A Year That Was

Another 365 days in the life of our planet will be marked by a number around the world. The end of another decade will be dissected and discussed as humanity still finds itself grappling with the eternal questions of war, poverty, nuclear weapons, terrorism, hunger and the destruction of its home, planet earth, and the species that share that space with them. Yet we seem to hope and seek promise, even though the future seems much too worrisome to pass on to our children. As without "hope" humanity is left with nothing but its own demise.

It is customary this time of the year, for the press to scurry around highlighting the high and low moments of the past, notably mention famous people who have passed on, and pick their "person of the year". It is also a tradition for people to gather in the streets and living rooms around the world to welcome the sun as though it were brand new. All in the act of celebrating the obvious.

The essence of humanity is to believe in a better tomorrow, while all its actions and behavior are largely in contradiction to it, mostly clouded by greed, consumerism and the incessant need for self preservation at the detriment of what gives it sustenance. We still believe we can turn the clock around and control the environment we live in. The recent collapse of the Copenhagen Climate Summit was a glaring example of how humanity is still segregated by borders even when its own survival is at stake. While individual citizens recognize the futility in trusting their governments, and take action in as mundane ways as turning off the light when they leave the room, a daunting question stares us in the face, is it too late?

As history proves, individuals with lofty ideas have always changed the world in seismic ways. In this new year the question one should ask one self is, can I be that person in my own small way? It is what it is.

Obama's War of "Hope"

On the eve of going to receive his much talked about Nobel Peace prize in Oslo, President Obama decides to send more young American men and women into war. Regardless of the circumstances that lead him to that decision, nothing can be more ironic.

The war in Afghanistan was always candidate Obama's war. He always proclaimed it as the war worth fighting with full force as Osama Bin Ladin was the prime target. He has always said the excursion into Iraq took the "eye off the ball" with devastating results. This rhetoric in part won him the election. Seven years later with a promise of hope, he still thinks the war in Afghanistan is the one we should be escalating. While it seemed he deliberated on this option with a heavy heart, the decision he ultimately arrived at seemed predictable. He heeded to his generals. To make his case to the public he resurrected the ghosts of 9/11 sounding too close to comfort like his predecessor.

What Obama is offering in this plan compared to the surge in Iraq (the success of which is overrated) is that he is bringing more nations to the table by emphasizing how important this conflict is to the security of not just America but the planet. Yet again there are no Islamic countries who have pledged any troops. Even the dictators America supports in Egypt and Saudi Arabia had nothing to offer. Russia, China and India stand at a distance, watching and waiting, and the contributions from the western nations are minuscule. He has also promised to start withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2011, calling it an exit strategy. That sounds improbable and absurd knowing the situation on the ground and America's past history. Once America invades a nation it does not leave gently. Even though President Obama has said the troops are there only to help, no one in the region believes him. There are still thousands of troops stationed in Japan, Korea, Germany and elsewhere, much to the displeasure of the locals, even though the wars have long ended. There must be no illusions of America's ambitions of policing the world with supremacy. Lately this is beginning to prove detrimental to its own economic and political standing in the world, but that has not deterred anyone. President after president there seems to be a reluctance to alter that course. As a result when ever there is a conflict anywhere in the world, lo and behold, America is implicitly expected to intervene and it does, sometimes with catastrophic results.

In a response to President Obama's West Point speech, Christian Amanpour, the CNN diva reporter, made a statement in support of his decision. She stated that the Afghans know the difference between the Russians, British, Taliban and the Americans. They know that the Americans are there to help them rebuild and bring hope to their decimated nation. While this may be what is being intended and perceived, when one sees a convoy of Hummers driving by, and bombs falling of the sky and the sound of gun fire becoming the norm, all perception is lost. They know they are in a war zone and that is all the distinction there is to be made. And for most Afghans, unlike most Americans oceans away, a war zone is all they have ever known.

While Obama made bold promises that he is going to hold the corrupt, despicable leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan accountable, by ending the practice of "handing out blank checks", everyone knows that corruption is a systemic cultural problem that cannot be banished by policy. If bold statements could eradicate corruption, the world would be a better place. The corruption that went on under the Bush administration in the name of war, in the US and abroad, is yet to be dealt with. Now Obama hopes to deal with corruption within the Afghan government that came to power as a result of corruption. You could maybe contain the Taliban, but curtailing corruption would be almost impossible, especially when the very government in charge of doing it is made up of two faced nefarious characters.

What is clear and has been expressed by many experts who live in the region openly, is that this war cannot be won militarily. It is a Pashtoon problem, not a Taliban or Al Qaeda problem. Unless we start approaching it as a geopolitical issue there is no positive outcome that will come out of this conflict. The Pashtoon are fiercely independent and now have become hardened as a result of being marginalized. We are made to imagine them as a backward, crazy, criminalized band of religious zealots. While there is an element of that, most are radicalized because there is a war going on and war is something they know how to engage in. They have been invaded by a foreign force and they have to push back. It is their religious duty. That is all they have known for forty years. Not all Pashtoon are Taliban, but most Afghan Taliban are Pashtoon.

If the mission is to contain Al Qaeda, the war we are escalating is misguided and completely out of proportion. If the goal is to stabilize Afghanistan and keep the Taliban out, this can be done only with the help of a neutral force, with serious partnerships with Islamic and regional powers and by negotiating with the moderate elders. Sending more troops sends a signal that we are not interested in negotiating. We just want to wipe them out, out of their own nation. If the secondary threat is the destabilization of Pakistan and its nuclear infrastructure, we are making the situation worse by escalating the war across the border. Even though the porous border between the two nations gives a sense that the problem is linked, the situation in Pakistan today is a result of successive failed governments supported by misguided American policy. The spillage and the establishment of terrorist groups within Pakistan's borders is a byproduct of a failed state with many power centers.There is no clear solution that can be brought about to this problem militarily. It can only be subdued for a short time. Pakistan's enemy is India, and now they are being told to fight their friends and they detest that. It is an open fact that Pakistan would like to see the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan. Pakistan has supported and given room to terrorist groups to fight their proxy war as a national policy. Without addressing these issues which span from Kashmir to the north west frontier, with a hard line, America will get no where with Pakistan. All they will get is deception.

If the hope is to rebuild Afghanistan into a nation, which is what seems to be the underlying plan and solution, then we need to listen to the Shura, the elder councils. As they are the ones who may hold the ultimate key to peace. This is what the celebrated author and social worker Greg Mortenson who has spent a lifetime working and living in this region has also proposed. Unfortunately Obama did not take them into account while making this decision. He only sought advice from some of the same people who in part are responsible for this mess eight years in the making.

So while Obama pitched this troop increase as a war of "hope", the so called "just war", the war that must be fought to make the planet a better place, the only "hope" that he should be concerned about is the "hope" that he would get re-elected, if and when this is over. The fact on the ground is that the American forces are battered and the morale is low. The cost of running a war at the expense of American blood and treasure seems misplaced, especially in the current climate. Some soldiers are being deployed for the sixth time in as many years. A broad section of Afghans and the Pakistanis detest the American presence and see it as the reason for the violence that is bleeding their land. The remote controlled CIA drone attacks are highly unpopular for the collateral damage that they cause in their aftermath. And there have been more drone attacks under Obama's administration than under Bush's. There is a high level of desertion within the Afghan National Army and police and fresh recruitment is a huge problem due to the corruption. The war is deeply unpopular across the board.

Even though this is not a war he started, with this current move President Obama has taken full ownership of it. And as a "war time president" he sure is acting like all those who have come before him. Showing that he can be tough and decisive when the chips are down. What is a fact, is that except George Bush, all who came before him did not get re-elected to office as a result of their experiments with war. If there is anyone who needs hope at this moment in time, it is the Commander-in-Chief. As there is nothing more intoxicating than to stand in front of a banner that screams "Mission Accomplished". It is what it is.

WALLS

"Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall"- were famous words uttered by president Ronald Reagan in a speech on June 12, 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. These words were seen as a spark that would light the fuse that would bring the cold war to an end. The words were spoken meters away from the one structure that so profoundly symbolized the great divide, The Berlin Wall. It seemed like his words acted like dynamite in pushing a movement over the edge. Two years later a chain of events across eastern Europe caused the wall to breach uniting a divided people forever.

