Problem of Silence

"When I was the rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin under the Hitler regime, I learned many things. The most important thing that I learned under those tragic circumstances was that bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problem. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful and 
the most tragic problem is silence." 

- Joachim Prinz, 1963

A few years ago I produced and edited a documentary film titled Heart of Stone, which told the story of Weequahic High School in Newark, New Jersey and its hallowed history. The school in its formative years was a reflection of the neighborhood in which it existed then, which was predominantly Jewish. In the sixties at the height of the civil rights movement, there were race riots in Newark. The Jewish population migrated to the suburbs and African-Americans took their place. In telling this part of the story, the film set the context of the civil rights movement by showing footage from the famous "I have a dream" speech on the steps of the Washington Memorial in 1963. What I learned was that before Martin Luther King made his epic speech, there was another speaker who graced the podium with considerable charisma. That speaker was Joachim Prinz. 

Joachim Prinz was a Rabbi who had escaped Nazi Germany and come to America only to find that racial discrimination and bigotry was also tearing this nation apart. He quickly got involved in the civil rights movement, joining picket lines and making speeches at protest marches, adding to the sea of change that was to come. It is on that eventful day in 1963 that he uttered the words quoted above, that have come to define the human condition through out the world then and now.

The problem of "silence" has often allowed injustice to prevail in all corners of society. Silence from individuals has led to genocide and war. It has had neighbor kill neighbor for being a different creed. It has allowed corruption to poison power and leave dysfunction in its path. Silence has been an impediment to progress where ever it was most needed and it is the opposition to silence, that has most often brought about significant change.

July has been a bloody month in many parts of the world. An airliner was senselessly shot down in a war zone, killing almost three hundred innocent civilians. The bloodletting between Israelis and Palestinians reached another horrific milestone with more than a thousand civilians killed. In Iraq and Syria the carnage continued with no end in sight. In Libya a civil war threatened to derail a fragile government and break a fledgling nation. In other places rape, murder, bigotry and hatred continued to claim victims unabated.

The recent conflict in Israel and Palestine left disturbing images all across the news media to ponder. The militia on both sides, not willing to relent, sacrificed innocent lives with rockets and massive bombardments. A poll carried out by the University of Haifa in Israel claimed that the war was very popular in Israel, with over 85% of the population supporting it, no matter the death of innocent women and children. Though Israel has a strong non-violent peace movement, that pushes for reconciliation and justice, and many there oppose military action of any sort, when rockets rain down their voices get silenced and sidelined. When war becomes this popular, one wonders where humanity is heading no matter what. United Nations Human Rights chief Navy Pillay called out on Israel and Hamas for having committed war crimes. Racial profiling of Arabs/Palestinians living in Israel increased dramatically revealing a disturbing side of a fragile society. Ironic for a nation born out of the worst atrocities committed against a people in the name of bigotry. The problem of "silence" that Joachim Prinz talked about, seems to be plaguing the very people who were meant to be symbols of perseverance and justice. A loss of history, fear of survival and self preservation seems to be turning a nation inward.

There is enough blame to go around for the present war. Hamas "terrorists" to some, and "freedom fighters" to others are willing to sacrifice their people for a cause, the unconditional freedom of their people. When an occupying force chokes a people, exerting immense power over a disenfranchised and emaciated people, there is bound to be resistance. History has shown that an occupying force can only prevail by oppression and oppression alone. Hamas was born out of that oppression that has existed over decades. By never being sincere about finding a solution Israel and its backers have created a situation that has periodically boiled over. Silence and inaction has lead to violence on an unprecedented scale and can only repeat over and over again as the roots of the problem are never sincerely addressed. 

The United States which for decades has tried to broker peace never stepped up to the plate as an impartial negotiator. When this war comes to a cool, there is very little hope that there will be any real change. Israel would have successfully created a new generation of hardened fighters from the mayhem young eyes have witnessed. The popularity for hardline leaders on the Israeli side would have increased, as Israeli citizens would like to go back to their beaches and night clubs and have a vibrant economy while a few million people live in squalor a few miles away in a walled ghetto. 

Every political stalemate in the most extreme and disparate situation has only come to some sort of conclusion through truth and reconciliation. Even a gulf as deep and wide that exists between Israelis and Palestinians can be bridged, if the silence can be addressed on both sides and reconciliation can be attempted in a sincere manner. As a distant observer who perceives situations by reading, seeing, hearing and listening to people engaged in the conflict, I could be presumed naive. But the alternative is unsustainable and apparent for all to see. The periodic culling of innocent life can never be justified in the name of national defense. One can only assume that the history of a people can bring justice to bear and the killing to cease. Otherwise all that will be left is fear and annihilation.

To speak up against power, status-quo, injustice and bigotry takes courage. Those who have, have changed the course of humanity for ever. Great voices like those of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Bobby Sands, Aung Sun Suu Kyi, Steve Biko and many unknown others were attempted to be silenced. They only grew louder causing all obstructions to obliterate, achieving liberation in some cases and revealing the potential that lies within us as individuals.

If peace, freedom and justice are universal cravings, then no power on earth can stop people from achieving it. And those who stand in silence beside those who do not have it, will only find themselves losing the most precious thing they cherish. It is what it is.

