Japanese people but also to American magnanimity.
Every nation, god bless the brave millions who died, got involved to defend their own strategic interests and bargained for their own interests post-war. Nothing wrong with that except that lets not pretend it was for some unselfish greater good. Like John Nash showed, we human beings, do what is in our own individual best interest AND the larger group.
Churchill was the biggest hypocrite of all. The Bull Dog warrior growled incessantly about protecting liberty all the while philosophically convinced about the "right" to rule over India and other colonies. He famously thundered "I've not become his majesty's first minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire".
France's role in Algiers and Africa is more shameful and more repressive. Post-War French repression in Indochina sowed the seeds for Vietnam war. The word "Vietnam" only conjures up images of America's greatest military defeat but little is known widely of its origins in French tyranny. The same France which piously opposes American unilateralism today.
The worst duplicitous actor in war was Stalin. Seeing Chamberlain and the Western world capitulate to Hitler, Stalin and Molotov hurried to sign pacts of "non-aggression" with Germany. Having bought time Stalin consolidated his hold on many nation states around Russia. Then of course when Hitler's Operation Barbarossa hit home Stalin lost no time in defending "liberty". The height of his hypocrisy was when the Red Army sat across the Vistula while Nazi's slaughtered Poles in Warsaw. Stalin's logic was simple "why fight the Nazis today when they are killing people who we would have to kill anyway later".
FDR who understood the necessity of US joining the war was hamstrung by the Congress which wanted to keep US out of "the European conflict". Pearl Harbor changed it. Even then 2 congressmen voted against going to war. The least hypocritical of all nations was US. One could pick beef with US involvement in Philippines.
Much is made of US dropping atomic bombs wiping out hundreds of thousands. As a technology of warfare it was frightening. Mankind was at cross roads with the technology which had immense power to do good or evil depending on the mind which used it. Let me remind the peaceniks that dropping the bomb was a simple decision for Truman. The war in Europe had concluded, Hitler committed suicide, Mussolini was hung, yet Japan remained belligerent refusing to yield. The battle of Iwo Jima had proved that Japan would not hesitate to lose millions to continue fighting. The question before Truman was should he, as US president, prolong the war losing American lives or end it by demonstrating to Japan that he could kill thousands of theirs without losing much. As a good President he chose the latter course. It had the desired effect.
Two more points worth noting are what Japan did in China and the post-war reconstruction of Japan BY USA. Japanese forces unleashed unspeakable horrors in China wiping out entire villages, women were raped and killed by the tens of thousands. Iris Chang in her "Rape of Nanking" superbly documented it. Reading it haunted me for a week. US unlike how Europe treated Germany after World War I decided to rebuild Japan. That Japan became an economic powerhouse is a testimony to not just the Japanese people but also to American magnanimity.
Every nation, god bless the brave millions who died, got involved to defend their own strategic interests and bargained for their own interests post-war. Nothing wrong with that except that lets not pretend it was for some unselfish greater good. Like John Nash showed, we human beings, do what is in our own individual best interest AND the larger group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)