Smoking Bomb

May 1, 2010, it is crowded in Times Square as usual. Wide eyed tourists all dazzled by the neon, whose glow is claimed to be visible from outer space, strain their necks upwards. At around 6:30 PM an unassuming T-Shirt vendor looks sideways and spots a smoking SUV parked on 45th street and alerts the police. And so begins an all to0 familiar chain of events. The 24/7 madness of the news media is put into motion. Soon live pictures of Times Square engulf TV screens across the nation. A robot is deployed from a distance. It becomes apparent it is a car bomb.

Within hours we find out the bomb is made up of a Nissan Pathfinder, gasoline, propane tanks, firecrackers, simple alarm clocks and eight bags of a granular substance, later determined to be nonexplosive grade of fertilizer, inside a 55-inch-tall metal gun locker. Enough to cause significant damage and put a city on edge which has seen the worst. And so begins a manhunt and media speculation runs amok. The usual suspects are all named. Al Qaeda, Taliban, Right wing militia, Home grown terrorists and everyone else in between. Without a shred of evidence at hand, everyone with two cents to add goes on the record on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and FOX. Some say the target was the Viacom building because of a Mohammad joke on their comedy show "South Park" that did not go down well earlier that month. Others are trying to track down a man seen on close circuit TV taking off his shirt close to the bomb site. 53 hours later a man is pulled off an Emirates flight to Dubai. The "Times Square Bomber" is found and Attorney General Eric Holder announces with pride, that the man has confessed to the act.

The Muslim community cringes as the name Faisal Shahzad is announced. They were hoping for a Timothy McVeigh, but no such luck. Pictures of a fresh fair faced young man with a glowing smile are plastered across every TV screen and newspaper and an ominous sketch of a distraught man of Pakistani descent turned terrorist is painted. We find out he is a naturalized citizen, who like many immigrants from the subcontinent came as a student on an F1 visa. We find out about his prominent family roots, broken marriage, his financial distress, his trips to Pakistan, the possibility of the Pakistani Taliban getting to his head and his newly cultivated pencil thin beard. These days any facial hair on brown skin is enough to brand you as a possible suspect. Faisal is read his Miranda rights, much to the displeasure of Senator John McCain and his creed, and is locked away in a maximum security cell in Manhattan. What we learn from here on about Faisal, is through carefully managed official disclosures from the FBI and the Justice Department and weak media reporting based on hear say and interviews of people he supposedly knew here in Connecticut and in his hometown in Pakistan.

The bomb if ignited could have killed with deadly impact. The morbidity and seriousness of this act cannot be discounted. But since Times Square was not in Iraq or Afghanistan, where a failure to ignite would have gone unreported, the outcome had unintended consequences. It became rife material for comedy. From John Stewart, Saturday Night Live to David Letterman were all getting laughs making fun of the alleged bomber, his name, his looks and his failure to succeed. Secretary Hillary Clinton was on "60 Minutes" saying she would come down hard on Pakistan if any links were to be established. Senator Joe Lieberman proposed introducing a bill that would strip residents of their citizenship if any link to terrorists or organizations deemed dangerous by the United States government were to be found, and so on and so forth.

What emerged from mere observation as a lay person who is not swept by printed words or sound bytes, was that Faisal's actions- if indeed he is the man behind the bomb-were that of a distraught man who had lost his bearings and resorted to violence to make a point. A list of such people in recent American history runs long. His motivations could definitely have been influenced by Jihadist rhetoric and other anti-American propaganda which is unusually wide spread outside the continental United States. But whether he was a trained assassin, sent on a mission, seems highly unlikely. A person on a mission in today's world, would have sat in the SUV until it exploded or would have been a little more skilled at putting together an explosive device.