Pressure Cooker Iraq

In 2003 when George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheny, Donald Rumsfeld, Collin Powell and their cohorts, were vehemently drumming up support for an illegal invasion of Iraq with lies wrapped inside careful lies, experts all around the world were predicting dire consequences to such a move. Anyone with any inkling of the long and bloody history of the region knew that Saddam Hussain was brutally holding a lid over a sectarian pressure cooker. Removing Saddam Hussain would mean allowing the pressure cooker to explode, leaving in its path a bloody civil war that would break Iraq into three separate regions. The Kurds to the north east and Sunni and Shia territories in the middle, west and south. Anyone following the nightmare that is brewing in Iraq today, can see that that forewarning seems to be coming true, through the vestiges of a decade long bloody war of mass murder.

Saddam Hussain, a Sunni tribesman from Tikrit had usurped power in a brutal coup and had dominated the Shia majority for decades in Iraq. When the US overthrew him and chased his people into oblivion they by default and by design dismantled the bureaucracy and security apparatus that held Iraq together, leaving a vast power vacuum. Paul Bremer, the person left in-charge after the initial US onslaught, deliberately and methodically cleansed the Iraqi establishment of all Bathists, members of Saddam Hussain's party. Then the US tried to begin the process of putting the lid back on the pressure cooker by waging a deadly urban guerrilla war and installing a democratic government. In poorly represented democratic elections, a government was installed with the backing of the US government. The hope was this would stop the bloodletting and fulfill George Bush's warped vision of bringing democracy to Iraq, that would magically transform the Middle East. One thing the deadly Iraqi adventure has proven, is that democracy cannot be exerted on a people from the outside. It has to take root from within. Ironically, recent movements that have attempted to spring from within, in the form of the "Arab Spring" uprisings have sadly amounted to very little in terms of real democracy.

By operating from inside a fortified walled compound called the "Green Zone" in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, America lost touch with most of the nation. Armed conflict further blurred any vision that they had for the country. The government that followed seems to have succumbed to the same problem. From the beginning, the agenda it seems, of the highly sectarian prime minister Nouri-Al-Malaki, was to carve out an Iraq for his tribe, with the backing of Iran. The west hoped that he would unite Iraq and be a president to all, but many inside Iraq saw him serve retribution to Sunnis who held power in the past. The fact that the bloodletting decreased for a while but never stopped, even when the US troops left, was an indication that Nouri-Al-Malaki was not able to bring everyone into the fold. In many Sunni neighborhoods the security forces were seen as oppressors and not protectors. Any form of unity government was a distant dream, and thus Iraq began the process of breaking up under the very eyes of the international community. Just because it was no longer front page news, people began to assume things were improving. In reality, life for most Iraqi citizens became more dire. Some remembered Saddam Hussain's rule with fondness, as there was order and the supply of basic amenities such as electricity, petrol and food were guaranteed in a largely secular Iraq.

When president Obama decided to bring all the troops home in 2011, he did so because his predecessor had signed a treaty that had to be honored and the Iraqi government refused to grant immunity to the troops, if there were a residual force to be left behind. The hope was that Iraq would be able to stand on its feet. The hardware and training that was left behind was assumed to be sufficient to repel any potential security threat, internal and external. So this month, when the Iraqi army scurried under the brutal onslaught of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria) the shock in no uncertain terms was demoralizing to the United States. Irresponsible hawks like Senator John McCain were quick to blame the president and his administration for the debacle. But as ISIS took control of large swathes of the country, with the support of the local Sunni tribes, it was apparent that the deep wounds inside Iraq were never tended to. The writing - as predicted a decade ago - was on the wall and the unravelling had been a slow burn. The crisis in neighboring Syria tipped the balance. The break up of Iraq has begun and the consequences could not be more ironic. The US invaded Iraq proclaiming to the world that Saddam Hussain posed a real security threat not just to America but to the whole region. It was soon revealed that Saddam Hussain was never a threat. ISIS is a real Jihadi force that is driven by an ideology that is more extreme than Al-Qaida. So much so that Al-Qaida has chosen to distance itself from them. If ISIS takes root in Iraq to fulfill its goal of establishing a Caliphate across Syria and Iraq, the threat it will pose will be real in every possible way imaginable.

Allowing the situation in Syria to fester without finding a decisive solution in many ways has led to the situation we face today. The international community could not respond with unity to the horror that was unleashed by the Assad regime on its own people. More than three years into the conflict Syria is no close to finding peace and large swathes of the country are under the influence of extremist groups who offer an alternative that is abhorrent, leading to a mass exodus. The chaos in Syria created a vacuum into which people with Jihadist visions of grandeur walked in from around the world. ISIS was formed from the residual elements of Al-Qaeda in Iraqi, an extremist group which the US successfully defeated with the help of Iraqi Sunni tribes, during the "Sunni Awakening" or "Sahwa". When trouble in Syria started members of ISIS crossed into Syria gathered steam and returned to Iraq in full force cutting deals with the same Sunni tribes that had aided the US in the past. Now with as many as 10,000 equipped fighters, stolen cash from Mosul (the first major city they seized), and abandoned American military hardware possessed from the retreating Iraqi army, they have become a force to reckon with. Funds from motivated Sunni sympathizers in nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have also aided ISIS establish itself as an organization with teeth.

This war within Islam, between the Shia and the Sunni is ancient. But what we see in Iraq is a power struggle tainted by the age old sectarian strife. This deadly combination of religion, tribe and power has been a cause for many a genocide in human history. In Bosnia, Christians massacred Muslims, in Rwanda, Hutu's massacred Tutsi's and in Iraq and Syria, the bloodletting along the Shia-Sunni divide has been showing its ugly face for sometime now, and shows no sign of diminishing. Countless have been summarily executed for being Shia or Sunni. ISIS considers the Shia as heretics and therefore must eliminate them in order to forge a pure form of Islam. In principle, this belief is prevalent among many groups across Saudi Arabia and the wider Arab world.