This month the twentieth anniversary of this defining moment was celebrated across Europe and the international media was abuzz reprising that moment and deciphering history and the sequence of events that changed the world. The true hero who lit the fuse was Mikhail Gorbachev who had come to the conclusion that the soviet union and its policies were unsustainable and counterproductive. He was rapidly putting into motion changes that even the so called democratic leaders of the west were openly afraid of. He was convinced in dismantling the status-quo for good. He was no longer interested in keeping the eastern block under the soviet shadow, as he was relinquishing to the will of its people. So when the moment came for the wall to be breached he stepped aside and let history take its course.

A united Germany to many brought back visions of the past they were uncomfortable with. According to records, Margaret Thatcher and George Bush Sr. were both not keen on seeing the wall come down. They were afraid of the balance of power shifting in the aftermath and how that would play out. And the famous Ronald Reagan speech, was more of a ruse, a distraction he was seeking from his domestic voes surrounding the Iran-contra scandal. But to his credit his Hollywood charisma bore fruit. He reclaimed some of his lost glory with the speech and achieved mythic status among many of his supporters. To some extent he even prodded the movement a little to gather steam.

The Berlin wall fell twenty years ago. In the decades since many walls have gone up and those that existed before have grown stronger and wider. India and Pakistan point nuclear warheads at each other, threatening to wipe out the one people that they are. North Korea seeks nuclear weapons to escalate its feud with the south. Israel builds a wall around Palestinians to keep suicide bombers at bay in the process confining a people much like they were in another part of the world. America builds a fence along the Mexican border to keep people away from seeking a better life. Humans have even managed to build walls on oceans. Countless electronic walls go up censoring expression and freedom of thought. Psychological walls seem to divide people more than ever on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and sexual preference. Humans seem hell bent on devouring their humanity taking us to some dark places.

What is surprising is that while millions of words were generated and billions of bytes of information exchanged about the fall of the Berlin wall, no head of state took the opportunity to utter any Reaganesque words asking for all walls to be torn down in the interest of our very survival. We all know that when the Himalayan glaciers melt away and the polar ice caps seize to exist, no wall will be able to hold back people who will seek help from those spared. Nature sees no walls, all it sees is six billion ants digging theirs and their children's grave. It is what it is.

An ever elusive End Game

In search of an end game Pakistan launches a massive military offensive against the Taliban (its own people) and America deliberates on its next move in Afghanistan. Once again all eyes are on the subcontinent. This is a region that has seen unprecedented upheaval in the last few decades, as armed conflicts have chewed up countless innocent lives and continue to do so at this very moment. From the Maoists in Nepal and India, separatists in Kashmir, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Uighars in north western China, one thing is clear. These are all uprisings against the establishment started by indigenous people centered around issues of land, self determination and in protest of lack of acceptable governance. Whether somewhere along the way these movements were hijacked by groups with more devious intentions, is as debatable as the establishment's claim that they have done everything to keep their citizens content and hopeful for a better future. It all depends on whose point of view you want to buy into.

The Talibanization of Afghanistan and Pakistan is a direct result of allowing a region and a group of people to descend into destitution and medieval standards of living. After the Soviets left Afghanistan the world turned its back and allowed it to take its natural course. Which was for the warlords to take control of a power vacuum and maintain a brutal status-quo with the help of a smorgasbord of nefarious groups all benefiting from the poppy trade. The drug trade flourished and formed the very backbone of the problem we face today. It took an attack on Manhattan for the world to wake up.

Suddenly the Taliban were in the news who were no different than the Saudis. They were as brutal and medieval in their ways in implementing the Sharia, its just that they did not have oil under them to gain global legitimacy. They were practicing a form of government which had gained popular support because it at least delivered security and a semblance of a nation. The only miscalculation they made was to give Osama Bin Ladin a place to pitch his tent. This as we know drew the wrath of America, which went after two nations in search of a small band of terrorists with all the force at its disposal, resulting in the murder of innocent lives on all sides, which goes on unabated to this date.

The Maoists in India and Nepal share some similarities in their genesis with the Taliban. First and foremost they grew out of some of the most impoverished, medieval and backward parts of the nation, where discrimination and neglect had pretty much pushed a population over the edge. The Maoist or Naxalite movement as it is popularly known in India, started in the late 60s with a peasant uprising in a small village called Naxalbari in northern West Bengal. The movement orchestrated by the communist party over the years evolved into a nexus between, armed guerrillas, political factions, ideologues and other power brokers who all had something to gain by undermining the establishment. One thing is indisputable, the movement gathered ground because it had formidable support from the rural and tribal folk of the region who were being victimized by a feudal system decades after independence. In the 80s the movement also had popular support from the ideological urban youth who had lost faith in their government and believed in a sense of justice. For long the establishment skirted the Maoist movement as a local law and order issue only to wake up recently to realize it is the most serious internal security threat facing the nation.

The Maoists have been waging a guerrilla war for nearly four decades now and are finally making international headlines. In Nepal they have been successful in taking over the government. As the Indian government prepares to tackle this problem head on, violence which is already a daily part of life in these backward areas has become more pronounced and will exacerbate. The Maoists and their political wing has been outlawed and the various factions are too far gone to enter into a political settlement. As the big guns take on the small guns, and extra judicial killings become the daily norm, India begins to go down the same slippery road Afghanistan and Pakistan are on at the moment.

In the south the Sri Lankan government declared victory over a three decade long guerrilla war by crushing the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) with brute force and brutality. What went on during the final stages of the war was hidden as journalists were banned from the war zone by the Army. So the killing fields remain a mystery and the human loss and the nature of the war remains heavily disputed. More than 69,000 people lost their lives during the course of the long war which again started as an armed struggle for land, self determination and an end to ethnic discrimination. The Tamils for whom the guerrilla force LTTE said they fought for, have origins on the island nation which are as old as the majority Sinhalese. But they had been discriminated all along and so began their struggle for an independent piece of land they could call their own.

The LTTE started as a popular movement and somewhere along the way got hijacked by the megalomaniac misgivings of its leader and lost traction and direction. From a guerrilla group the LTTE became a terrorist group recruiting child soldiers and pioneering suicide bombings wreaking havoc amongst its own people and the nation. They were ultimately snuffed out early this year in a bloody battle. The aftermath of the war resulted in the creation of the largest internment camp for internally displaced Tamils fleeing the conflict. More than 40,000 Tamils languish in a camp imprisoned by the Sri Lankan government with the pretext that some of the LTTE members could be hiding within the refugee population. And so the Tamils suffer inhumane conditions on their own land prompting many to call it a deliberate act of slow genocide. Again the international community relinquishes its responsibility as there is no vested interest here. Another Darfur in the making, another armed conflict gone terribly wrong.

All these conflicts show that on a human moral level, they can never be justified, cause the casualties of war are always those who are at the lowest rung of the food chain. Armed conflicts on the other hand are always good for business, the arms business. All guerrilla groups are always well funded. They have easy access to weaponry. The LTTE had even managed to procure airplanes to fight the government. So someone is making money at the cost of wreaking mayhem. On the other hand the establishment always has an enemy they can use to scare their people into supporting their agenda. And so the battles rage on.

The reason why we do not have violent uprisings threatening to overthrow the establishment in the materially developed west, is because even in the most desperate situation a citizen can hope for a better future. They can still rely on their state and their legal system for some help. In most places where there is armed conflict, the people put their faith in who ever gives them immediate relief, and in most cases it is never the government. When the devastating earthquake hit Pakistan last year, it was the political wing of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba that provided relief in the eyes of the people. In parts of India the Maoists have forcibly taken land from the feudal landlords and redistributed it among the landless Dalits (out castes), bringing a sense of Robin Hood style justice to centuries of oppression.

