Gandhi And The Failure Of Indian Education

Hating, misrepresenting, misunderstanding and mostly not understanding Gandhi is the latest fad in India. It is fashionable to say that the British left India because they were exhausted by War and could no longer control India from afar and India's independence had nothing to do with Gandhi. It is easy to ridicule 'Satyagraha' as an inefficient and impractical instrument of protest against powers unlike British and like Hitler or Rajapakse. From the political left and the right the man who comes in for equal hate and ridicule is Gandhi. Ferreting quotes without context for a man who lived to 79 and wrote or spoke voluminously over 50 of those years is easy. Ascribing conspiratorial motives for Gandhi 'selecting' Nehru over the more popular and duly elected 'Patel' is a national pastime. To cap it all is Gandhi's own shameful brahmacharya experiments are taken and made out to look like the man did nothing in his life other than sleep with women. Then there is the contentious Poona pact with Ambedkar that can be mined for selective re-telling to portray, of all people, Gandhi as a reactionary Hindu who was disinterested in the upliftment of the Untouchables, the Dalits, or 'Harijans' as he called them.

Yet, Gandhi is revered in the West. Louis Fischer, William Shirer, George Orwell, Stanley Wolpert, MLK Jr, Richard Attenborough, Time Magazine editorial committee and legions of other intellectuals across a political spectrum. Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner included Gandhi alongside music composer Igor Stravinsky amongst a list of people he chose to study 'creativity'. Joseph Lelyveld in his biography marvels at the untouchability tour by Gandhi when he collected a princely sum to be devoted to projects for Dalits. Lelyveld wonders why no one speaks of it in India today.

The chief culprit is Indian education. Our school textbooks have deified Gandhi without humanizing him. As much as American textbooks may not speak of Jefferson fathering a child with his slave I do not expect Indian textbooks to speak of the Brahmacharya experiments. But every fault of Indian education is brought out clearly in how little or how wrongly Indians have understood Gandhi. That applies both to his detractors and to many admirers.

In response to the draconian Rowlatt act of 1919 Gandhi called upon Indians to observe a 'day of prayer' and remain in their homes. It was called 'hartal' (in Hindi). Tamil Nadu's insipid 'Equitable Education' textbook for 10th grade deals with this in 3 sentences: "In order to face the revolutionary movement in a successful manner, the British government passed the Rowlatt Act in 1919. It empowered the British Government to arrest any one without warrant and imprisoned without trial. The Indians under the leadership of Gandhiki opposed it. There was country wide hartal on April 6th 1919".

Classic Indian textbook. In order to encourage higher pass percentage a pivotal event is reduced to 3 badly written sentences. There is no detail on whether the protest succeeded, why such a protest was novel, no sense of wonderment or appreciation for what a one time tongue tied lawyer achieved in a country that spoke 30 languages and hundreds of dialects with so many religions and castes.

I understood the greatness of that 'hartal' from Larry Collin's and Dominique Lapierre's 'Freedom at Midnight' and from the third rate movie 'Gandhi' by Richard Attenborough. Gandhi and his people face an oppressor that was an Empire across continents. An impoverished people who last rebellion was a sham and a total failure had to find a way to tell their oppressor that they did not like a law. Gandhi, with no government propaganda machinery, asked Indians to do a simple act. 'Remain indoors'. It was a genius of creativity because only Gandhi thought of way for Indians to express their displeasure without hurting their rulers physically and opening the possibility of being hurt in return. The movie will show the Viceroy receiving reports of India, one fifth of humanity, coming to stand still. Napoleon and Alexander did not wield such power.

The same textbook then deals with Dandi march in a shameful manner. In 3 very short paragraphs, the most pivotal event of the most glorious freedom movement in all of human history is dismissed off. Within those 3 short paragraphs of just two-three lines each the student learns the dates and the distance covered. I am sure that students would hunch over and try to learn by rote memorizing the dates and the distance.

Overlooking the Great Depression Time Magazine exulted in declaring Gandhi as 'Person of the Year' in January 1931 for the Salt March. Collins and Lapierre reconstructed how a frail 61 year old man with a bamboo staff in his hand 'shook the pillars of the Empire' and 'dominated the world press'. Nehru, the Harrow-Candridge educated aristocrat, when he hears of the Salt March at first demurs. Later seeing its success he feels humbled before a man who had searched for his 'inner voice' to identify a suitable struggle to protest. Most western commentators have marveled at Gandhi's genius for choosing to protest the salt tax as it touched a commodity used by all Indians in as basic a function as cooking food. Even today it is ranked as one of the most successful protests in the quest for justice by a people in all history.

Irwin thought Gandhi will walk to Dandi in a little noticed event and what he got was newsreels of a half-naked fakir challenging an Empire where the sun never set. Gandhi included Dalits in his march much to the chagrin of upper caste Congress members. In every town that he crossed he insisted on staying in the poorest hut. Every penny of funds collected was accounted for no expense was too little to be scrutinized for impropriety. Only children and vainglorious adults will be thrilled reading about Alexander crossing into India or Ceasar crossing the Rubicon. No march by any army in history has left humanity a better place like Dandi March.

New York Times's report Webb Miller filed his immortal report of the Dharasana Salt March that told the world what it was to be Satyagrahi. At Dharasana, in one of the beautifully filmed scenes in the movie 'Gandhi', we see stoic satyagrahis walking up to receive mortally wounding blows without raising a single finger to strike back. Miller wrote "not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend of the blows. They went down like ten-pins'. C.E.M. Joad, writing for an anthology in honor of Gandhi's 75th birthday, said 'Gandhi's greatest success was in inspiring men and women to allow themselves to be beaten to pulp without raising a single finger in defense". In an age when suicide bombers are spoken of admiringly I think of those brave satyagrahis. A suicide bomber needs courage for just a minute and does not live with the consequences. Those satyagrahis were mostly poor and could not even afford hospitalization costs for the injuries suffered. Most injuries were life altering too. Gandhi, unlike Prabakaran and Arafat, led by example.

When Gandhi visited Liverpool factories the workers, mostly women, mobbed him affectionately. Here is the man who, by his boycott of their products, was causing them misery and unemployment. Yet, those workers understood Gandhi better than any modern Indian citizen. They knew and understood who Gandhi was fighting against. Many Indians would look at the photograph and glide by without pausing to wonder if any rebel in all history has ever been so affectionately received by those who were affected by a rebellion.

The 10th grade textbook remains shamefully silent on the horrendous riots during partition. It was the greatest migration undertaken by a people, again, to use an overused word phrase now, in all of human history. India was torn asunder and a civil war situation prevailed. Collins and Lapierre detail harrowing events like a train arriving from Pakistan with all its occupants killed and on the walls of the train was scrawled 'gift to Nehru and Patel'. Yasmin Khan's book 'The great partition' is a compelling read and is without the sensationalism of Collins and Lapierre.