While Iraq fights for its survival, it is not hard to infer why it finds itself at this juncture today. Nations that go through mass upheaval because of war and genocide, only find balance through a process of truth and reconciliation. South Africa and Rwanda are two recent examples where such a process has brought peace between people who had seen abominable crimes committed by the other side. Victims and perpetrators had to face each other and acknowledge that crimes were committed, only then a nation could begin to restore. Iraq never went through this process, since it was not shaped to do so in its present form. There was no conscientious movement initiated. Part of the problem was that when the United States invaded Iraq, there was no exit strategy, and therefore no framework to create peace after mass murder. They stirred up the pot and left it bloody, and it has only gotten bloodier. And due to long standing feuds the tribal leaders that were left standing only sought reparations for their tribe and not for their nation. So now they stand to lose their nation.

As Iraq fights to keep its borders intact, it turns to the US for assistance. Having partially created the situation in Iraq and having spent a trillion dollars and sacrificed thousands of its young citizens, the US is skittish. On one hand the security threat Iraq faces is visa vie a threat to America and its allies in Europe and the Middle East. Iraq has no standing Air Force and therefore is relying on American air power to assist in its ground offensive as it attempts to retake lost ground. But the reality is that Iraq cannot be put back together by force. It did not work before and it will not now. Iraq's future is now also directly dependent on the shape Syria will retain while it crumbles. The only thing that is viable and lasting is a political solution, which at the moment seems very distant. The Sunni's have to be represented with power. The Kurds need to understand that their future is within Iraq and not as a breakaway nation and it is only unity that can defeat ISIS and other groups that rule by fear of religion and gun and threaten to form a medieval state within a broken state. It is what it is.

India "Modi-fied" - The Making of Modi

I was in Mumbai in February, taking a ride in an ubiquitous antique black and yellow Fiat taxi. A Ganesh statuette was prominent on the dashboard and the glove compartment had a colorful picture of goddess Lakshmi on a magnet. As I often do, I started a conversation with the driver. Since the elections were around the corner, I asked him who he thought would be the next Prime Minister of India? Without hesitation he said, Narendra Modi. Mumbai is the heartland of the Shiv Sena, the powerful communal party of the region that is allied with the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) of which Narendra Modi is the candidate. So I thought his answer was predictable. But his reasoning was not as much. He said he and his kind were looking to Modi for serious economic change, as living hand to mouth had become unsustainable and hardships from rising prices were making life untenable. And the ruling Congress party had run out of time to deliver. Coming from a taxi driver, one who lives on the lowest rung of Indian society, it was profound. But there was no denying that the pedigree of Narendra Modi had a role to play in his support. The sentiment that a "chaiwallah" (tea seller), one of his kind, could one day be king was powerful. And the idea that he would vanquish the dysfunctional and corrupt dynastic politics of the ruling Congress party was dynamic.

After a head spinning, long and arduous election and a mind numbing cacophonic media frenzy that no nation could top, Narendra Modi and his party were declared the undisputed winners. Voter turn out across the nation was at a record high with 64% of the eligible voters casting their ballots. The BJP amassed enough seats to form a government on their own. A feat not achieved in Indian politics in three decades. The west which had largely ignored the election of the largest democracy of the world, woke up in shock. The "Hindu Nationalist Fundamentalist", "The Butcher of Gujarat", "The Muslim Killer", "The Human Rights Violator", "The Right Winger" was now the Prime Minster of India. Modi's photo was on the front page of every major newspaper, and everything uncomfortable that he personified was now here to contend with. President Obama quickly called to congratulate and invited him to the White House, unceremoniously revoking a visa ban that had made Modi a pariah to the US for almost a decade. The rest of the world chimed in with congratulatory notes.

The Indian media blasted the headline in bold red, "India Modi-fied". The western media started speculating whether he will be "India's Putin or Hitler" and whether the 150 million Muslims in the country would have to run for cover. Or wether he would actually deliver on his campaign promises of growth, efficiency, clean governance for all Indians. No political leader since Indira Gandhi had won an election on pure name recognition, and Modi seemed to have electrified and badgered an electorate into believing in him. It is too soon to say whether India will really be "modified" by this verdict. But there is no question, the mood of the nation has certainly been modified.

The stock market climbed historic highs when Modi and his party were declared front runners, indicating that the financial sector had confidence that things will change, and the foreign investment that evaporated would soon return. Modi was always considered by many "as good for business" because of his performance in his home state of Gujarat.

He was elected the Chief Minister of that state three times consecutively and was behind branding his state "Shining Gujarat" for its infrastructure development. In his first few months as Chief Minister in 2002, he also oversaw the massacre of mostly Muslims in religious riots in and around the capital city of Ahmadabad. The mismanagement of that incident, and possible culpability hounded him through the election, but really did not make a difference to those who saw in him a strong leader. His supporters consistently reminded in his defense, that he was cleared by the highest court in the land so he was absolved of all crimes and had no reason to answer any questions on the subject anymore. To date Gujarat has not seen any sectarian violence since that incident and that spoke a lot about where he stood as an administrator.

While under the opposition Congress' regime not only were Sikhs massacred in New Delhi in 1984, and the perpetrators still walked free, there have been many incidents of sectarian violence all across the nation as recently as this month in Assam and no single leader had been held accountable. This argument paid off in the election noise, but I don't think the stain of the Gujarat riots will leave Narendra Modi's side anytime soon, as many await justice, rehabilitation and restitution. The opposition, which has very little ammunition left, will try to rearm with many questions that remain unanswered and unaddressed.