In the west poverty is more of an emotional state than a physical one. Where as in these impoverished regions of the world poverty and neglect is all that is left. When you have nothing to lose you have little concern in causing harm to those who have everything to lose. Using bigger guns in these regions in search of an end game, is making a situation that is dire even worse. In a recent poll in Pakistan people in the affected areas were asked who they considered a bigger threat, the Taliban or the US. Overwhelmingly people said the US. This goes to prove that a military solution can never be a solution, it can only be a band-aid that burns and leaves deep open wounds. Democracy at the barrel of a gun does not last long.

In todays world more than ever, where you live does decide whether you live or whether you die. This very aspect gives people clarity to understand where they stand in relation to the planet. It is what it is.

In the shadow of a Prize

October 9 at 6 AM the telephone rang in President Obama's bedroom jolting him out of bed. So were the American listeners and readers on this side of the Atlantic when they heard he was the Nobel Peace Prize laureate for 2009. It should have been a cause for jubilation and celebration but the reaction was muted, ripe with ambiguity. Some wanted him to turn it down, others to ask the Nobel committee to hold it until he thought he was ready and others calling it a political nightmare. The right did not lose time in lashing out in a fashion that has become customary of them. Michael Steele, the Republican Party president was quick to denounce him by saying "he wont be receiving any awards from the American people" pointing to the fact that Obama has not delivered yet to deserve such a lofty prize. As expected this moment was ripe fodder for the rabid radio and TV talk show hosts to have a free for all. “Can you imagine, folks, how big Obama’s head is today?” Rush Limbaugh barked, “I think it’s getting so big that his ears actually fit.”

The Nobel most often is awarded to people who have spent a life time in the service of a mission. Just nine months into his presidency and at forty eight he joined the esteem company of his heroes Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela. That was a difficult picture for people to visualize and as the President acknowledged, it was difficult for him to grasp as well, as he genuinely felt humbled. In his acceptance speech he said that he viewed this recognition more a validation of his people by the world. Nobody can deny that 2009 was a groundbreaking year for America as the world turned its gaze to see a most unlikely candidate be inaugurated. This moment in history in itself was undeniably worthy of a prize.

There is a clear distinction in the way the world sees President Obama and the way Americans have come to see him in the recent past. The Nobel Prize was awarded to President Obama, as the citation reads "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". There is no question that the psychological impact his election has had on the people of the globe has been profound. His image, grace, civility and demeanor has sparked an uncompromising idealism and optimism in people of all races. The rhetoric in his lofty speeches from Cairo to Prague, has energized people across boundaries like never before. In the nine months he has traveled the world promising real change and cooperation in the way America behaves, and has called on nations to rise up and take responsibility for their actions. He has laid out a vision for a nuclear free globe and has engaged Iran and North Korea instead of isolating them even more with remarkable results. He has demanded the Pentagon to conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country's arsenal. He has restarted the middle east peace process which had come to a grinding halt under the previous administration. And to top it all he has set forth grand benchmarks to curb global warming.

While most of his ambitions in the global sphere have been expressed through rhetoric and oratory flare, not much has yet been achieved in the way of tangible results. But like never before his words have had a penetrating influence. And that does count for something.

On record, the process of pulling out of Iraq and closing down Guantanamo Bay has been slow, and his deliberations on the next move in Afghanistan causes confusion. While he has claimed victory in stalling America's financial descent, not many people buy it as job losses continue to take their toll. Health care reform, the success of which will define his leadership, hangs in a balance due to the sluggish, partisan and morally bankrupt nature of congress. People are beginning to show discontent with the pace of change he so dramatically promised during his campaign. In the light of all this Americans find this award confusing and struggle to make sense of it.

There is no doubt that in his first nine months President Obama has set out to take on more than any leader before. If this award is meant to give him a bump, if it is meant to be an investment in the future, there is no better place to make it, as there is no leader that can wield the kind of influence he can. That he has proven thus far with fortitude.

In his low key acceptance speech at the rose garden, where he declined to take questions from the press, he said he would accept the award as a "call to action". As he left the podium a reporter shouted "Mr. President what are you going to do with the award money?". Later in the day he revealed in a communique that he would be donating it to charity.

A few days ago President Obama passed on a meeting with fellow laureate the Dalai Lama in order to appease the Chinese, with whom he has a scheduled visit next month. It will be interesting to see what his "call to action" will entail. Will he be able to convince the Chinese to reduce their nuclear arsenal, will he be able to hold their feet to fire on issues of human rights and democracy as they strengthen their hold on more and more American debt. Will he be able to bring China and Russia on his side, without whom half the problems of the world can never be solved.

In my view, the peace protesters of Iran who gallantly fought for freedom shedding blood on the streets, deserved the prize this year. But unfortunately they did not have an Aung Song Su Kyi or Lech Walesa to put a face on their movement. But as a strategy maybe it was a more prudent choice to give it to a leader who can actually bring about effective change in a much larger sphere. In no means was this a controversial choice when compared with the likes of Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger. But without a doubt it has put more pressure on the President, something he could have done without at this moment in time. His presidency will be defined to the world in the shadow of this prize. And to a leader who has to make some of the toughest decisions on the planet, that could be a heavy cross to bear. It is what it is.

M.K.G at 140

October 2nd went without notice here in the US. The only thing significant in the news was President Obama's epic journey to Copenhagen to bring the Olympics to Chicago. Which as we know was of no consequence. The only significant impression he left behind was his carbon footprint. Even in nuclear armed India, this day was low key as peace between Pakistan and India was more elusive than ever.

A child once asked President Obama to name one person that inspired him the most and his answer was Mahatma Gandhi. October 2nd was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's 140th birthday. He was one of the greatest men ever to walk the earth in the 20th century. Gandhi is the reason why phrases like peace, non-violence, human rights and equality truly make sense in our increasingly violent world. He defined what humanity meant and what it should mean if we were to live in peace in harmony.

"My life is my message" he said as he experimented with truth and all its complexities. His solution was simplicity. While his political life was controversial, for which he suffered a violent end, his philosophical and spiritual life without doubt was profound. He was a man beyond his time. Even though he was immersed in religiosity his outlook for the future was real and modern. He is as relevant today as Nietzsche, Marx, Kierkegaard, Plato or Sartre.

"Be the change you want to see in the world" he said and sparked the end of colonialism and launched the beginning of a new world order. Without him and his ideas there would be no King, Mandela or Aung Song Su Kyi. Without them there would be no end of apartheid, no desegregation and therefore no President Obama.

He was a man of action. An idea that could not be put into practice for human betterment held no interest to him. Seen from this moment in time not everything the Mahatma (the great one) wrote, said and did is acceptable. But what made him great, were not his monumental victories on the political front, but his humility to confront his flaws with moral strength. His moral courage was his strength.

So on this occasion I would like to put forth four of his ideas that profoundly impacted me and make more sense today than ever.

1. Control of the Palate. He believed the first place a human is seduced is on the palate. He believed eating is necessary only for sustaining a body and keeping it fit for service. It makes perfect sense as we find ourselves battling obesity as a global epidemic.

2. The concept of Swadeshi. One must purchase one's requirements as much as possible locally. He believed you could serve the world best by serving one's neighbor. He believed charity done close to home is most effective. Act locally think globally.

3. The doctrine of Ahmisa. Ahimsa literally means non-killing. He said it is not enough to just be non-violent in action. Harboring violent, negative and unpleasant thoughts was enough for you to depart from the idea of Ahimsa.

4. Sustainable living. He believed that with simple living the resources of the planet can sustain us comfortably and his famous words "earth provides us enough for our needs but not for our greed" is more true today than ever as we ponder the effects of climate change and the rape of the planet.

While many think Gandhi is passe, I think he is more relevant today than ever. While there is no shortage of rhetoric around ideas of peace, human rights, disarmament and equality, action is rare, measured or limited. He said "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent". Something to contemplate as we deploy soldiers to keep the peace.

It is what it is.

Red Rain

When speaking or thinking about unparalleled human atrocity against fellow human beings in the twentieth century, the names of three people instantly come to mind. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. While for the most part Hitler and Stalin have found their rightful place in history, Mao continues to be revered and celebrated in China as a leader unsurpassed. The 60th anniversary celebrations that took place on October 1st - orchestrated to a jaw dropping gaudy spectacle - showed the Communist Party come of age, by wiping and reshaping its dirty past and consolidating its grip over a new generation with the seductive promise of capitalism.