West Bengal that had seen thousands of Hindu's killed on Jinnah's 'Direct action day' was ready to reap vengeance. With millions of muslim lives at stake and no police or military force to spare Mountbatten and Nehru appeal to the only man who can achieve what no military could have done. Gandhi undertook his fast unto death. He remained the only force between hordes of murderous thugs and quivering Muslims afraid for their lives. No man as leader has ever used his personal charisma to such a use saving thousands of lives. It is this act that Ambedkar, with personal animus, called 'blackmail with body as political tool'. If Bengal's riots had gone on unchecked India would have splintered in no time. Yet Indians write that an exhausted oppressor just ceased to oppress and India was born. Ever since Christ was crucified by his own people never was a man who led his people to freedom so disrespected.

Meena Kandasamy, a so called 'activist', raised shackles in a college event by quoting Gandhi's letter to South African authorities protesting against clubbing Indians together with 'kafirs', as he referred to blacks. The letters are actually in the 'Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi'. Little do we realize that Gandhi, just like Lincoln, was not born a liberator. Its a life's journey that he undertook. Also we do not even notice the fact that Gandhi arrives in South Africa in 1893, aged just 24. Just, 24 years old. He leaves South Africa in 1914 aged, just 44 years. In an age and time when worldly knowledge and experiences were limited he was maturing into a leader. Let us not forget that Thomas Jefferson, aged just 33 in 1776, declared 'all men are created equal' while holding slaves. Lincoln never believed that blacks were 'equals' to whites. In a nation where learning history is so shoddy Meena Kandasamys proliferate and prosper.

While Indian speaker Thamizhachi sought to discredit Gandhi slanderously American professor Howard Gardner exults that Gandhi was probably the greatest leader in a 1000 years. Watch "http://youtu.be/RgH5ep6iEfU" .

Is Gardner naive? Would Gardner not know about Gandhi's warts? Why did William Shirer, a man who understood Hitler before most did, think Gandhi towered above his warts like being dictatorial at times or titular even? Did Lelyveld not know about his Brahmacharya experiments? Nothing has been a better stick to beat Gandhi with than his patently shameful Brahmacharya experiments with women associates. Sudhir Kakar wrote that several women were mentally affected. It was Nirmal Bose's 'My days with Gandhi' that laid bare the details of those experiments for the first time. Collins and Lapierre too dwell on it for some length. What no one has accused Gandhi was of molesting or abuse. Nirmal Bose's book paints a more complex picture. I reject attempts to whitewash this part of Gandhi but I equally reject attempts  to portray him like a Casanova. The experiments were consensual amongst adults who freely consented. This part of Gandhi's life is the most taxing on any person who admires him. Yet, it is this part that clearly calls for a perspective rooted in a historical appreciation of the man's life as a whole.

In a way we can extend the failure of Indians to understand historical personalities due to shoddy education to Nehru too. Nehru is easily ridiculed for Kashmir, being soft on Pakistan, of course his affairs with Edwina and others, focusing on heavy industries and more. Nehru was Washington and Jefferson combined. No man since Nehru has worried about educating Indians as he did. In an age when politicians send their children to English convents while asking others to study in mother-toungue  we should worship a Cambridge alumnus for trying to create the equivalent of Harvard and MIT in India.

Nehru nurtured the nascent institutions of government with a democratic zeal that was almost herculean in proportions. As Prime Minister he was insistent on attending the question hour in the parliament. He wrote incessantly to state CM's educating them on every matter conceivable as relevant to shaping a country. His writings run to 50 volumes and is still incomplete. The steady leadership of Nehru in the turbulent early 17 years was instrumental in cementing India as a country. Even his economic policy, which I disagree with, was actually in tune with the times. Harry Truman and FDR were to the left of Nehru on economics.

Indians, thanks to such shoddy education, lack the intellectual discipline to understand a life as complex and varied as that of Gandhi's. We don't even know how to mentally reconstruct events and understand their historical nature. In an education that focuses on dates and data without context a race to score marks ensures that the mind is incapable of contemplation and understanding complexity.

A recent discussion on Facebook summarizes this blog.

The photo on the right (of Gandhi) is fake

Here is Subhash Bose walking past a guard of honor by the army he raised. On the side is Gandhi in a dancing pose with a white lady, a fake photo. The question was "who did more for Indian freedom?" Bose, in his hatred for British, thought Hitler and the Japanese were nothing worse if not better. One shudders to think a what if about Hitler winning the war. Such is the level of historical perspectives amongst Indians.

An American school textbook I read had a chapter on Gandhi. At the end a question was posed as a debate exercise "would India have won freedom earlier if Gandhi had adopted violent means of protest". I'd point them to Gandhi's own writings of Satyagraha as a strategy and Orwell's essay on Gandhi where Orwell is skeptical if Gandhian methods would work against Hitler. Gandhi did advice Churchill to hand over the British Isles to Hitler and convert him by 'soul force'. Thankfully Churchill did not listen. At the same time lets not forget how MLK Jr adored Gandhi and found in Gandhi a mentor for the Civil Rights struggle. Indians cheekily ask "can Gandhi's method work against tyrants". They dont have the knowledge of world history to ask "could Kurdish people have adopted MLK Jr's methods against Saddam".

Gandhi and Nehru should be rescued from Indian education and re-introduced to Indians through Western presentation. Irony.


Suggested Reading:

1. Gandhi: A Biography -- Louis Fischer
2. Freedom at Midnight - Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre.
3. Gandhi: 75th Birthday Anthology by S.Radhakrishnan
4.Gandhi - 8 volumes by D.G. Tendulkar
5. Gandhi: A memoir - William Shirer
6. The great Partition - Yasmeen Khan
8. Creativity - Howard Gardner
9. Gandhi - Stanley Wolpert
10. 'Great Soul' - Joseph Lelyveld.

11. My earlier blog "Thamizhachi Thangapandiyan's Slander on Gandhi"

  http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2012/07/thamizhachi-thangapandiyans-slander-on.html

From Parasakthi to Vishwaroopam: Fascism In Tamil Nadu

More than 50 years ago it was possible for a movie character to ask  a temple priest "when did your god speak?", "you worship a goddess and yet molested my sister". The dialogues in that movie, Parasakthi, were penned by upcoming screenplay writer and atheist ideologue M.Karunanidhi. It was possible only because the god he mocked was Hindu and the priest he scolded was Hindu too. To be sure, where the hero says that the god is 'stone' the word 'stone' is muted but it is clearly apparent given the context of the rest of the dialogues. Karunanidhi's mentor E.V.Ramasamy, more stridently atheist and self-styled iconoclast, took a rally with a picture of Lord Rama garlanded with slippers. Again, it was possible only because he chose a Hindu god.