For many on the left, the verdict on the Gujarat riots will never be satisfactory, until either he apologizes or goes to jail. Neither of which is now bound to happen. So by dodging, denying and throwing some of his close confidants under the bus, Modi has successfully pulled of the unthinkable, but much remains still murky. Also what many find uncomfortable are his RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) roots, which he openly acknowledges as the foundation for his success and fortitude.

RSS is the spiritual, ideological and philosophical backbone of the BJP, much like the Muslim Brotherhood is to many political parties in the Arab world. Established in 1925, it started as a patriotic movement to instill discipline and character among Hindu men to counter British colonialism and suppress Muslim separatism. The group drew inspiration from right-wing groups in Europe during the war, and admired Hitler's vision of building a state based on racial purity. They also admired the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel for the same reason and saw similar aspirations for India as a Hindu state. One of its members assassinated Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, and since then the group was branded militant and has been outlawed by several Congress governments over the course of its existence.

As a fringe group it has had a powerful influence on many leaders, and sent one of its members, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to be the the eleventh prime minister of India. Narendra Modi spent his formative years as a foot soldier for the RSS, and still maintains the strict disciplinarian code that he acquired there. He says it is that very discipline that has made him the man he is today. A strict vegetarian, a teetotaler and an early riser and hard worker, he dedicates himself in the "seva" (service) of the nation he says. When Vajpayee was prime minister he moved to the center and that is what is hoped Modi will do. But what is destined to happen, and which is where the fear lies, is that Hindu militant groups spawned by the RSS such as the Bajrang Dal and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) will be emboldened under the leadership of one of their own, much like fringe right wing Christian groups become influential when Republicans come to power in the United States.

Narendra Modi and his party ran an effective campaign and having an incumbent with a dismal record had a big part to play in their victory. Also the three hundred odd parties taking part in the election, fractured the vote, confusing voters and giving BJP an edge. There were only three real leaders on the national level to choose from and the most charismatic was Modi. While many local political parties bought votes for hard currency and outrageous gifts and promises, the BJP stayed clear of all appeasement. Borrowing ideas and language from the successful campaign of candidate Obama, (which was also helped by George Bush's dismal performance) the BJP unleashed a powerful social media operation using Twitter and Facebook, never seen before in Indian politics. By researching and plugging local issues that mattered to the diverse and young electorate they were able to capture the imagination at a grass roots level. They were also very well funded and outspent every party in the running. The Indian election is estimated to have cost five billion dollars. Not many questions were raised about the source of those funds, in a nation that still struggles to feed its people. The American elections spent seven billion dollars, a stark reflection of why democracy will always be short-changed, unless and until campaign financing is reformed.

Modi ran on a platform of returning India to a path of development and rapid economic growth seen during liberalization, largely overseen by the previous regime. But his vision for development was not clearly spelled out or explained. All that was offered was his track record in Gujarat. Running a nation is far more complicated than running a state, especially when there are so many India's that coexist.

There is the rural India, that has seen very little tangible change by virtue of economic growth in the sixty odd years of independence. There is urban India that has seen meteoric, yet haphazard growth at the cost of tremendous ecological damage. Modi promises to return India to a 7% growth rate and follow China's model of high-speed trains, skyscrapers and massive infrastructure projects. China has paid for its rapid development with environmental degradation and rural destitution. While India needs good infrastructure, China's model is not the answer. Modi needs to be aware that he has to deliver to the vastness of India's aspirations on every front, in a democratic framework. Education, health, women's rights, human rights, security, law and order come first. India lags behind in all these areas which form the basis of any healthy society. Real development is more than just monetary satisfaction. The social fabric of any nation is sustained by harmony that is achieved by a wider distribution of the rewards of development and wealth.

The euphoria surrounding Modi's election is still high. The honeymoon period is just beginning. Much like the aspirations of the American people were projected onto the storied election of president Obama, Modi to some extent is the projection of the aspirations of a diverse Indian population. While Obama failed to deliver on many fronts due to a gridlock engineered by a partisan congress, Modi does not have that handicap. He can get things done, he has the numbers needed to pass legislation. Which is both a boon and a curse. But he would have to contend with powerful local governments which could block the implementation of his programs. If he surrounds himself with technocrats, things could move fast. But if he succumbs to cronyism, which is ingrained in the Indian system of governance, he will falter, much like the previous governments have.

The story of the rise of Narendra Modi is fraught with symbolism and enigma. Projected as a man of the people, a tea seller, his speeches used a language and diction that connected with the man on the urban and village street. For the urban elite, it was far removed and archaic. For the ruling class and a handful of families that dominate Indian politics as their destiny, it was a rude awakening. For the intellectuals and media pandits, it was unsettling. A man who spoke heavily accented broken English, and used Hindi in a powerful tone and manner to capture the hearts and minds of multitudes around the country, was hard to fathom. His overt use of Hindu symbolism also made many uncomfortable and others ecstatic. All the way from performing a religious victory ceremony on the banks of the most sacred and polluted Ganges, to the touching of the parliament steps with his forehead, Modi sent arresting images to the world of what's to come. At the Ganges he said he would clean up the river, metaphorically alluding that he would clean up the country. He bowed is head on the parliament steps, as a pious person would when entering a temple or a church, signaling he was entering the temple of democracy.