Faisal Shazad joins a long list of men with a Muslim name, who have been detained for either hatching terror plots or coming close to executing one, as in this case. Every time some one is put away by the FBI, politicians come out of the woodwork proclaiming that there is a very present threat of people attacking the United States because they are jealous of "our way of life". Even President Obama did not stop short of expressing this sentiment this time. I guess it resonates with the masses and helps demonize the unknown and the unfamiliar. I always wonder what they mean by "our way of life". The rationale that was given for illegally invading Iraq and Afghanistan was largely because "our way of life" was under threat. Does "our way of life" mean consuming to the point where we endanger the planet, does it mean dominating the planet with economic and military force or does it mean our cherished freedoms. Most often the word "freedom" is evoked in conjunction with this phrase. The terrorists hate our "freedom" and therefore we must protect it, even if it means going to war in far of lands destroying other's freedoms under the guise of bringing freedom and democracy. The people who actually threaten "our way of life" are the very politicians who do the fear mongering and shred the constitution when it is convenient. Under the Bush administration "our way of life" was grossly violated for eight years using the Patriot Act. Innocent people paid with their blood and continue to do so and these home grown suited terrorists are yet to be brought to justice. When Senator John McCain speaks out against Miranda rights and Joe Lieberman attempts to sign into law a bigoted bill and the state of Arizona passes a racist law, that is when "our way of life" is threatened. But that threat is never seen as dangerous by a majority as it is violent only to the powerless.

The Jihadist terrorists who attack the United States do so because they have a bone to pick with the United States government and its checkered history. They see the United States government's double standards to hold on to global power and influence undermining the very democracy it touts. They see the US making deals with dictators and illegitimate undemocratic regimes as it has done recently in the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are keenly aware of the US and its relationship with Israel and how it never comes through in solving the Palestinian stalemate while millions live in sub-human conditions in the newest concentration camp called Gaza. While there is no excuse for the violence terrorists resort to, to make themselves noticed and heard, by the same token as Arundathi Roy says "there is no terrorism like state terrorism". While the extreme Jihadists given a chance would like the whole world governed by Sharia law, I think they are really not attacking us because of the freedoms we enjoy. They are attacking because they envision us to have criminally overstepped our boundaries, and they can find good reasoning and rhetoric to use that argument as a powerful message. A message people are willing to give their lives for. It is a battle of interpretations, of how they see the world, and the way the west wants the world to be.

As Faisal Shahzad gets his day in court, another terrorist with a Muslim name Mohammed Ajmal Kasab is sentenced to death in an Indian court for killing innocent civilians in Bombay in 2008. People in India are lining up to hang him, as if to take part in a noble cause. The cycle of violence continues, as more join the ranks of Jihad, motivated by violence and extreme ideology. The end of this battle is no where near as nations gear up for a response with even more violence. The "eye for an eye" method rages on while innocent people stand exposed in the line of fire. Where and when it will end no one knows.

Lance Orton the unassuming T-Shirt vendor was called on by the President and thanked for spotting the smoking bomb and alerting the police in Times Square. He was proclaimed a hero. To stop this scourge and the cycle of violence the President would also have to call on people who are on the opposite side of the divide, what he would say in that call, only he knows. As he is the peacemaker with the prize. The alternative is not working and will not work. It is what it is.

Screen Junkies

After seeing my face in the mirror in the morning, the first thing I look at is my laptop screen. As the thermometer creeps along downloading twenty messages, anticipation of that one life altering set of words increases. Only to realize all I have received is junk. Then I visit the Times and BBC website for a cursory glance to catch up on the latest mass killing far from home, and then check my second email account. Then I look at my BlackBerry/iPhone to see if I missed that all important midnight call. I plug my ears with an iPod and am on my way to work. I enter the subway to join the seemingly growing population of headphone rigged fellow passengers, all staring at screens of different shapes and sizes, lost in a bubble of their own. Only programmed to jump off at their designated stop. At work I move onto my desktop and start my all important routine, banging away at my keyboard as if conducting a symphony. Fifteen minutes later I check my Facebook page to see if an old friend dropped by. Then launch my IM window to see if anyone urgently wants to communicate. Before I know it, its lunch time and I am sitting at a table all by myself chewing down a healthy salad staring at CNN on a giant flat screen announcing the next great gadget to hit the streets, the iPad. People have been lining up since the day before to get this new mobile teat. I get back to work to see if my Apple stock went up. At the end of the day at the gym I am walking alongside people trying to keep their cholesterol in check, while typing on their Blackberry. I wonder, are we really communicating when we are communicating all the time?