In 2013 Kamal's magnum-opus (at least in his mind) Vishwaroopam became a political football between radical Islamist groups , vengeful government and a supine judiciary. Radical Islamist groups raised a ruckus and wanted a total ban on the movie on the pretext that it injured the sentiments of Tamil Nadu Muslims by portraying all Muslims as terrorists. They took further offense to how some Islamic habits, like praying, were used by terrorists.

There is nothing demeaning to Islam or muslims in Kamal Hassan's 'Vishwaroopam'. Yes the story revolves around terrorism and yes the perpetrators happen to be muslims. To be specific, they are Afghan Taliban. The protagonist who stops them is muslim too. In a telling scene where FBI agents and Kamal, playing an undercover RAW agent who is muslim, wait outside the door of a terrorist who is about to detonate a dirty bomb. As the agents peer through a camera suddenly an agent exclaims "what is he doing" pointing to Kamal who is offering prayers. Another FBI agent answers "he is praying, for you too". In that one frame Kamal, the director, deftly shows the divide that is often frustrating in this debate about terrorism. Unfortunately his depiction of the protagonist as an observant muslim is brushed aside as tokenism but his depiction of terrorists as muslims is taken as an indictment against a religion.

The depiction of Taliban is pretty accurate and in fact tame compared to what the Taliban really inflicted on the people of Afghanistan and regions of Pakistan. Some muslim organizations that have taken to the streets to get the movie banned were silent when the Taliban shot at point blank range, Malala Yousufzazi, a 15 year old girl. When Tamil poet and commentator Manushyaputhiran, who is muslim, condemned the brutal beheading of a Sri Lankan Tamil girl, he was threatened by one muslim organization which is now openly calling for Sharia law in Tamil Nadu, India.

In a contrived sequence to convince viewers of a Tamil speaking Taliban there is reference to Kovai and Madurai. This is made in the passing with no reference to actual terrorist events that took place in Kovai. In 1998 a string of bomb blasts ripped the industrial town of Kovai and one location included an ICU in the local government hospital. Supposedly tensions between Hindutva and Muslim organizations had simmered there for a while. Later raids in Muslim neighborhood unearthed a huge cache of explosives sufficient to wreck the entire city. The docile state was stunned.

The depictions of beheading with religious overtones and a hanging that is preceded by religious intonations of justice etc are exactly what transpired in Afghanistan. Let us not forget how American journalist and a Jew, Daniel Pearl, was lured in the pretext of giving an interview and later beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. KSM, master mind of 9/11, recorded the gruesome beheading and mailed it to Pearl's wife who was pregnant at that time. Today KSM is rotting in Guantanamo. Videos recovered, by CNN, in Afghanistan showed terrorists being trained on inflicting sheer terror on innocent populations. The instructions included textbooks, video tutoring etc , for instance, poisoning community water storage with botulinum.

Jihadi videos regularly use, with telling effect, religious symbols and religious texts. They, unfailingly, situate their depraved acts within a religious context. A documentary that traced 9/11 plotters to Hamburg shows how places of worship became beehives of terror plots. This is fact. To take offense to movie depictions that show a man praying before detonating a bomb is silly and whitewashes what happens.

Intellectuals who love to be politically correct recoil with horror at the term 'clash of civilizations' when referring to the conflict between the West and Islam. Yet that is exactly what is happening.

If Christian west can put up with Martin Scorsese's 'Last temptation of christ' that shows Christ fornicating with Mary Magdalene or a New York City art exhibit that shows a crucifix in a jar of urine or a pop star denigrating the cross then it is silly to expect the same Western countries to ban anything critical of Islam including any intentional insult.

Philip Pullman publishes a book titled 'Good man Jesus and scoundrel Christ' with the back flap saying, cheekily, 'this is only a story'. So why not Salman Rushdie publish 'Satanic Verses'? I also object that Rushdie is to be defended because his work is art. Even if it is trashy his freedom to trash is to be protected. If one can trash Rama or Christ why not another god? Free speech is a rare commodity in India. Press Freedom Index rates India lower than Afghanistan on free speech. Pulitzer finalist author Suketu Mehta wrote in New York Times "in India today, it seems, free speech is itself an atrocity".

The radical group Towheet Jamat and its fiery leader used the hypocrisies of Indian democracy deftly to further his agenda in banning the movie. Every political party and every religion and every caste has stifled free speech when it suited them. The speech is at http://vimeo.com/58302985 . Apart from a very unsavory remark on Kamal's daughter it is a speech that puts to shame everyone and tells 'don't throw stones from a glass house'. Every religion has flexed its muscle seeking to ban critical opinion. No Bollywood film maker would dare to make a movie on Mumbai riots that the Sri Krishna committee squarely blamed on Bal Thackeray. 'Da Vinci Code' was banned by Tamil Nadu to placate a publicity hungry bishop.

Whether it is Afghanistan or Kashmir or Iran or Saudi, oppression of women, trampling of human rights across the board, lack of liberal democracy etc are hallmarks of those Islamic societies. When a mullah declares that new born babies need a burqa or that a women only music band should be banned the rest of the world lets out a collective gasp. In India Muslims enjoy many concessions like being able to run their educational institutions as they  please, yet their womenfolk are the least educated. That Rajiv Gandhi, in order to appease Islamic fundamentalists, robbed a destitute Muslim woman, Shah Bano, of her right to alimony, stands as a shameful chapter in India's record on human rights. 

Discrimination is another bogey that is raised by Muslims. I say its a 'bogey' in as much as discrimination was not invented by Tamils of other religions as an exclusive weapon against fellow citizens. Discrimination in housing, places of work, schools etc are a shameful, despicable yet pervasive part of Indian life. It is not only a Muslim who is discriminated against when they try to rent a home. A Dalit trying to rent in Mambalam, a Hindu trying to rent in a Christian enclave, vice-versa are all discriminated against. Can a Hindu open a shop in Burma Bazaar? How many non-Muslim students study in Islamic educational institutions? 

Islamic terrorism is a fact of life. If words like Saffron terror and Christian fundamentalism can be used to refer to extremism in those religions I see no reason why we should shy away from 'Islamic terrorism'. A simple listing of terrorist activities over the past few years would illustrate that almost all were Islamic terrorism. Talking of 'look at the context, look at the bigger picture' etc is pure sham. Britain gave refuge to thousands of muslims fleeing persecution in Afghanistan and Pakistan and yet that is where innocent people were killed because……British army was in Afghanistan and Iraq. What can one say when a Pakistani immigrant, whom the US had the grace to allow to become a citizen, plots to blow up tourists and innocent citizens in New York City Time Square? What can one say when an organization plots, in the name of religion, to blow up tens of airplanes killing innocents by the planeloads? 

If Towheet Jamat wants to stop stereotyping I'd love to see them protest against every such incident. I'd love to hear from the so called 'Arab street' loud denunciations of such heinousness. Let us remember that unlike North India Tamil Nadu has been relatively more secular and more peaceful towards its Muslim citizenry. The only protests we hear from the Islamic world are violent bloody protests against a cartoon, a Papal quote, a mediocre movie, a despicable youtube video. 