To win an election is impressive. But to effectively govern a nation as vast and complex as India, is another thing. Modi certainly has governing experience having been a chief minister of a prosperous state for more than a decade. While the BJP did not demonstrate diversity in its roster of parliamentary victors, it will have to change its image, not to appease or patronize, but to be realistic. India is a nation of many, and not all groups have political power. Much of India's regional and ethnic strife is around issues disenfranchisement. From the Kashmiris to the Naxalites and the separatists in the north eastern states, there are vast populations that are neglected and many do not have faith in India's democracy or governance, and they did not vote for Modi. If there is any tangible change that is to be felt, all groups would have to be seen and heard.

On the 26th of May, Narendra Modi will be sworn in as the fifteenth Prime Minister of India. While some see this as Modi's first chance, for many who have wrestled with his past, it is truly his second. Everyone deserves a second chance and to his credit Modi did mention (not as effectively as he should have) that he will be Prime Minister to all Indians, even those who did not vote for him. But as the taxi driver in Mumbai expressed, at the moment not many are concerned about his social agenda. They voted him into power for the economic prowess that he so effectively sold.

One thing Indians do better than anyone on this planet, is show up at the voting booth. And that is the only certainty that can prompt politicians into some action. But politicians in India thus far, have seldom been men/women of their word. It is what it is.

Is Democracy an Illusion?

My new documentary film  GARWIN, is about a remarkable individual named Richard Garwin. At age twenty three he was instrumental in developing and designing the Hydorgen Bomb. The H-Bomb was a thousand times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan and had the power to end humanity. Now at age eighty five he has spent a life time making sure something like that would never happen. By educating presidents and maneuvering the corridors of power he made sure politicians made good decisions, not just about nuclear weapons, but about a whole array of scientific matters. Garwin in a small but effective way made our world a little safer. In the several interviews we did for this film, it seemed like his greatest worry was not of a nuclear detonation today, but of democracy in the United States and elsewhere in the world failing to meet its obligations. He says "Really very important is the preservation of a democratic system. People should be interested and able in a democratic way to determine their future. And that is at risk."

This month researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, concluded in a scientific study that the United States was no longer a democracy, but was an oligarchy. To anyone following politics and current affairs over the past two decades, this should not come as a surprise. By studying roughly 1800 different policy initiatives, in the years between 1981 and 2002, they concluded that the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful in institutions like banking and finance or the military, basically set the agenda for the nation. The preferences of the average American had minuscule or near zero impact on public policy. On issues like the environment, gun control, drug laws, minimum wage, immigration and equal pay, there is overwhelming support in numbers in the population, but little legislation passes in Washington DC to reflect that.

It is no secret that corporations and wealthy individuals and groups wield and exert tremendous influence on the government via lobbies, think tanks and campaign contributions. In the last US presidential campaigns alone, the candidates spent more than six billion dollars combined and all of it was privately raised. In response Gilens and Page write "Perhaps economic elites and interest group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does. Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support. But we tend to doubt it". Come election time every candidate vows to change that status-quo for votes. And then they become the status-quo or are only able to make small changes on the margins.

While the Unites States successfully implements some aspects of democracy, like holding free and fair elections and awarding the press total freedom, even those have been compromised lately by gerrymandering districts, undermining voting rights and restricting press access to the White House and the president.

In Russia on the other hand, Vladimir Putin and his coterie have successfully established an oligarchy in the most quintessential sense. By dismantling any and all political opposition and suppressing all dissent in the media, they have engineered a quasi-dictatorship with significant public support. When the Soviet Union was dismantled by Michael Gorbachev, there was a glimmer of hope for democracy. Boris Yeltsin did attempt to establish democratic institutions and codes that would foster an open and fair society. But his successor saw to it that they would not last long. And now when its erstwhile Soviet Union neighbor Ukraine tries to reemerge from under its influence, Vladimir Putin is seeing to it that it does not happen threatening invasion.

America and the west have sought to foster democracy where ever they can as an ideal cherished by their founders visa vie free human beings. America has sometimes made it its mission to spread its version of democracy and in the process has incurred tremendous loss of life and treasure. Its latest experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought only destruction and disdain, and continue to prove problematic on every front. After a wasteful war, the Shia and Sunni divisions in Iraq as predicted are tearing the country apart. In Afghanistan an election proposes to bring a new leader to power but the Taliban barely diminished, lie in wait for the Americans to leave. America's selective support of brutal regimes in the past and present have only questioned its true motives. Their continuing support of the Saudis who defy every democratic value known to human kind, makes matters only worse.

The recent uprisings in the Arab world which were romantically labled as "The Arab Spring" by the west, were an expression of people power against people in power. It was a cry for democracy which the west rallied behind from a distance. Unfortunately not much amounted of it. It started in Tunisia, where things are still shaky. Egypt is still in turmoil as the army never really relinquished control. Libya is a broken nation and is having severe teething problems. In Bahrain, Yemen and Algeria the uprisings were quashed with brute force. In Syria the situation gets desperate by the hour as a proxy war between the west and Russia sees no end in sight. As the leader of his Alawite tribe, a genocidal leader Assad launches an election and files his nomination sure to be re-elected president of whatever is left of his nation. Peace talks between Israel and Palestine yet again are at an historic low. So democracy in this region seems to be a diminishing flame despite all those lives lost in its pursuit.

One cannot talk about democracy without mentioning the largest nation that follows some of its tenets and has done so with relative success considering its size and diversity. These past few weeks India has been taking part in one the most important aspect of a representative democracy, an election. 840 million people are choosing from 300 odd parties to form a government in a parliamentary system. A two month long election, with all its color, controversy and cacophony comes to an end in the middle of May. Then there will be a relatively peaceful transition of power as it has been so since India broke free from the British in 1947. Quite an accomplishment for a country that was predicted to tear apart by its sheer multiplicity of region, religion, ethnicity, caste, class and everything one can imagine that would define ones identity. India is truly a continent within a nation and somehow manages to stay as one.