The 60th anniversary celebrations of the Peoples Republic of China were very tightly managed. Only a select 30,000 were invited to see it in person, the rest were ordered to stay home and watch it on TV. All dissidents were arrested a few days before the event and media access was closely monitored. Apart from the impressive and wasteful fireworks display reminiscent of the recent Olympic orgy, Tiananmen Square looked more like North Korea than China. Military hardware was on glorious display, soldiers by the thousands marched in impeccable symmetry and hordes of carefully picked Chinese men, women and children sang nationalist songs as they marched down the boulevard in unison. The cult of personality of the party bosses and its past leaders was on full display, as gigantic portraits of Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, Jiang Zemin and others were paraded on floats. It seemed like there was a deliberate attempt to hark back to the glory days, to send a message that the Communist Party was still in charge and stronger than ever.

What was obviously missing were solemn pauses for the lives lost during the Communist Party’s rise to power — not for the estimated tens of millions who died during the civil war, nor the millions of landlords, Nationalist sympathizers and other perceived enemies who were exterminated during Mao’s drive to consolidate power. Not for the siege at Changchun where an estimated 160,000 civilians were deliberately starved to death by Mao's army. The 40,000 who survived did so by eating insects, leather belts and, in some cases, the bodies that littered the streets. And of course no mark of respect for the countless who died during the 1989 pro-democracy Tiananmen Square uprising. This incident has so successfully been wiped out of the Chinese consciousness that if one were to google the words " Tiananmen Square" in China, just a few images of the landmark would sift through while outside China all you would see are countless images of the anonymous brave lone man standing in front of a convoy of tanks.

History is always written by the victors for the victors, and often the vanquished are committed to oblivion. In the case of China a whole generation's memory has been successfully conditioned through censorship, to forget the moments in its recent history that truly made its red flag red with blood.

It is hard to believe that just twenty years ago one would risk severe punishment if not seen wearing a Moa suit. Today a few in China can afford to wear Gucci, Prada and Dolce & Gabbana. No country on earth has seen such a monumental change, in such a short time. At the same time somethings have not changed at all. China still puts more people to death than any nation in the world. Political dissent is not tolerated and human rights are ignored by giving enough of its people a chance to wear a western suit and a tie.

China will soon be the planets second largest economy and will solidify its unshakable influence on the globe and the Communist Party of China will take credit for it. So for this 60th celebration China showed its might by virtually controlling the weather. Clouds were artificially seeded and banished giving way to blue skies, the high command would not have it any other way. Rain was forbidden. As a sign of the times even the Empire State building in New York city, the erstwhile center of capitalism, turned its lights red on this day. It is what it is.

You Lie!

September 7, 2003 a president stood at a podium, facing a room full of "distinguished gentlemen" and spoke the greatest lie ever spoken. Nobody shouted "you lie!", nobody showed disrespect by waving pamphlets and placards of protest, nobody asked how would we pay for it. The result, nations were dragged into war, countless innocent paid with their lives and a people were morally and financially bankrupt in the eyes of the world.

Six years later another president stands at that same podium and makes a speech, hoping to bring that same group of "distinguished gentlemen" to fix something that is broken to the core. He attempts to bring to the people of a so called "wealthy nation" health care that works for all and not a few. Quality care that everyone is entitled to as a human right. He attempts to unite the congress to work for a common good. He is heckled, shouted at, called a liar, socialist, Marxist, fascist, communist, terrorist and is compared by the right wing to the most hated man in history, Hitler. Never in the history of the United States has a president been heckled during a speech to the congress. This is a new dark stain and a sign of the times that will be recorded for posterity.

We have seen images on TV of absolute chaos and pandemonium on the assembly floor of South Korea, India, Iraq and other nations where congressmen come close to fist fights, smash furniture and show disrespect to their office. Now the United States has joined those ranks. In a vote 240 to 179, the House of Representatives officially rebuked Republican Joe Wilson for disgracing the office of the president by calling him out in the middle of his speech to the nation. The unfortunate aspect of that vote is that 179 members of congress did not find Joe Wilson's action objectionable. He got away with a slap on his wrist when he should have been firmly censured. The dignity of the congress which as it is, is at an all time low, has now fallen even further.

In a recent interview president Jimmy Carter acknowledged that the reason we are seeing such outbursts and rising opposition to President Obama and his policies is because he is not white. The color of his skin is causing deep seeded racism to surface in ways never seen before. His eloquence, intellect, dignity and poise is falling by the wayside for many, just because he is half black. Imagine what would have happened if he was full black.

The fact of the matter is that in politics, which is mostly "poli-tricks", the people are habitually lied to by their leaders. Be it Obama, Bush or Kennedy. In retrospect one has to gauge the impact of those lies and the larger context they were framed under. There is a lot to disagree, debate and discuss about what a president proposes. But to instinctively respond due to deep seeded prejudice is deplorable.

The right wing everywhere operates on the fringe. This time around the Republican party has been hijacked by the fringe as they see no other way to mount an opposition against a popular president. This in no means is a recent trend. Truman faced it from Senator Joseph McCarthy, Kennedy faced it from the religious right and Clinton faced it as they tried to pin the murder of Vince Foster on him, when in fact he had committed suicide. To understand how the right wing operates in America today, it is worth reading Max Blumenthal's carefully researched book Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party. He makes a crystal clear analysis of how the Republican party has transformed from being the "big tent party" to an entity that embodies only virtues of extremism, much like any fundamentalist group out there. He also talks about how radio disc jockeys and media ideologues like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are deliberately painting the current president in a certain light, in order to serve the agenda of the extreme right.

As the battle lines are drawn in the murky world of politics and media, one thing is for sure, lies are transparent and can be concealed and camouflaged only for so long. Public display of one's prejudice is tolerated only by a few. And you cannot shape public debate on policy via deceit and deception. You have to come clean. It is what it is.

9/11

It is that time of the year when we in New York look to the sky and remember that ill fated morning. A moment in time etched onto every New Yorker's being, like a hot brand seared onto the skin of an animal.

Today "nine-eleven" has become just a phrase which is often used and abused to define a turning point in the time line of our recent existence. An endless amount has been said about how the world changed since that September day in New York. Wars ignited, countless killed and incarcerated, countries turned into fortresses and a heightened mistrust of the other growing all over the world. Instead of revealing my thoughts about the obvious, I thought I would share my 9/11 story. A memorial to my memory. Here it is.


LOOKING FOR TWINS, AGE 28
September 11th 2001 6:30 AM: my plane took flight from Hancock Airport, Syracuse, on the dot. The previous night I was restless and stayed up flipping through mindless television until 2 AM. I was awake by 5 AM to catch my flight. As the Airbus soared over the clouds there was a sense of peace. The golden sun shone on the silver wings as the plane swayed to the left to go down on JFK airport. There in the far distance I saw the monolithic twins jutting out of the concrete jungle, bold indestructible and timeless. The sky was clear as far as I could see and below me the Atlantic’s ripples shone, speckled with boats leaving ribbons of surf. We touched down at 7:30 AM and within no time I was in a yellow taxi stuck in the middle of Atlantic avenue with the morning traffic reminding me I was back in chaotic, polluted, beautiful Brooklyn. There was still that sense of peace from being in the air and life seemed normal on the ground. By the time I completed my mildly frustrating taxi ride and rang the doorbell it was 8:15 AM and she was surprised to see me back home early. I wanted to surprise her and kept my arrival a secret. I had chosen the right day for it. My three-year-old daughter was delighted to see me. The lack of sleep was taking its toll; I was groggy and irritated. It was time for my daughter’s daily chariot ride to school. As I bent down to tie her shoelaces we heard a loud bang. She remarked, "Daddy I hear thunder" I said it must be a balloon popping. That was the first airborne missile made of jet fuel and bodies smashing into one of the twins. Having ignored the sound, the two of us started our routine journey to school. As we came out of the gate George, my friend from across the street stuck his head out of his window announcing that a plane had crashed into the twin towers. For a moment I was worried, but then I thought it must be an unfortunate accident, a Cessna must have lost its bearings.