That a movie certified, under Indian laws, can be stopped by a lumpen organization on the sheer power of threats is chilling. Now any fundamentalist organization will feel emboldened to flex its muscle just to gain political mileage. The High court should have put its foot down on the case and yet they were mere spectators in this shenanigans. Once a movie has been certified by a censor board what is the need for a judge to have a screening. That a court would nullify its own ruling issued barely the night before and let a film maker run from pillar to post portrays the law and order situation in a bad light. The government's vindictiveness was merely capitalizing on the situation for reasons that are not just speculative. 

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Towheet Jamat has done a disservice to Tamil Muslims because the general population has only re-affirmed its stereotypes and a climate of "this is what they are" has come about. Given today's social media many a Tamil has watched the incendiary speeches of the Jamat speakers and has drawn his or her own conclusion. That the movie is Taliban centric made many to wonder on social media comments: 'so are those who protest against the movie support Taliban'? 

A parting word on the movie. There is much talk of whether or not the movie measures up to Hollywood standards. What is 'Hollywood standard'?

Terrorism is a difficult subject to deal with in a movie as Spielberg learned in 'Munich'. 'Munich' depicted how Israel sought and killed Palestinians who murdered Israeli athletes in Sep 1968 at Munich Olympics. Spielberg who is Jewish sought to explore the minds of those Mossad agents who were on a trail of vengeance. Charles Krauthammer, Jewish conservative columnist, ripped into Spielberg in a withering op-ed in Washington Post (Read it here 'Munich:The Travesty')

"...the Israeli athletes are not only theatrical but historical extras, stick figures. Spielberg dutifully gives us their names -- Spielberg's List -- and nothing more: no history, no context, no relationships, nothing. They are there to die.

The Palestinians who plan the massacre and are hunted down by Israel are given -- with the concision of the gifted cinematic craftsman -- texture, humanity, depth, history. The first Palestinian we meet is the erudite translator of poetry giving a public reading, then acting kindly toward an Italian shopkeeper -- before he is shot in cold blood by Jews." 

Even Spielberg's much revered 'Schindler's List' had its share of critics who felt that Spielberg trivialized Amon Goeth's brutal sport killings. Kamal Hassan, with no Tony Kushner by his side, and no Spielberg himself might have been incompetent to stage even a modicum of a discussion. It could also be the fear of how it would be received by an audience benumbed by inane mindless entertainment and a populace where mischief mongers are a dozen a dime. However Kamal had no compunction in his usual snide tasteless jokes about Brahmins and Hindu religion.

Kamal is no serious intellectual. He dabbles in a lot and is a power house of talent. He is a wonderful actor. Social commentary, intellectual analyses is not his forte. In an interview, possibly rattled by the protests, he made stupid claims and plainly idiotic assertions. 

Kamal opined "if Jews who had lived for just 60 years in Israel feel patriotic about Israel then what would a Muslim feel about a country he has lived in for 500 years". When actor pretend to be intellectual such stupidities happen. His ignorance of Jewish history and Israel is appalling. He goes on to claim that Muslims feel dispossessed today because "they have suffered so much injustice. They have ruled this country for centuries and where are they today. They chose to live and die in this country". Bollocks. Muslims in India are far better than any non-Muslim in Saudi or Pakistan. I do not mean to say that there is no injustice or nothing bad has happened to Muslims. Yes Babri Masjid, Bombay riots have happened. But that is not all there is to Muslims in India. Violent Islamic conquests cannot be swept under the carpet either. Islam did not enter India peacefully. It is stupid to claim so.

The movie shows Taliban indoctrination of children, how schools were closed, treatment of women (just hinted upon). All of that is fleeting and is not dwelled upon or dissected intelligently. Everything is captured only fleetingly as the movie slides into classic hero versus villain in a spy caper. Context is dead. Incidentally Kamal, in an interview, proudly said that when the US embassy read the script they were impressed by the details. The details include scenes of Taliban target practicing on Bush photographs.

Kamal has indeed slogged. Some, like the Kathak dance, are self-indulgent. The character could very well have been a Bharathanatyam dancer but Kamal chose to do Kathak. It is admirable that he did so in order to slog hard under Kathak maestro Birju Maharaj just so it does not come off as cheesy.

I've always felt Kamal tries to do a lot like a glutton and is finally weighed down by what he brings on himself. He is not a good director or a screen play writer. He needs, for his own good, to have a third person to do those just so he is reined in. The screen play is muddled, many characters just flit by. I am not too bothered about loopholes in some logic. After my staple diet of Rambo and Bond movies I know that logic is for the naive.

Kamal has accomplished a decent movie that is 'Hollywood' class if one considers Vin Diesel and Rambo and 'Die Hard' as 'Hollywood'. Also to be charitable let us remember that Kamal has to be mindful of political sensibilities and he does not have a free creative hand as in Hollywood.

iTunes and A.R.Rahman; iPad and Ayn Rand:Lesson's in Capitalism

Growing up in Tanjore in the 80's and early 90's one of the pastimes in our family was to procure cassettes (yes, those tapes) of Tamil film songs. Often time we would make a list of just the songs we wanted and take it to a shop where they would look up their repository of collection and say which ones we could get. For like Rs50 we could get our own collection of songs. Sometimes the collection would have a theme like "Songs with Moon" (Nila Paadalgal), al the songs would be centered with moon as analogy for the theme. Copyrights were unheard of. Mostly Ilayaraja songs. Ilayaraja reigned supreme in 80's Tamil film music. This practice was common all over Tamil Nadu. Street corner tea shops would have cassettes like that and blare the latest hit songs early morning. Ilayaraja commanded a princely sum for scoring the music but earned literally zero from all these sales. He would not even have known that such a thing is possible. Hollywood Screen Writers get, I read, a dollar from the sales of each DVD in addition to their fee for writing screen play. Imagine the accrued earnings for a block buster movie.

Today A.R.Rahman earns in crores, sums which Ilayaraja would not have dreamt of. When the soundtrack of Rajini's last mega blockbuster movie, scored by Rahman, was released it burned the charts on iTunes. From the day he scored for 'Roja" in 1992 Rahman has come a long way. Now he signs contracts with recording companies like Sony at unheard of sums. Sony, no doubt, factors sales from iTunes and I'd guess Rahman's lawyers, if they are good, put in clauses for royalties from online sales. The Rajini movie is now almost a year old but even today if I bought the song revenue is shared between Apple and the record label and I am sure the music composer gets a share too.

Steve Jobs took capitalism to areas where only crony capitalism existed. An invention in America, product made in China (with South Korean and Taiwan parts), enables an obscure Indian musician to earn money through a Japanese recording label. Yes today too infringements of copyrights like I narrated would certainly take place in India but Rahman's avenues to earn money have expanded making him a global brand. If this is not progress I'd love to know what is. Seminars on economics can be woven around this.