With so much diversity of choice one would think India is truly democratic. When it comes to elections it is. With more than 70% voter turn out in most places, Indians from all walks of life are committed to the act of plebiscite. In America, if more than 50% of eligible voters take part in an election, it is considered an achievement. The nature of an Indian election maybe chaotic, irregular, violent and sometimes corrupt. But for the most part it is legitimate and the leader that emerges is accepted by all. When it comes to governance, India falls short of being a suitable democracy. Corruption is rampant and the oligarchs are at the center of it. Politicians are flawed and criminal and are openly in bed with the oligarchs. The system does not deliver equally to all, and many have little faith that it ever will. Yet they come out and vote with the hope that someday things might change. The press can be bought, coerced, censored and bullied by the state. But in the congested and noisy conglomerate cable news universe, it gets more and more challenging to curtail press freedom. But finding balanced news, proves ever more challenging. The boom fueled by American technology that transformed India in the last two decades, expanding its middle class like never before, has given hope to many that India can rise and will rise again. But it's weak democratic institutions need work for it to be able to rise as a nation for all and not just a few.

Democracy within a capitalist system can easily be undermined by money, if it is not shielded and protected from its influence. Capitalism is known to be a by product of democracy, but China has spawned a form of capitalism under Communism as well. What we see around the world today, is that under the force of money and greed democratic values that are meant to spread prosperity for all in a balanced way are being eroded. Which is essentially causing the degradation of our environment, the failure of our financial systems, conflict, hunger and famine in impoverished nations, terrorism and above all the suppression of our freedoms.

In America today, freedom is directly equated to the act of unfettered consumption. If one can drive a new car every few years, take a vacation, carry a gun, live in a big house, shop cheaply and eat to ones hearts content, one thinks one is free and living in a democratic society. While some acknowledge that this "American Dream" is fast becoming a "Pipe Dream", most refuse to accept it. And the people in power do not want people to accept change, as that would wake them from their slumber and tough decisions would have to be made. Change is a bad word as it disrupts the status-quo. So in America as long as I can carry my gun to Church (you can do that in Georgia now thanks to a new law) and the price of Quinoa and Kale stay stable, I think democracy is working. And elsewhere in the world, the struggle to make democracy work is a never ending battle. It is what it is.

Control the medium, Control the message

When the great Canadian media philosopher and public intellectual coined the phrase "the medium is the message", I wonder how far he saw into the future. It is even believed that he predicted the coming of the world wide web thirty years before its onset, and his visions of the future to a large extent have come true. But I doubt even he could have imagined the engineering of Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp etc. and the immediacy with which information is consumed, discerned and discarded today.

He was certainly accurate when he predicted that the medium by which information is delivered will define, alter and impact the message itself. But in what way, would have been hard to fathom by anyone. Today when everything personal, private, public and consequential is shared via  "social media" the impact is telling. While McLuhan did predict that communication technology would transform the world into a "global village", and shrink the planet in a meta-physical sense, it is  anyone's guess, as to how far that process will really push us over the edge.

Marshal McLuhan also predicted the end of the print medium as we know it. The newspaper and the book in its known physical form, will become a thing of the past. The early signs of which are already present as more and more people use tablets, phones and laptops to consume information. While the medium of delivery will continue to change at a rapid rate, the content creation will change as a result as well. But there will always be a need for good writers and journalists as an alternative to the rapidly diluted 140 characters or less way of sharing information. But those who control the medium, will always control the message.

On March 19, 2014 an excerpt from an upcoming book by veteran New York Times journalist Carlotta Gall was published in the New York Time's magazine section. The article titled What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden was an extremely well researched piece of journalism. It put you on the edge of your seat, exposing the complex and disturbing nature of a protracted war that has caused death and destruction on a massive scale. After a trillion dollars spent, leaders assassinated, countless innocents killed, the article concluded that nothing significant has changed.

The Taliban, the dubious Pakistani intelligence services, the politicians and the various rag-tag armies of terrorists from Al-Qaida to Lashkar-E-Taiba, are all intact waiting to rise again as soon as the American forces left Afghanistan. The article indicts everyone from the Pakistani Dictator Parvez Musharraf to his ISI companions and local bureaucrats, of knowing all along where Osama Bin Laden was being housed. He was free to roam as he pleased as protection was guaranteed from the highest levels of power.

This article was not published in Pakistan. 9000 copies of the International New York Times were printed and distributed in Pakistan with blank white space on the front page. The truth was censored either by intimidation or by exertion. The message was effectively erased by the people who exerted control on the medium.The people of Pakistan were yet again hoodwinked.

Next month, the largest democracy on the planet goes to the polls. Approximately 800 million eligible voters will take part in one the longest, most chaotic, colorful and controversial elections ever seen. Countless regional and national political parties will vie for power in the 543 seat parliament. It will take 272 seats to form a government, and there is no single party that has the wherewithal to garner an absolute vote. Therefore only a coalition government can come to power and thus votes will be bought for hard cash and deals will be made in a nation that is awash with corruption.