As I reached the end of my street, I could sense there was something wrong. When I looked up at the sky, there it was the hideous remains of dead souls in the form of thick black murky smoke. All heads around me were looking skyward and I was walking in a rush unaware of the scale of the events to follow. A young lady walked up to me and said another plane had just crashed into the towers. I thought to myself "why is she telling me this?" When I looked around I noticed strangers talking to each other. I thought, "well, there goes the rumor factory." As we crossed Flatbush Avenue the city was already screaming of sirens. But when I saw an army of fire engines charge past me- that’s when I knew there was something seriously wrong.

We moved along and made our way to school. There was palpable tension in the air but nobody knew where it was coming from. As usual I led her into her classroom, packed away her stroller, and headed home. As I reached the main street, the chaos was tangible. Minutes later the New York skyline was engulfed in a thick gigantic white cloud, and I was back in no time to pick up my daughter from school. On our way back we saw streams of people covered in white powder pouring into Brooklyn. They walked like an army of zombies with their Kabuki faces expression less and dumb struck. In my mind they were walking in slow motion. They had seen the twins fall. Everybody else saw it on TV over and over again, but what I saw in their eyes was death, and what I saw on TV was concrete.

September 11th 2002; it’s a year since I flew from Syracuse, and I have seen the planes on TV go into the towers countless times from every angle possible. Much to the credit of the camera savvy American public. And every time I see it, there is no telling what goes through my being. As my train crossed the Manhattan Bridge today, meandering into the great metropolis, I took a moment to gaze in the direction where the twins once stood. I could not help but see the planes on their hellish journey once more in my mind.

9-11-2002 was a magical day much like the day I flew from Syracuse: clear blue sky, the balmy sun shining high in the sky. But this time there was a bright white cloud hanging over downtown. It was as if three thousand doves were looking down in reflection on a large hole surrounded by tall buildings a place where they once worked. Trailing behind the large white cloud were other smaller clouds forming a trail exactly in the direction the black smoke blew on that grisly day. Now all that remained was a large field of empty earth - a painful reminder of people dying saving people, people being vaporized into thin air in an orange mushroom and people jumping through blown out windows in hopes of flight. As we all watched the concrete fountain come crashing down, did anybody see faces of the three thousand or so reported missing? They said they were able to find the remains of only sixty people, where did the rest go? They all looked down today from that white cloud, as President Bush shook hands with their loved ones around a sacred circle of flowers. As tears came down their faces and as children tried to make sense of the gathering, the moment was lost in a media haze, as the shaking hands and the ritual took precedence. Then came speeches of patriotism, revenge and resolve.

And then came the war. It is what it is.

War is Peace

It did not take a war, economic sanctions or diplomatic isolation to bring a reprehensible regime to its knees. It took a man to spend a lifetime in prison. "The struggle is my life", said Nelson Mandela as he fought quietly. Famous words that are not to be taken lightly, as that is what makes people prevail against all adversity. As Aung Sung Su Kyi goes back to her prison home with her elegance and dignity intact, she follows in the footsteps of Gandhi, Mandela and King. Her penance is the only thing that will break the monsters back and set the Burmese free. The world is too preoccupied to see her plight. While China and India prop up the military junta in utter shame, as America and Britain propped up Botha's South Africa, it is her humanity that will rise up to steal the thunder. And then everyone will rush to garland and celebrate her with pomp and song. But for now we wait, hoping she will conquer death and desolation. It is what it is.

Why does war come to those who have nothing? Why does war rain down on only the poor, disenfranchised and the miserable? Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Darfur, Iraq, Congo no matter where you turn, all you see are images of people who have nothing, now having to contend with bullets, mortars and drones. Running with their only possessions, their life and their children. The searing image of naked napalm burned children running down a tar road in agony, sent chills through the compassionate, bringing the Vietnam war to an end. Images of children in bandages are a common occurrence now, but it does not seem to do anything to a world desensitized to numbness.

While we sit in our arm-chairs professing about bringing wars to an end it becomes clear that like racism, regionalism and colonialism, war is an integral aspect of humanity. Ever since the World Wars ended and the United Nations was created to stop wars, there has never been a single moment in earth's history, when wars were not waged in some shape or form on its surface. It is clear that as an institution the United Nations is a miserable failure. It is a political and bureaucratic organization like any that feeds on itself. Decisions are made by a select group of nations who violate every principle there is of peace and democracy. It is time to abolish the United Nations or restructure it so it works. It has become a fat pig which gets very little done in the face of crisis after crisis facing the globe.

War is the most depraved economic engine that prospers one nation while decimating another. There will always be war maiming and killing people as long as it provides jobs and industry. There is no such thing as a "just war" there is only a "cost war". Some Taliban fighters bear arms as it provides a livelihood. A man gets into his car in an American suburb to go build a fighter jet or a nuclear bomb, as it provides him a means to buy another car. How are they any different? It is what it is.

My name is Khan. So what?

On August 14th, an Indian movie actor named Shahrukh Khan was pulled aside by immigration officials at Newark Airport, in New Jersey. He was detained for ninety minutes and then let go. This common occurrence that happens to many travelers from all parts of the world at airports across America, became an international incident. Primarily because Shahrukh Khan is a Bollywood actor with a huge following and expected airport security officials to be his fans as well.

Ever since 19 mad men flew airplanes into buildings the world has been turned upside down and people have come to accept it as a fact of life. Secondary immigration checks at airports have become routine. Initially Shahrukh Khan alleged he was singled out because his name indicated he was a Muslim. Just a few months ago parents of a relative of mine, who are in their late seventies, were subjected to this same ordeal at a Seattle airport. They never made it to the news. The only thing they shared with Shahrukh Khan, was their Indian origin.

During his ninety minute ordeal, Shahrukh Khan with a single text message was able to activate the Indian government to come to his rescue. The Indian embassy in New York was alerted instantly about this incident and it was dealt with at the highest levels with a complaint officially lodged. Back in India, two government ministers reacted with anger stating “We will take up the issue with the United States government strongly. Such incidents involving Indians due to their religion or nationality should not happen ... we will not accept it.” There were many other angry protests from movie stars and everyone else who wanted to be heard. The Indian and American news media generously made room for this story, even John Stewart on The Daily Show devoted a whole segment. Shahrukh Khan had more to gain from this than lose. His name was now known across America. Even his blockbuster movies could not achieve this feat. If this was a publicity stunt, it was a gigantic success. His trip to the US in part, was to promote his new film My name is Khan which incidentally is about a Muslim man persecuted in post 9/11 America.

In the past many Indian movie stars and dignitaries have been subjected to treatment at the airports which in their mind they did not deserve because they were special. Even the former Indian President was frisked at the Delhi airport by the Continental Airline staff, causing an uproar. Anyone detained at airports feels the same. They always feel they have been singled out. The fact of the matter is we live in a world where shoes and belts have to come off before you board a plane. Its as simple as that. No matter who you are, you can be singled out for further questioning. There is no special pass that will get you past this line. And even though its overkill, I don't think anyone would like to take the slightest chance at 31,000 feet cruising altitude.

And why in our culture do we give movie actors so much importance, that they demand to be treated differently? Relentlessly their images are driven into our subconscious via pornographic billboards, magazines, gossip columns and the insatiable and infinite television/internet machine. Yes they have the talent to do things in front of a camera which most people wont. Mostly because they are exhibitionists by nature and for that reason alone they get paid more than they deserve. They shake their hips, lip sync to songs they don't sing, disrobe under bright lights and kill and maim people all in the service of entertainment. Sure that requires talent, talent to be schizophrenic without being schizophrenic. But for that, should they be held in such high esteem? And should they represent the United Nations like some Hollywood actors do? Yes good acting is a talent. It is an art-form. A craft that needs to be honed to draw people into a fictitious world so they can forget the real one. That is all it is. The glamor and glitter is hogwash, a wrapping made to conceal flaws. Deifying mortals for the way they look and the expensive pretend games they play, is sheer insanity.