As a bibliophile I watch with sadness as book store chains disappear. Today I read that the last remaining book store chain (Barnes and Noble) faces a possible bankruptcy. Apple's iBook (an app originally created for iPad) and Amazon.com's Kindle are the key drivers. Tennyson in his 'Idyll's of the King' wrote beautifully, "the old order changeth yielding place to new...lest one good custom should corrupt the world". Yes, a good custom left undisturbed for long will corrupt. Book selling and reading is undergoing an epochal change. I've a dog eared copy of Ayn Rand's epic "Atlas Shrugged" bought for $7. I've read the 1000 page tome several times. Yesterday 'Atlas Shrugged' was released for iPad as an app complete with rare videos of Ayn Rand's speeches, graphic laden biographical time lines, trivia quiz, multimedia presentations etc. This book published in 1954 is being repackaged and republished for the 21st century 50 years later. Cost $14. Worth every penny. 9How I wish some Tamil Classic was rendered thus but....OK why go there). Children's books are the best. Those books come with read along option with each word being read out and highlighted as they are read out.

As with iTunes store it was the app store that unleashed a torrent, not just of creativity, but very importantly of capitalism. With the core principles of free market such as copyrights, revenue sharing, ratings, comments and more app store democratized capitalism to an extent unseen in centuries. Today a college student sitting in a dorm can 'create' something, sell it and call it his 'earning'.

Steve Jobs never made anything cheap. He did not donate anything to anybody. Microsoft and Intel partner together in donating computers (of course with Windows and Intel chips) to schools. Microsoft products are far cheaper than Apple products. Microsoft and Intel really ushered in the PC era though affordable PC's. While reams of newsprint hail Jobs' business acumen in churning out products that sold at premium and sold in blockbuster numbers what is generally glossed over is a big business failure of Jobs. Jobs refused to unbundle his software (Mac OS) and the hardware. Bill Gates, very shrewdly, did the opposite and created the PC era with IBM.

Steve Jobs never subscribed to anything 'free'. Freeware was anathema to him. However iTunes serves as a platform for Ivy League universities that disburse classes free. MIT's 'Open Course ware" is very popular. MIT posts classes by its professors online through iTunesU (iTunes University). I once downloaded a physics lecture on Snell's law and practically relearnt everything that my teachers pathetically failed to teach at school and college. If colleges, in Tamil Nadu, just had internet connections and students only watched these lectures they would learnt twice as much as they learn from those who roam in the colleges calling themselves as lecturers.

That Steve Jobs is mourned so much today is not only because he produced entertainment products that millions use. Users, especially of iPhone and iPad are not just passive users. The iPhone and iPadiPad in turn become an extended identity of the owner. One can never say that of Microsoft office or a Bose audio system. Ayn Rand's biggest agony about industrialists and innovators was that they lacked the philosophical framework to appreciate what they were achieving. Likewise Apple users, mostly unknown to themselves, take part in a quintessential free market ecosystem that is the bedrock of capitalism.

The ultimate principle of capitalism is 'individualism'. The individual is the building block of capitalism. One commentator highlighted how Jobs and his products enabled individualism on a scale that no innovator or product had achieved before. Ayn Rand's in her novella  'Anthem' depicts a collectivist society where the word "I" is banished and its usage is punishable by death. Apple products are all prefixed with 'i', iPad, iMac, iPhone, iPod. 

Time magazine's "Person of the year" in 2006 was "YOU". The cover featured a Mylar strip in the place of a computer (an iMac) screen reflecting the person who is reading it. In an age of twitter, Facebook, blogs where every person expresses himself Steve Jobs and his 'i's just fit in. He cashed on an era of individualism by making his users feel that  the products they use are an extended identity.

The Apple product we bought is not a one time money-earner for Apple. The product serves as a channel for continued revenue. A PC sold by HP is one time money-earner. An iPad continues to earn money for Apple beyond the initial sales. Everytime we buy a song or an app a share of the cost goes to Apple as much as it goes to the creator of the app or the record label of the song. Let me be clear, I've the deepest admiration for business strategies that are innovative in creating revenue streams for companies. Anybody can choose never to buy an Apple product or having bought they can choose not to spend on apps etc and use it without paying one cent more to Apple.

There is a dark lining though amidst this sunny aspect of capitalism that is enveloping millions. Sociologists often talk about 'digital divide'. 'Digital divide' refers to the gulf between those who have access to internet and digital technologies and those who do not. My daughter plays piano on the iPad, listens to wide array of music, watches excellent shows, plays with innovative apps that teach physics and math. She loves to construct bird houses within a budget and test them for sturdiness. This learning experience is possible only because I could afford a pricey digital product. Some rich counties in USA are using iPads in classrooms. A kid from lesser fortunate circumstance would miss out on this. This is deepening the digital divide.

Before the critics of free market pounce on that let me caution do not take it for granted that nobody else would come along with a cheaper and better product. When Steve Jobs signed a exclusive arrangement with AT&T for iPhone AT&T's chief competitor Verizon used all their innovativeness to stanch the migration of its customers. Jobs could hold that exclusive deal for only 4 years. AT&T network was plagued by heavy data usage of iPhone customers. Finally as iPhone subscription reached a saturation point with AT&T Jobs then expanded the availability to Verizon in early 2011. The latest iPhone is available on Sprint too thus increasing the iPhone carriers to 3. Another big factor in expanding the availability is the success of Android phones.

Customers unsatisfied by the monopolistic attitudes of Jobs went to Android. Android, developed by Google, is sold to phone makers. Google, after a short disastrous stint, got out of the business of making phones. So its the classic DOS vs Mac OS fight retold as Android Vs iPhone. Android app store is more liberal unlike the control freak Apple in approving apps. Android phones now surpass iPhone sales. As Jobs said 'this is life in the technology lane'. So there might come a competitor to obliterate iPad soon enough and THAT's the charm of free market.

While Steve Jobs is being mourned by all and sundry there is little awareness of how he furthered the cause of capitalism and I wish Ayn Rand wrote his obituary. From Adam Smith to Ayn Rand with Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman in between praise Jobs for his signal service to capitalism and free markets.

Road to 9/11: Hamburg and the Patriot Act

As I wrote earlier 9-11 was just a murderous attack by fundamentalists and their supposed causes were nothing but fig leaves to disguise a murderous ideology. Not many realize that the attacks themselves were made possible by the freedom's enjoyed by the murderers in USA.

Terrorists used the freedoms of US and other western countries to hurt us. To be blunt, a 9/11 kind of attack was possible only in USA, a July 2004 attack was possible in UK. Neither of these would have been possible in xenophobic, illiberal regimes across the middle east from which the attackers mushroomed. Only in USA protected by freedoms given to all who are in its soil could the thugs execute such a dastardly act.