Corruption is a central issue in this election. A new national political party called Aam Admi Party (Common Man's Party) has chosen the eradication of corruption as its only political agenda/manifesto in this election. In any democracy, it is the free and objective press that guarantees a fair election. In India, in this election, the media/press has successfully been corrupted as well. Voters are being misled by what is being called "paid news". Where politicians and political parties are buying column space in respected news papers, and are having propaganda pieces dressed up as real news with no distinction. Even the editorial sections are being bought and turned into puff pieces. The divisive candidate Narendra Modi of the BJP party is the favorite to become the next Prime Minister of India. He is perceived to be "business friendly". Newspapers, TV stations and their owners who stand to gain from his victory, have steadily made him the media darling, consciously and carefully evading the tough questions and sugar quoting the uncomfortable ones to give him an edge.

With over 250 radio stations, 850 TV Channels, 93,000 registered newspapers and the social media networks buzzing the Indian media landscape is an influential juggernaut. Political parties own media outlets outright and war openly with little oversight. In this election the message is being dressed and distorted even more to influence the vote in a tightly contested election. Largely because the medium of delivery has changed and the control has fragmented in some cases or has conglomerated  in others.

According to the BBC radio documentary "Press for Sale" there have been over 1,400 cases where the Election Commission has detected alleged paid news over the last four years. Now the Indian parliament has been considering legislation which will outlaw the practice – although detecting and proving it is likely to be tough. Controlling the medium is definitely paying off for those who stand to gain. Most likely this could steal the election from a voting base, whose discerning capacity is limited.

Controlling the medium in the digital age is challenging, lucrative and powerful. While the internet does create a highly democratic space, it certainly also creates a space that can be heavily surveilled. Edward Snowden revealed how the NSA was invading privacy of the powerless and the powerful, under the guise of fighting terrorism. In nations like China, Turkey and Egypt, the internet is seen as a real threat to the establishment and therefore is highly regulated.

The acquisition of fledgling companies like Instagram, Whatsapp, Occulus VR for exorbitant sums of money by giants like Facebook, reveals the desire of these companies to control the pipeline.

Comcast, an American company is all set to purchase Time Warner Cable another behemoth that controls what is known in the business as the "last mile". The last few feet of  physical cable that penetrates your wall into the TV Cable box in your living room. This is where it is predicted companies will fight for space to collect the most intimate data on the consumer, so they can advertise in the most narrow manner possible. Apple, Inc. is close to signing an exclusive deal with Comcast to launch its new gizmo directly into the living room to observe your every consumerist move. The cutthroat competition to control the medium of delivery is getting intense, and this will define what as consumers we end up seeing or not seeing, and in the process trading personal data.

While it seems as though technology is making the world a more open space, it is also doing exactly the opposite. On one level revolutions and peoples movements can be triggered and surged by social media, information can also be spied on, collected and controlled by dubious means. It is also that same media that dilutes the content by its very nature, compromising all validity and integrity. Living in a developed nation with unfettered access to the internet, with some education, one can sift through the noise and stunted information to find the essence of what is "real". For those who do not have that privilege, the alternative is perilous.

Marshal McLuhan also coined the term "surfing" meaning the rapid, irregular and multi-directional movement through a heterogeneous body of documents or knowledge. That word means something else these days. It means to endlessly bounce around, swimming and floating in a sea of information, sometimes in search of something very particular, most often to aimlessly wander in digital intoxication. So the next time you go "surfing" remember to ask yourself, who exactly is controlling the medium and what exactly therefore is the message that is being delivered?

It is what it is.

Bombay Bol

I spent time in India this month, attending a film festival in Bombay. Returning to the land I was born, is always enriching, exciting, visceral and exhilarating. The sounds, smells and visuals energize me making me come alive. I feel like I am entering a pulsating world where my senses ignite. Not to sound exotic but returning from a sterile and organized environment of the west, the experience is always heightened the first few days. While most of India takes you to another plane in many ways, Bombay does it more than any place I know. And for that reason it is called "Maximum City" and maximum it is.

The stark inequality that exists in India, has been written about and shown in every possible manner. From books like Shantaram to films like Slumdog Millionaire, the contrast that is seen in Bombay, visa vie India, has been displayed over and over again. Almost making classic imagery of poverty synonymous with India. I myself have written about it many times in my past essays. Every BBC and CNN report does not fail to mention this fact, while India booms and unimaginable wealth is created for a few. Having said that, there is no escaping it. In a city like Bombay, it is in your face all the time. To ignore it, is to deny it and to deny it is to degrade it. People live on many levels in India and there are many Indias that exist. Partly due to corruption and partly due to apathy.

India has always existed this way, even when it was ruled by opulent kings, the British and now the elite ruling class, who in many ways are the new colonizers of an economically and socially chaotic population, 1.3 billion in all, trying and striving to move up the ladder. Seventy years ago, Mahatma Gandhi expressed concern about this prospect, that a western industrial model would only tear at the new nation, making economic imbalances worse. His vision sadly seems to be coming true not just for India but the planet. There is no question modern technology and social programs have made a significant difference in pulling people up from dire misery, but the task at hand is massive. 2.7 billion people still struggle to survive on the planet, and malnutrition is a real problem even in many parts of the developed world.

As gigantic democracies, India and America are similar in some ways. Wealth in America gets more and more concentrated at the top, shrinking the middle class and squeezing the economy. In India it is the same, only the effects are blaring, detrimental and direct, as the economic separation between groups is vast.

Instead of writing my observations in prose, I thought I would give it a shot in rhyme. So here it is from 30,000 feet above, leaving Bombay on to Hyderabad.