If people think they are "stars" or "celebrities" (what ever that means) they have to realize that they are nothing more than members of the "meat market". The market that drives and pimps them for profits. The only stars that exist are the ones in the night sky. So lets not give Shahrukh Khan or Tom Cruise more than what they deserve. An occasional space on our television and movie screens and in our dinner conversations. Which are as disposable as cheap wine and chewing gum. It is what is.

When is it racisim?

On my break from New York city, in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, I was on my bicycle going uphill on an empty sidewalk which doubled for a bike lane. The manicured green and the gray and beige of prefab houses surrounded me, as I enjoyed the fresh breeze against my chest giving me a work out.

A loud honk from a car behind me broke my mood violently. The next moment, I saw a young white boy with a boorish face sticking out of the front window of his car up to his waist glaringly showing me the finger. Before I could respond the car was out of sight over the hill leaving me to wonder what this unprovoked action was all about.

In the early 90's I had experienced my fair share of racism as a foreign graduate student at Bowling Green, Ohio. So my only conclusion, here I was again in the mid-west and here was another one to add to my list.

While this incident could have been a random biased prank by an ignorant teenager or a frat boy, being on the receiving end, I could not take it any other way. And there in lies the problem.

Racism is like pornography. You know it when you see it.

Racism in all its forms is a global phenomenon, a product of man's tribal nature. In America we have been trying to move beyond it since the civil rights movement brought about desegregation. The laws have brought us a long way forward, but as a people we still have miles to go.

Most people I passed by in Minneapolis smiled or said hello and were generally courteous. But this one incident left a deep scar. While many in this country put up a front of not being racist as that is what is expected of a law abiding civil society, what lies beneath and how it manifests itself is any ones guess.

Every now and then racism and ignorance surface in the form of patronizing behavior or as in this case just plain insensitive stupidity.

In this stolen nation of ours there is no singular creed or breed that owns anything. If power is to be measured by strength in numbers and economic prowess, so be it.

But what defines America's true nature is that anyone can lay claim to this land as long as you abide by the laws and respect your neighbor. That's what makes this place special and like no other on the planet. And so to feel superior by the color of ones skin or creed and have disdain for another, is nothing but folly.

With Obama's election there is at least a sense that we are living in a post racial America. And that is true for people who want to derive strength from it and celebrate the true essence of this land and its people. And for those who want to live in the past, there is no shortage of Limbaughs, Savages, O'Rileys and Hannity's to rally around.

When Obama used the word "stupid" in response to the policeman's action in Cambridge, Massachusetts, he found himself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The White House beer fest was effective damage control to calm the nerves of a nation that had been incessantly buzzing with debate over the incident.

But the true "teachable moment" coming out of all this I would hope would be that since the president had weighed in, the policemen around the country would respond in a more responsible way when dealing with people of "color" and hopefully the people on the receiving end would "cut the policemen some slack".

Given the way of the world and the people at the receiving end the latter would be harder to come by.

As for me, I am willing to accept ignorance but there is no place for intolerance, not here not anywhere.

It is what it is.

RACE/DISGRACE

In 2002 the much celebrated Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. presented a mini-series on PBS titled America Beyond the Color Line. The series explored the status of prominent and not so prominent African-Americans in America today. From the projects of south side Chicago to the upscale golf courses of New Jersey, Professor Gates gave the viewer a fascinating account of the African American experience.

On July 16, 2009 professor Gates, a black man, found himself on the wrong side of the color line when a white police officer arrested him for breaking into his own home. Professor Gates, who has taught at Harvard for nearly two decades, arrived home from a trip to China to find his front door jammed. With the help of his taxi driver he managed to pry it open and entered his house. Minutes later a policeman came knocking at his door asking suspecting questions. A white female neighbor had called in the police thinking her neighbor's house was being burglarized. What transpired between Professor Gates and the policeman materialized into the arrest and disgrace of a scholar and the Boston police department.

Whether this was a case of "racial profiling" is a question that has been debated to death in the frenzy of the relentless media. Even President Obama, who in the past has stealthily walked on water when responding to questions on race, could not escape the onslaught. His answer in defense of a personal friend came across as less than presidential, but understandable. But what we all can agree, is that there was no reason for this to be played out the way it did. While the police by their action disgraced an eminent scholar, the media did its fare share by plastering the professor's mug shot across the screen over and over again. Another photograph that was relentlessly zoomed and panned across was that of the professor being lead away in handcuffs. The indignity Professor Gates suffered has been sobering in every sense of the word.

Then came the explanations from the very characters who were involved in this circus, in the same media that had earlier maligned them. Even the president had to clarify his position in the most overt sense, so as not to come across as biased. That goes to show how sensitive an issue "race" is, more so because Obama is president.

Despite the truth behind the details of what happened that night, one cannot resist wondering how this would have played out if the person breaking in was a white person dressed in a mint suit. Would the neighbor still have felt unsafe? Would the police at the scene have behaved differently? And if it was not a celebrated Harvard Professor and a friend of the president, would the media have paid any attention at all? What makes the situation complicated is not what happened that night, but what may have happened if the parameters were different.

The color line in America is always charged by the nature of this nation's past. Obama's presidency in many ways may have softened that line, but in other instances has also hardened it. The overt polarization in the views expressed on television and in politics these days, is a telling sign of the times. The color line always remains present. It is its manifestation that is hidden. It is what it is.

Azadi Square

"Azadi" in Pharsi and Urdu means "Freedom". A word so quintessential to our identity and well being, that without it one would be less human in every possible way. To not know what it means to be "Free" in mind, body and spirit, is to be denied ones humanity. So as Iranians spilled into "Azadi Square" demanding their vote to be ratified, they were most certainly demanding more than that. They were demanding their freedom. Freedom from 30 years of control both in the personal and public sphere. Freedom from status quo.

Iran by far is the most free thinking democratic nation in the Muslim world. Being the most literate and educated population in the Muslim middle east, it is not a surprise as free thought resides in the notion of being self aware. Even under an Islamic regime that asserts itself in draconian ways, and where real power rests with the clerics, the fact that they elect a president via an act of plebiscite, is admirable. So when this minuscule expression of people power inside a virtual Sharia dictatorship was taken away, everything was bound to come crashing down, and it did.

Two thirds of Iran's population is under the age of thirty. A manifestation of the massive human loss (1 million) suffered during its decade long war with Iraq. This demographic is desperate for change. Even though the regime has been overtly anti-American, the youth has been pro-American more so after Obama mystified the globe. And so they rallied behind Mir-Hossein Mousavi and the reformists, inspired by Obama's Cairo overture, hoping they would heed their call. One must not forget that Mousavi is no saint. He is part of the establishment that rules Iran and presided over the bloody war as Prime Minister while Ayatollah Khomeini sent young men, wave after wave, into battle. At this point in time Mousavi is dissenting along with other powerful "reformists" asking for change in the way Iran is governed. And that is seen as a threat to the establishment who want the old boys club to rule forever. Hence the stolen election and the aftermath.

If you have never traveled to Iran and have not kept up with the evolution of that nation, to understand what it is like to live in Iran and be Iranian, I recommend watching two films. Abbas Kiarostami's masterpiece "Ten" and Marjane Satrapi's "Persepolis". In subtle ways both films explore the deep desires of a free thinking, modern society which is kept under wraps by an imposed regime which demands obedience to the limits of absurdity.

History has demonstrated time and again, when people rise up to reclaim what is theirs, blood stains the streets. Iranians have shed their fair share in these past weeks. The killing of Neda Soltani, a student whose gruesome last moments were captured on video and posted on "youtube" for the world to see, has transformed the nature of the uprising to more than just a stolen election. Her death has become a defining moment which will always symbolize this moment for posterity. Much like the image of the nameless Chinese man in front of a row of army tanks has come to visualize the Tienanmen Sqaure pro-democracy uprising. While a few foreign journalists with cameras were able to bring that image to the world in 1989, ten years later the uncontainable nature of the internet proved much more lethal. Demonstrating the true democratic power of this technology we have come to take for granted.