The 9/11 plotters were drawn from a group that is now referred as the "Hamburg Cell". Why did they choose Hamburg? Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer awarded and well researched book "The Looming Tower", provides a stunning insight. Germany in it is desire to redeem itself for the Nazi era excesses of curbing freedoms lurched to the other extreme. Hamburg, Wright says, became a sanctuary city, "Acknowledged terrorist grouse were allowed to operate legally, raising money and recruits-but only if they were foreign terrorists, not domestic. It was not even against the law to plan a terrorist operation so long as the attack took place outside the country".

A phrase that became famous in the aftermath of a colossal failure of US intelligence community was the "failure to connect the dots". To use a word that is common place today, there was too much "chatter" after the U.S.S.Cole attack. Today on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 NYC and DC are on heightened alert due to "chatter". Americans were infuriated to learn that CIA and FBI had so many clues. A very famous memo was the one given to Bush in August outlining exactly Osama Bin Laden's resolve to strike USA. Little mention is made of the fact that US laws prohibited sharing of information across agencies and even within agencies.

Wright says that FBI took Rule 6E - of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure- as absolute. Rule 6E prohibits revealing any information arising from a grand jury testimony. Added to that was a new Justice Department policy in 1995, Clinton era, "that regulated exchange of information between agents and criminal prosecutors, but not among agents themselves". Wright says that FBI took it as holy writ to mean no exchange of information. The CIA too in turn had its own self imposed barriers on sharing information with FBI agents.

When I came to USA in 1998 all that I needed to get a driver license in USA was my social security number and proof of residence. I got a drivers license that was in no way different from a US citizen though I was on H1B. The drivers license renewal date was beyond my H1B visa date. In fact my immigration status was not even inquired about. In US other than for international travel nobody uses a passport for anything. Waving a drivers license for a curb side check in was routine. A driver license, as government issued ID was on par to a passport giving access to many things. Airlines would not share information on passengers to FBI that easily. The drivers licenses were not even tamper proof. my NJ license just had a photo stuck on a card and laminated. Post 9-11 all that changed. Patriot Act and its concomitant sentiments changed it all.

The cost of 9-11 operation to Bin Laden is estimated at $500,000. Half a million dollars!!! That's it. How as money funneled to the conspirators? Some through Hawala some through very legitimate means. Banks would not ask about immigration status for opening accounts, invasion of rights!! It was easy to open accounts with little and sometimes no information. Patriot Act put a stop to that. I work for a major retail bank in US and I've seen the transitions. Again not many know that as a country that welcomes immigrants by the thousands these supposedly lax procedures have made life easy during the initial struggling days for immigrants. Also those, now extinct, freedoms to open an account easily was good for many illegal immigrants from Mexico who come to US, though illegally, only to make an honest living and for the sake of their families.

When the Radia tapes were released most Indians were interested only in the gossip. Nobody, at least not most, batted an eyelid that a government department was eavesdropping on telephones used by people who posed zero threat to the government and as yet no case was made against them. Its impossible to do that in USA. Even if its done such evidence will be thrown out of the court. Obama, as candidate and as President, has repeatedly renewed the FISA act that governs wiretaps.

Americans, especially pre-9/11, are a very open and trusting people. States like NY, NJ, VA, CA and FL, with heavy immigration, are very accepting and hospitable to immigrants. When would-be hijackers told flight instructors that they did not need to learn how to land nobody's radar went up. As recently as 2009 political correctness prevented timely action in preventing a massacre. The Fort Hood Texas shooting suspect (he is no suspect actually, it is him) Nidal Malik was an American born Muslim who served as psychiatrist. Post 9-11 there were many warning bells about him. Political correctness trumped any attempt to dismiss or take any action. The result was a ghastly day that left 13 innocent men dead. This from a guy who was treated honorably as a citizen without any discrimination.

Lawrence Wright who interviewed hundreds to write his book and is very well aware of how rotten the real world nevertheless is uncomfortable in how US is balancing liberty and security. In his column he wonders, "is this the country we want to be". While I understand his concerns I am perplexed at what kind of policy prescriptions are available to combat this hydra headed monster.

America cherishes freedom of  opinion like anything. One could say the most despicable stuff and still strut about safely protected by the First Amendment. Pre-9-11 another issue tested the limits of free speech. Instances of hate crimes against homosexuals brought attention to what came to be labeled as 'hate speech'. US courts have ruled that hate speech is not free speech. However the bar is set pretty high. This problem reached its acuity in the July 2004 bombings in London. Mosques in an around London indulged in unbridled hate speech calling for Jihad against England by its own citizens who have enjoyed liberties not given to anybody in lands from which they came from.

Barack Obama, who sailed to the US Presidency on the power of rhetoric, recognizes what a potent weapon speech is. Nidal Malik was radicalized by listening to YouTube videos of Anwar Al Awlaki. Obama has issued an unprecedented kill order against Awlaki, a US citizen residing in Somalia. Ever since the botched CIA attempts on Fidel Castro, overt and not-so-overt, Congress has passed laws prohibiting the US President from issuing such orders. The Obama administration made out a case that Awlaki, by virtue of his preachings, is an imminent threat to US national security. Again, an act made possible, only in the backdrop of the Patriot Act.

Yes its easy to quote Ben Franklin who said "people who sacrifice a little liberty to secure a little security deserve neither". Ben Franklin would not have imagined the savagery of Al Qaeda. Ben Franklin or Jefferson could not imagine, with all their erudition, the vicious rationalizations of Qaeda. Who can understand  the murderous sophistry behind 'takfeer', declaring ones own coreligionists with whom one disagrees, as "un-Islamic" and hence OK enough to be killed?

America is a very dynamic and resilient country. We shall find our balance in due course. A recent PEW global survey reports that most American Muslims feel good about being in USA post-9/11 despite the harsh light that shone on the community as a whole.

American foreign policy is blamed for 9-11 by its apologists. Anybody who starts of condemning the attacks and then adds "but" to tag on their own prejudices against America is an apologist for terrorism. Let us not forget that Bush came to office vowing to pursue a more humble and withdrawn role, especially, militarily. Al Pacino, the aging Godfather who yearns to get out of the mafia business would get drawn back in after an attack on him. Pacino would curse "just when I want to get out, they pull me back right in".

As for those who continue to beat USA with the Vietnam stick, the napalm bombings and of course Palestine etc, I can only say, "none of the 19 hijackers were from Vietnam or Palestine". USA today shares a very good relationship with Vietnam.

On this day, the 10th anniversary of 9-11, a word of tribute to US armed forces. From the beaches of Normandy to Tsunami stricken Banda Aceh to the sands of Libya its US Army that often stands as a force for good. In human history if any army had the record of US Army, its blemishes and My-Lai notwithstanding, they can be proud.