BOMBAY BOL (speak to me)

Maximum city they call it and maximum it is,
through my taxi window it unravels as is

Naked children, mummified bodies on sidewalk,
a stove burns under an overpass, breakfast in bed, soupy stock

Givenchy, Prada, Skoda and Porsche, they are all here,
so are the bare feet, under heavy load and hot air

Towers rise into the sky, ever so high,
others fall lower and deeper only to sigh

Trains move millions like Sardine,

old black and yellow Fiats choke streets, almost unseen

The young energize the city,
the old stay home, can't go out, traffic too risky

Yachts park in the bay by the Gateway,
private jets in hangers, where would you like to stay?

Couples caress hiding in public
Big screens on cell phones flash and click

A movie set by a seaside setting
not for a movie, but a wedding

Where those who serve, will never eat
standing inside uniforms and behind plates of more and more meat

At a party, I am glitterati, wearing silk, looking Brooklyn, talking cinema,
over Mojito to people who claim they are the intelligentsia

It is confusing to walk this city,
yet it is alive, throbbing, moving and mourning without pity

From up above I see patterns, a golfing green next to a shanty,
that is how maximum, maximum is, in this city of plenty

Bombay Bol

Selflessness

To achieve complete selflessness is a remarkable thing. Especially in a world as self serving as ours. Consumerism in unthinkable ways pushes us more and more to invest in personal comforts and pleasures. A bigger house, a newer car, a bigger tattoo, the latest gadget and endless varieties of foods to consume. The purpose of progress seems to be only about personal gain. This makes us a citizen of our wants more than the needs of the world. Then there are doctors, nurses, relief workers and activists who work in selfless ways in the service of humanity. Some of us contribute to that effort every time there is a catastrophe and the images on TV become unbearable and the suffering of others questions our place in the world. Having acquired an obscene amount of wealth, a few super rich start foundations and give sustainably over a period of time as they are concerned about their legacy. There are those who achieve a level of selflessness that people like mother Teresa and others in her group have come to embody and symbolize. Driven by religion or some internal drive or passion they do good that leaves people in awe of their presence. Then there are those who have lived a loveless life and gain love by selflessly giving to others. The world is full of such nameless people who we seldom hear or read about.

Recently, bouncing from channel to channel on American television in search of something worthwhile to invest my time, I came across a documentary film on PBS titled "Blood Brother". The colorful images peaked my interest because the film was set in India, the country I was born in. Blood Brother tells a story of a young man named Rocky Braat and his time at an orphanage in a remote village in the southern state of Tamil Nadu. My initial reaction to the film was - here we go again, another story of a white person going to some impoverished and destitute part of the world to save "the children". I have seen this before. If it weren't for a white person and his/her compassion from a place of privilege, this film would never have been made. But as I began to watch the film, my cynicism began to shift. As I saw Rocky immerse himself in this world of children, who were abandoned and left on the edges because they were HIV positive, my impression about him and his journey began to change. Watching him care for these children, while they consumed a cocktail of drugs to stay alive and intermittently saw their companions fall to the horror of this disease was moving. Keeping hope alive was a daily struggle and Rocky had become the motivator of that joy and hope.

Rocky's motives for being in India were a bit puzzling. It was clear that he came from a broken family in Ohio, where his emotional needs were not met in any way. But the fact that he chose this route to express that deficiency and sought to fill that void by helping children with HIV was impressive. Walking barefoot, like the children and adults he had come to live and move with, he felt at home in this remote and drastically different place. The love he had found by putting himself in a place where most would run from, somehow grounded him. Through all the challenges India throws at you, he seemed to have come to appreciate the essence that truly makes Indian people, especially children, genuine through ever present misery, oppression and cultural imprisonment.

As we watch Rocky go through his motions, there are times you really wonder if his journey was being captured on film to make a spectacle of a situation that is dire, distraught and disturbing. But what turns the tables, is when he comes to care for a child who is on the verge of death. When a ten year old's entire body erupts into open wounds from the inside of his eyes to his toes, the doctors give him ten days to live. In an extremely hard to watch long sequence, we see Rocky attend to this child in the most selfless manner possible. Nursing every wound with extreme care, concentration and diligence, without leaving his bedside for a moment, ignoring the threat of infection, Rocky brings the child back from the brink. This scene in this film transforms the viewer and with the power of the documentary medium, one truly comes to appreciate Rocky and his unconditional devotion to this child. His selflessness is on full display via an observational camera. By saving this one child, you feel he somehow conquers the world and finds the meaning of life.

Most documentaries of this nature end with the protagonist returning to his/her country of comfort a changed and humbled person. Reflecting on this complex phenomenon called "humanity", he/she is transformed. Or some western agency or organization awards a medal to the protagonist for his/her charity. While the film has won many awards for the humanity it captures, it ends with Rocky making the village his permanent home. Marrying an Indian woman from the nearby village, he settles down in the service of these children. Whether his time there will be temporary only time will tell. But for now Rocky seems to have found a family and love that he was deprived in another world.

If more of us exhibited selflessness, when asked to do so, the world would change. Today there are 9 million internally displaced refugees in Syria. There are another 2.4 million who have been driven from their homes and are living in squalor in camps in Jordan and other neighboring countries. United Kingdom has agreed to give asylum to a few hundred, those who have been subjected to the most horrific violence. As the Geneva talks falter, there is a great need for nations around the world to act in selfless ways to stop the suffering. There is ample room in the world for many, but very little space in our hearts it seems.

This week we lost a giant in America. An inspirational figure to all through music and valiant acts of defiance and demanding justice in a democracy. Pete Seeger once said "the key to the future of the world, is finding the optimistic stories and letting them be known." Rocky's story is of optimism and hope. We can all find such stories in our minuscule lives to share. Sharing is caring, and to care is to change. It is what it is.