While the regime regains control and Iran drops out of the headlines overrun by Michael Jackson and Obama sets the tone for the world in dealing with Iran, one thing cannot be denied. A fissure has opened among the power brokers of Iran. While Ahmednijad blames Obama and the west for the chaos (his only defense), he cannot ignore the diversity of the demographic that filled the streets asking for the truth. When the dust settles my forecast is that Iran can go one of two ways. It can clamp down and become a militaristic reclusive regime like North Korea or transform into China. The power brokers could settle their disputes and offer just enough consumerism to their population so that their transgressions would be ignored. The question remains, if Iran begins to become China will the west sweep everything under the carpet and return to business as usual or will it still hold the regime accountable. So far Mousavi is not backing down and the world is waiting. My hope is for Iran to become the Poland of 1989 and not China. But, it is what it is.

Colbert in Baghdad

This past week fans of the Comedy Central TV show Colbert Report, saw its protagonist Stephen Colbert orchestrate his daily dose of political comic commentary from one of Saddam Hussein's palaces in Baghdad. His live audience this time were the men and women of the United States armed forces. The show was sponsored by the USO (United Services Organization). The USO as their website states is a "private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to support the troops by providing morale, welfare and recreation-type services to the men and women in uniform." In its 67 years of service the USO has made America's warriors forget their killing, stress and drudgery for a moment and laugh it off with comedians, movie stars, rock stars and celebrities of every kind. The iconic actor/comedian Bob Hope, was a regular celebrity entertaining the troops since World War II till his death in 2003. This time it was Stephen Colbert's turn.

Being an ardent fan, I felt Colbert was an unlikely candidate as his edgy liberal political humor did not fit the bill. But to my surprise there he was on stage against a deliberate tacky set with a new opening graphic mocking the Army and Saddam Hussein's regime. He walked on stage dressed in a tailor made army camouflage suit and tie sporting a golf club on his shoulder. The golf club he revealed was an homage to Bob Hope who always appeared on stage before the troops with his trade mark golf club and cap.

So the jokes began in its trade mark fashion. Mini episodes packaged in the US showed Colbert at Army basic training camp and flying with the elite Thunderbirds. He poked fun at the Army and Airforce in subtle ways, and got the deserved laughs. General Ray Odierno was his first guest. He tickled him by saying he was intimidated by him not because he was a general, but because he looked like Shrek. Later the General got orders from none other than the Commander-In-Chief via satellite to shave Colbert's hair to make him look like a real soldier. This act spread like fire capturing headlines across America's ever hungry news media signaling the arrival of Colbert into the consciousness of the American public like never before. The next day he had John McCain via satellite saluting the troops and making a dig at Colbert. Wrapping it up on the last day of his stint in Iraq he had none other than George W. Bush via satellite applauding the troops for a job well done and poking fun at the time when he had to suffer through Colbert's much talked about and "youtubed" performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. I think this was Bush's first television appearance since we last saw him take off from the White House lawn. What a way to return, saluting the very troops he lied to before sending them into battle. And to my surprise Colbert did not take this opportunity to use his wit which he is known for.

All in all it felt like Colbert had sold out. His edgy humor was reserved to current affairs in the US. He did declare that the war was over and America had won but that was as far as he went in being edgy about the politics of war. He came across more as the "Patriot" he so often mocks on his shows. Imagine if he had done this while Bush was president. It would have had a whole different taste.

These days Obama seems to be on television all the time. Since he became president we have seen him have burgers with Biden, taking Michelle out on a date, sitting across Leno, giving Brian Williams a tour of his "Crib" and now on Colbert Report. He is a popular president. America still goes dreamy eyed whenever he or his family are seen. Shouldn't he get off the air and devote his time and precious image to noteworthy causes? He could fall victim to over exposure. The change that he so fervently promised is slow and much too measured. There is nothing radical about it. And where ever you turn, from climate change, health care and economic reform and the war, what we need are bold and profound steps. The time for measured responses is long passed. What is stopping him? I hope the "Hope" that was promised was not "more of the same" in a new package. The Republican party is making sure he will be reelected for another term. He has the power to pull the plugs. So why the muteness? We will have to wait and see. But for how long?

On another note the fact that Colbert did not venture out into Baghdad to do his shtick, goes to show that the war is far from over. He could have driven that point home more in addition to declaring victory that he did to loud applause, but he did not. Even though Saddam is gone and he was an "evil" tyrant and all that, it was arrogant on Colbert's part to choose one of his palaces filled with American soldiers as a setting for his show. It was just in poor taste. And in conclusion there are people in Iraq who are suffering the loss and pain of their loved ones. Life is still miserable and dismal there. War is no laughing matter. A bombing in Iraq these days finds very little coverage in the American media. As far as America is concerned the war is over and it is only a matter of time when the "war machinery" will return to its barracks. The fact that a show of this nature was aired across the US, is an indication that there is a strong shift in the mood of the nation. Yes war is dreadful and one should be able to distance oneself from it and seek humor in order to find sanity and survive. Especially for those who conduct it. But to do it in a fashion so skewed is arrogant. It is what it is.

Burmese Brouhaha

On May 14, 2009, 63-year-old Nobel Peace laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, was moved from her home to Insien Prison. She was charged with violating the terms of her house arrest. Her arrest grew out of a bizarre event in which John Yettaw, a Vietnam veteran from Missouri, swam across the Inya lake and spent at least one night on the grounds of her home, where she has been confined for 13 of the past 19 years. For the past few years she has been in frail health and it is believed being incarcerated under harsh conditions could prove fatal.

Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest was due to expire at the end of May. There is a legal requirement to charge her or else release her from detention. At this crucial juncture, this incident is being seen by critics as a pretext to put her behind bars. The charges against her of breaching the terms of her house arrest show that the military junta will not tolerate any challenge to its power and legitimacy. Despite international pressure and concern, the Burmese government seems intent on pursuing elections in 2010, which the generals think will legitimise their rule.

Once again there is outcry mostly from the west and not a sigh from the region. While US and UK contemplate sanctions India in the grips of an election does not seem to have even registered this major event. All the major media outlets and online publications are preoccupied with the "circus" known as the Indian election and Aishwarya Rai's red carpet strut at the Cannes film festival. BBC, New York Times and Al Jazeera have all given this event prime coverage, why this apathy from the region?

Aung San Suu Kyi embodies everything for our times that Mahatma Gandhi did for his. She is an inspiration to anyone who believes in the ideals of freedom and democracy. Her imposed silence is a powerful force for change and change is coming. Nations and governments who do not recognize this fail their people and the world. The 2007 mass uprising of the Burmese people (Burma VJ) against their oppressors could not turn the tide, lets hope this new development will. Lets hope good conscience and sense prevails in the region and the plight of the Burmese people triumphs over profit. It is what it is.

Impotent Superpower

War rages on in the south in Sri Lanka. In the west Pakistan and Afghanistan are entering yet another bloody chapter in their war for survival. In the east non-violent mass democracy movements are thwarted over and over again by the military junta of Burma. Political instability is an ever present danger in the north in Nepal. Surrounded by chaos India prides itself to be a strong stable political democracy and sees itself as a "superpower". But is it really worthy of being one?

Quintessentially India is a regional "superpower" without a doubt. A nuclear arsenal, a large standing well equipped army, navy and air force, a space program, software, 9% growth rate etc. all make it a nation worthy of the label. But when it comes to real seismic political and diplomatic influence India falls way short in its behavior as a regional power. When it comes to real tangible action in keeping peace in the region and promoting values that form the skeleton of its very being, India comes across as an inward looking parochial nation.

In 2007 when the Burmese people spilled onto the streets in a mass non-violent protest against the junta, none seen like since the Indian uprising against the British, the Indian government stood in the sidelines and watched. As the military regime put down the movement with brutal force (Burma VJ) India's voice was barely heard on the international scene. On the contrary in 2008 India signed several agreements with the repressive regime to explore petroleum and natural gas in the region. Joining China, Korea and Japan in inadvertently propping up the military junta.


According to the Worldwatch Institute in the last two decades the civil war in Sri Lanka has killed more than 60,000 people with another 20,000 missing. One of them being the Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was assassinated by a suicide bomber from Sri Lanka in 1991.