Protecting 'Speech' We Do Not Like: Westboro Church and First Amendment

From time immemorial ever since one man spoke his mind there was another to tell him where to stop. Censorship of human thoughts has a very long shameful history. Even today in many parts of the world, including democracies, censorship is often practiced. Religious establishments and governments are the most abusive powers in curbing free expression of thought. Censorship often takes very devious forms. Not many in Tamil Nadu know that even today to stage a drama one has to get police permission and get the dialogues approved. Its a statute that dates to the British rule and as is often the case the new 'rulers' found it useful enough to retain it. Indian government controls paper supply to newsprint and can throttle the industry by taxes. When the US constitution was ratified in 1789 some felt that the freedom to practice religion and to express one's opinion was not protected enough in the constitution. So a set of 10 amendments, collectively referred to as 'Bill Of Rights' was proposed. 

The 'First Amendment' is the one, which Americans of all political stripes, cherish the most. As far as my knowledge goes America was the first country to write such an amendment that expressly "LIMITS" the power of the legislature. The amendment, succinctly but with shining clarity, states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Congress is expressly prohibited from making ANY law that would abridge the exercise of free speech. Of course such lofty sentiments were to be found in many other constitutions in ambitious democracies that followed but none came close to empowering them like the USA. The legal system has been the most robust in protecting this clause. Of course anybody could point to some blemish here and there but none can deny that America remains the most free country on earth. 

That America is involved in two wars in common knowledge. To many outside India there is an unknown side show. A church congregation, comprising almost only family members, made it their business to go and attend funerals of soldiers who were killed in Iraq. One of the leading killers of soldiers in Iraq was the I.E.D (Improvised Explosive Device). These church members would go to funeral grounds and hold signs that said "God bless the IED's", "This is God's punishment for USA tolerating gays" and other most despicable fundamentalist nonsense. Slowly they started getting attention and congressional representatives, in sympathy with the families of fallen soldiers, proposed legislation that would restrict such protests by making them stand hundreds of feet away etc. Finally the father of a dead soldier filed a lawsuit that such protests were an infringement on his freedom. The case wound its way to the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme court does not routinely hear every petition that comes its way. This case was taken up as a challenge to the First Amendment rights of the Church. While no newspaper editor agreed with the Church's philosophy or protests everyone without exception wanted the Court to protect the rights of the Church. In a stunning 8-to-1 verdict, with 8 justices ruling for the Church and one dissenting, the US Supreme court resoundingly protected the freedom of the Church. 

The case of "Hustler" (a pornographic magazine) Vs Jerry Falwell is a more difficult case. Hustler had published a fictional story about Jerry Falwell's, a well known preacher, first sexual experience. The story involved his mother. Anyone would agree that this is outrageous. Anyone, however much they disagreed with Falwell, would sympathize with him asking for damages. Not so fast. The US supreme court ruled unanimously, in the case of 'Larry Flynt Vs Falwell', "that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them." The verdict could not have been more resounding in favor of free speech than that. Read that again, it excuses such acts even its "intentionally inflicted" upon a 'public figure'. Even today its impossible to print disparaging articles about the royalty in England. 

It is this freedom that protects an artist who puts up in a national gallery a painting that depicts a crucifix in a jar of urine or another painter who paints the Madonna with cow dung on her breast. Rudy Guiliani, as Mayor of NYC, wanted to cut the government funding to those galleries, of course that effort went nowhere. Muslims in Britain took umbrage at Salman Rushdie for "Satanic Verses", many were immigrants from Pakistan, without understanding western ethos or that such freedom is the cornerstone of modern liberal democracy. Before anybody accuses Britishers of apathy towards Muslims let them remember that it was a British novelist, Philip Pullman, who published to much acclaim his book titled "The good man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ". Pullman, with tongue in cheek, had a disclaimer in the back flap "this is a story".

Freedom of speech includes the responsibility to protect speech that many, or even one, would deem spiteful. Whether its a newspaper publishing secret papers of government (the Pentagon Papers case) or a pornographer publishing an abusive story of a pastor, or a questionable work of art that is exhibited time and again the US Supreme court and other arms of the judiciary have been zealous in protecting that most cherished right of an American, to speak his/her mind.

Michael Douglas playing the role of an American President in the eponymous movie would say " America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

Newseum : A Pean to Journalism and News

This past weekend I visited “Newseum” in Washington D.C. Newseum, aptly named, is a museum about news and its related topics. I heard about from a cousin of mine and his wife for several years. They used to repeat that I’d love this place. Yes I did fall in love with that museum so much that I plan to return another day to spend more time. Please check out www.newseum.org for information.

The Newseum building itself is modern architecture both outside and within. The glass façade with geometrical angles makes it a sunlit building. The glass encased hydraulic elevators, one of the largest in the world, is simply breathtaking. A piston that rises to 6 stories high and plumbs to 6 stories depth is indeed awesome. The entrance has a display of front pages of newspapers from all 50 states.

I saw a notice that said Dan Rather, who exited CBS disgracefully, would participate in a discussion on the movie “The Insider” (a movie about a whistle blower in Tobacco industry). I was tad disappointed. Dan Rather rushed to discredit George Bush’s service in National Guard based on forged documents during the heated presidential election cycle in 2004. His visceral hatred for Bush blinded his journalistic responsibilities. Dan Rather is perfectly within his rights to criticize, however harshly he wants to, any president. It’s his failure to uphold journalistic ethos that concerns me and that a museum dedicated to news is inviting him. I say that with all due respect to Rather’s very long impressive career in journalism. In fact the memo episode only highlights how journalists need to hold their emotions in check and constantly check themselves in a sort of “physician! Heal thyself!”.

We went to an orientation movie that gives a brief overview of the museum and suggests an itinerary to follow. A neat maps detailing the exhibits and a movie that tells us how to go around, what is not to love in all of this? I thought about my visit to Lal Bagh, Tipu’s Palace, Brindavan gardens in 2003, let’s just say that they are stuck in the stone ages.

We started from the 6^th floor. The 6^th floor has an impressive balcony overlooking “Pennsylvania Avenue” which has the Capitol Hill. Situated in between White house and Capitol Hill the ‘newseum’ is metaphorically aptly located. Currently the museum hosts an exhibition on Hurricane Katrina, America’s moment of shame. It was an unflinching look at one of the worst failures of America and the Bush presidency. What impressed me was the anger that grew out of an innate sense of “this is not who we are”. I’ve read that live TV telecast, of how peaceful marchers in Civil Rights era were attacked by mounted police, dogs and water cannons, shook the conscience of a nation that was forced to come face to face with a very ugly original sin. Then and now the gut level reactions of Americans, who take pride in their country being the “sweet land of liberty”, is “we can do better because we are America”. It’s that sense that makes America to time and again reach within its soul and overcome its ills. More than press reporting it was the 7X24 coverage on TV that really brought home the disaster. CNN’s Anderson Cooper became the darling of the viewers when he skewered Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco (Democrat). Many anchors vented freely on the deplorable conditions. The displays, the exhibits, the video archives featured were drawn from as diverse sources as possible. The exhibits also show cased how journalists did their duty amidst very hazardous conditions sometimes even facing possible death.