For the past decade Norway has played the role of the peacemaker between the Sri Lankan government and the rebels, only with limited successes. In the late 80's Rajiv Gandhi unlike other past and present leaders had engaged with the warring parties in a hope to be the peacemaker. The Indian army was sent in on a peace keeping mission which failed miserably. The mission was dubbed India's Vietnam. The leader of the Tamil rebel movement LTTE was invited to New Delhi to broker a peace deal, that failed as well. The Indian prime minister paid for it with his life.

Today as the Sri Lankan army fights to the finish, thousands of Sri Lankan Tamil civilians have been caught in the cross fire. There is a compete media black out. Reports coming out of the region can never be authentically corroborated. The United Nations once again proves impotent and powerless in stopping the carnage and the battle rages on taking with it women, children, the old and the young as collateral damage. India once again watches from the side line as the Tamils, whose origins are from the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, face the brunt of this war. Demonstrations in Canada and London have reverberated on the international scene bringing the plight of the Tamils to the world, but the voice from India once again lies silent.

On the western front as Pakistan engages the Taliban in the Swat valley and beyond, civilians in the thousands have been displaced into rag tag tents. An estimated half a million people are on the run from the Taliban, the Pakistan army and the American drones. There is no end in sight to this war and prospects of it spilling into Kashmir and destabilizing the region are much too real. Once again India watches and waits from the sidelines.

What does this posture the Indian government takes decade after decade mean? On one hand India has many grave internal security problems that it has to contend with on a daily basis and an argument can be made that it does not need to pile on more on its back. Unlike the US, the only other sizable democratic superpower, India does not have aspirations of empire and does not make it its business to spread democracy around the world. America on the other hand sees itself as the "global police" and makes it a point to exert its influence on a global scale, with sometimes questionable motives. For better or worse America does engage and therefore can call itself a "superpower". There are a number of blunders America has made in the chess game of power but it has also had the reputation of finding solutions through diplomacy and engagement. To its own detriment, America often cleans up the mess when regional powers are not willing to step up to the plate.

While the American envoy Richard Holbrooke does damage control and trots around the region making deals, why cannot India take the lead for a change? Why cannot India behave like a "superpower" for the right reasons? There is only political and diplomatic capital to be gained. This is the time to work with Pakistan to build stronger bridges and mutual trust. This is time to stand up against repressive regimes and use the word "Gandhi" where we can. This is the time to help people. It is easy to say it is their problem and not ours. And look where that has brought us. It is what it is.

Behemoth Election

The world's largest democracy started casting ballots last week. With an electorate of 714 million and a mind numbing thousand regional and national parties to choose from, the Indian election is undoubtedly the world's most complex and truly democratic plebiscite. It is also the world's longest election. It is unveiled in five phases starting on April 16th and ending on May 13th. The final results are announced on May 16th and then the wrangling for power begins.

Being a parliamentary system of democracy, the party that wins the most number of seats ushers in the Prime Minister. The people do not directly vote for the Prime Minister. Since there are so many parties and such a diverse electorate it is almost impossible for any one party to win the required two thirds majority. In this election the two major national parties The Congress (ruling party) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (sitting opposition) or BJP will vie to form a majority coalition by forming alliances with a whole range of smaller parties and independents to take control of the parliament.

While for the most part the Indian elections are largely free and fair by no means are they peaceful. They have not been so in a long time. Election violence, vote rigging, vote buying and machine tampering have become a common feature. But it is to be expected in a land that is so vast, diverse and sometimes impossible to govern. Many regional conflicts around the nation have a stake in undermining the state. But largely the Indian elections are free and fair enough to swear in a government with legitimacy and an election commission truly autonomous and powerful to implement their mandate.

The ruling class or the breed of characters who enter the arena and practice the art of Indian politics have long been maligned as they have preyed on the weakness, desperation and ignorance of the electorate and exploited them for their own benefit. The poor, illiterate, rural India has always been the vote bank that put people in and out of power. In this election the middle class disinterested youth could change that tide but the rural folk still hold the key. And therefore it is the village where candidates go making false promises and bribing voters with free TV's, electricity and cheap food, in a land where increasingly the poor keep falling of the bottom.

Largely the admiration and respect for the Indian politician died soon after the generation of freedom fighters began to fade from the scene. After Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri departed an era ended. Then entered Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter who dramatically changed the political culture the remnants of which still plague the system. She fostered nepotism and rewarded people based on their loyalty to her and her party. Merit and character came second or did not count at all. And so began the dynastic rule of a family within a democracy and the rise of the corrupt politician who could be bought and sold. To this day the Indian elections are shaped by the Nehru-Gandhi family. Indira Gandhi's widowed daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi wields immense power and is a king maker, and now her son and daughter have entered the arena, walking in the footsteps of their grandmother more than their great grand father or father. Like the Kennedy's in the US the Gandhi's see it as their destiny to be pulled into the ugly business of politics as their fabricated mystique draws voters to them. Their fair skin Kashmiri/Italian good looks adds another layer of celebrity which the masses are drawn to like people are drawn to movie stars. A history of assassinations plaguing the family does not deter them from immersing themselves into the ugly seedy world of Indian politics. Today Rahul Gandhi, son of ex-prime minister Rajiv Gandhi is being groomed for the throne. He is a few years away from it, but by all indications he is on track, as his cult of personality grows.

Indian politics has never been for the faint hearted. It has always been the bastion of seasoned criminals, movie stars, businessmen and groomed politicians risen through the ranks. Corruption, monetary and moral, has been one character trait that has defined the Indian politician. Into this gumbo, this year, have entered two most unlikely candidates, Shashi Tharoor and Mallika Sarabhai. Both artists with global flare and pizazz. Neither was groomed for politics but both certainly were born with pedigree which in Indian politics can offset certain deficiencies.

Both candidates are contesting for a seat in the parliament. Tharoor is running from the southern state of Kerala, the most literate state in the country and Sarabhai from the western state of Gujarat which is the strong hold of the Hindu right wing BJP.

Mallika Sarabhai was born to Vikram and Mrinalini Sarabhai. Vikram Sarabhai was an Indian physicist who became a national hero when under Nehru he pioneered the Indian space program. Mirnalini Sarabhai, an accomplished dancer, is credited with reviving some of India's dieing classical dance traditions. Mallika herself is an accomplished dancer and fashions herself as an activist and development worker. With her classic good looks, suave persona and an impeccable Gujarati and English diction she has forged an institution unto herself in her home state. With the support of the NGO community she has launched herself as an independent candidate and is going head to head with the leader of the BJP, the seasoned 81 year old L.K. Advani.

Shashi Tharoor was born in London and educated in India and the United States. With a PhD in Law and Diplomacy he spent his career writing books and working at the United Nations. With eleven books, both fiction and non-fiction, and countless articles, op-ed's, book reviews published in most major American, British and Indian publications, he established himself as a formidable literary figure. He had aspirations of becoming the next secretary general of the UN when Kofi Annan stepped aside, but did not make the cut. So he took early retirement from his UN post as Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information and jumped into Indian politics head on. Being an avid admirer of Nehru and having written a book about him and being a close confidant to the Nehru-Gandhi family, it was but natural for him to join the Congress party.

While both these candidates have launched their campaigns on the heals of Obama's sleek victory, using the word "CHANGE" where ever possible, it is Mallika Sarabhai who has charted a more independent path. Both have fancy websites and youtube videos clearly trying to appeal to the younger generation. Like Obama, Mallika Sarabhai has mobilized a grass roots fund raising movement to finance her campaign and has been extraordinarily successful. Shashi Tharoor in contrast has used the established gargantuan machinery of the Congress party to win an election in a traditionally communist state. He has dropped his suit and adorned the white shirt and dhoti (Indian sarong), the dress that epitomizes and denigrates the visual look of an Indian politician. While Mallika Sarabhai prances around the countryside in her designer Shalwars, these two candidates in a sense are trying to signal a change in the political psyche of the Indian electorate.

While they may bring their pedigree and a level of sophistication to the arena, it will have to be seen how this would play out in the minds of the savvy voter who at times is highly educated, if not literate, in their decision making. While to a young urban audience they both bring a certain level of integrity, they also bring ambiguity. How this will be parsed, will be seen on election day. It is what it is.