Then we went to “News history gallery” sponsored by News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch’s conglomerate that own the much reviled and much loved Fox News). This is a floor in which a history aficionado and news hound can spend hours together. The gallery traces the development of journalism through the ages. One exhibit featuring a photo of Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken noted how partisan reporting happens from both the Right and Left in equal measure. Another exhibit drew attention to how women had to fight to gain respect in a male bastion. The “National Press Club” did not at first allow women until 1971 (Indira Gandhi had been elected as Prime Minister by then), then they allowed women but restricted them to a barricaded area. Just recently a woman sports journalist was harassed in the men’s locker room of the NY Jets team. Women anchors were allowed, just like their male compatriots, to conduct interviews in the locker rooms. Gender and racial equality is a hot button topic even today amongst critics of media. By hindsight I am a little disappointed that there was no section devoted to analyzing that in greater detail than the cursory single exhibit. The hall interestingly had a plaque with a quote from Philip Graham (“Journalism is the first rough draft of history) but no celebration of his wife Kenneth Graham the first woman publisher of a major news print organization (Washington Post) who steered the paper through the Vietnam war era, faced crippling labor unrest, protected her journalists (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein) during Watergate and a Pulitzer winning author.

Another interesting exhibit was about Judith Miller and New York Times. Judith Miller famously went to jail in the outing of a CIA officer to protect her ‘unnamed source’ who turned out to be Dick Cheney’s chief of Staff Scooter Libby. Libby was later convicted for ‘obstruction of justice’ in a lawsuit out of that investigation. Miller was later released once Libby wrote to her to release his name as the source (The person who really outed the CIA agent was Colin Powell’s deputy Richard ArmitageLibby) . Miller’s tenure with NYT ended in a scandal over legitimacy of her sources and how she ‘promoted’ the Iraq war. NYT apologized to its readers for its lack of due diligence. In another shameful episode that stained the reputation of the Gray Lady (NYT) a reporter, Jayson Blair, had published fabricated and plagiarized articles. The Sulzberger family, publishers of NYT, has donated to the museum.The section on war time coverage was brief. CNN’s rise as a cable TV during Gulf War in 1991 was well documented (Incidentally Time Warner, parent of CNN is a contributor to the museum). The phone used by Rupert Murdoch to conclude mega mergers worth 2 billion dollars was an exhibit (News Corp is a major contributor to the museum).

A video show on Presidential photographers was engaging. Every president nominates a presidential photographer who then follows the president like a shadow. The intimate portraits provide a glimpse into the life of the leader of the free world. There was another exhibit called "First Dogs" show casing all the pet dogs that have inhabited the White House. The picture of "Buddy" Bill Clinton's dog had a note that he acquired it just before the sex scandal broke out. I wondered whether the note was relevant or whether the curator was Clinton hater. I am not averse to mentioning Presidential peccadilloes but I found this one to be out of place. Sometimes I think Americans tend to treat their Presidents like monarchs bordering on the reverential. Even when out of office they are surrounded by the Presidential seal. Clinton's office in Harlem NY has couch pillows emblazoned with the Presidential seal.

A major section devoted to 9/11 is unavoidable. The mangled remains of the radio tower that used be atop one of the buildings is preserved there. An entire wall, almost two stories high, has selections of front pages from papers across the country with a sprinkling of samples from international papers. An Israeli newspaper and an Arabic newspaper front page were displayed but disappointingly without translations. The video was a run of the mill documentary.

We wound our way towards the first floor and came to a section featuring remnants from Berlin Wall. It’s really a section of the Wall giving a chilling reminder of a totalitarian murderous philosophy that held its citizenry like prisoners. Maybe I missed or if it was really not there then I am disappointed about the omission of any  pictures or videos of two iconic moments in front of the Berlin Wall;  JFK declaring “Eich Bin il Berliner” ( I am a Berliner too) and Reagan challenging Gorbachev “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. Though we have read and seen photographs of the Berlin seeing it in concrete gives a chill contemplating the life of a citizenry had to be kept in check like animals with concrete walls, electrified barbed wires and security towers. Khrushchev, the man who erected the wall and banged his shoe on the table during a UN session, vowed to “bury” the capitalist west. The west still stands and his son lives in America.

Amongst all the floors that captivated me most was the section devoted to Pulitzer Prize winning photos. The power of visual imagery in touching our sensibilities is unparalleled. Some iconic photos include a sailor kissing a nurse in the streets of NYC when World War II ended, Killing of a prisoner by shooting him point blank range in his head by Viet Cong, a Buddhist monk who sets himself ablaze, hoisting the American flag at Iwo Jima etc.

One photo which I found interesting was the picture of a white man lunging at an Afro-American with a flagpole aimed at the latter’s stomach. The flagpole had an American flag flying. This was during a protest in Boston in 1976, nearly 12 years after the signing of Civil Rights bill. That too this is Boston not a typical Southern state. A sad reminder of how racism rears its ugly head everyday in every corner of the world. Whetherit’s a black man asking for his rights or a Dalit negotiating a wall in Uthapuram the story is the same.  ( http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0803/the-photograph-that-shocked-america-and-the-victim-who-stepped-outside-the-frame.html ). Since February is “Black History Month” the Newseum had an exhibit highlighting civil rights struggle. The exhibit was a typical segregated lunch counter. In a country that declared “all men are created equal” blacks had to sit in designated areas in cafes. The lunch counter protests in Greensboro, North Carolina finally ended that vicious practice. Again it’s stunning how racial discrimination is enforced in similar ways across cultures and across civilizations. If White Americans thought blacks cannot sit next to them and sip coffee so did upper caste Indians in India think of the rest.

My cousin who most graciously took me to the museum is a big supporter of Barack Obama. He said that the photo section featured a large size photo of Barack Obama campaigning in the rain (Pulitzer Prize 2009) it was no longer there but a smaller sized one was included in the collection along a timeline. The photo was an unremarkable one of Barack Obama speaking while a rain drenched him. I wondered did the Pulitzercommittee too, like the Nobel committee, become smitten by Obama-mania. I googled the details and found that the Pulitzer was not for just that photo but for a collection of photos that portrayed a historic candidacy. http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2009-Feature-Photography#  . The photos capture the mood of the country.

I missed out on some fine auditoriums like the "First Amendment" and "Annenberg Theater". I was touched to note that Newseum has a section devoted to veteran NBC Sunday show (Meet the Press) interviewer Tim Russert. Tim's famous whiteboard on which he wrote "Florida, Florida, Florida" to denote  that the 2000 Presidential race is coming down to just one state, Florida, is in the archive exhibit. By the way that exciting episode does find mention at some length in another exhibit, including the ballot machines and chads. Yet another visit is pending.