I cannot remember the last time I put pen to paper to communicate in the form of a letter. Except for signing an odd check or scribbling a note on a hallmark card, pens seem to lie on my desk gathering dust. With an impressive array of gadgets to choose from to communicate, the most popular still seems to be the email. "Electronic Mail" a process by which with a tap of a key one can transmit words at lightning speed through an invisible network of computers across the world. Thus reaching someone just a few feet away or few thousand miles away. I remember engaging in this act in the early nineties in college and thinking the skies had opened up and god was speaking to me. Today email, Facebook, Instant Messaging (IM), Skype, Twitter and a host of other inter-phases glue us to screens of different sizes keeping us in a seeming state of constant contact.

The thought of being in constant contact makes us feel we are part of a community, but are we really a part of a village? Is the world really shrinking or are we fooling our selves and buying into the marketing campaigns of an electronic age. Yes the technology is trans-formative, much like a telephone was in its day, but has it now reached a point where its just becoming redundant and cluttered? Social networking sites catering to every subculture the human race can think of, crop up every second in cyberspace, beckoning people to plug in. As a result for many, privacy has become a thing of the past. To be naked is to be real. There is a bubble for everyone. There is room for the pornographer and there is space for the pious. All you need is a screen to stare into and digits to tap away. In the age of the wikipedia the world is at your finger tips, literally. What you do with it and how much you rely on it defines who you are as an individual.

Japan, South Korea and the United States are some of the most wired nations in the world. Does that mean they are communicating better than other nations therefore are they more productive? Has this proliferation of technology into every seeming aspect of life improved the way we live? Was the age of the telephone and telegram really the dark age, sort of a pre-industrial beginning to an information age? It is hard to decisively say so. While data is moving faster and therefore things are getting done at a more rapid pace, we are piling up mountains of e-waste and people are still getting lost despite their GPS. Since we can get things done faster there is an illusion that we have all this time to devote to other activities to better our lives. But when you pay close attention, it seems like things have become more frenetic round the clock. The screens have created the "working from home" phenomenon which has no boundaries. It seems like we have become slaves to screens, developing an attention deficit when we are not plugged into one. Therefore you must have a screen in the taxi, in the bar, at the gym, in every room in the house, so one feels safe, and one with the world, therefore productive.

Technology defines a generation and shapes the next that is to come. It is upto the individual to decide the role technology plays in their life and the extent to which it shapes them. But more and more it seems that choice is becoming limited giving rise to a lifestyle that is pervasive. It is okay to interrupt a conversation if the cellphone rings. It is okay to have the TV running at all times, even when you are not home. It is okay for your children to stay glued to movie screens in the car and ignore the landscape outside. It is okay to be in your bubble even when you are surrounded by humanity. As we find more and more screens introduced into our reality, and everyone is "online" all the time, finding that "offline" moment becomes more of a struggle.

My daughter who is twelve, has been trying to persuade me to get her an "iPhone", "Apple laptop" and or her own "Facebook" page. The usual her friends have one so she must have one logic is put into play. She already has a cell phone where she receives a text message every other minute from friends she sees everyday. She also has her own email account. When I ask, why "Facebook", is it not enough to be able to call, email, chat and text anytime, her response "well with "Facebook" I can always stay in touch, I can put up photos, I can make new friends and stay in touch with the old etc." While I know I can only hold out for so long before my rationale will be labeled old fashioned, in the age of "sexting" and free access to porn my fears run deep. But then again this generation will be shaped differently, with screens over riding all authority and conventional forms of knowledge in the social networking temple of the internet.

In the Disney/Pixar animated film "WALL-E", the human race in exile from planet earth are portrayed as an obese disconnected lot, plugged into an illusion of reality created by the constant presence of a screen in front of them. While it is true that for most of humanity, this is a distant vision, as their "underdevelopment" shuts them out from the benefits of the information age. But for the "developed" world it seems like we are fast approaching this vision in subtle ways. If to live means to unplug, if to stop and smell the roses means to consciously disconnect, then the question we must all ask is where are the "screens" taking us? So when you trade the tactile weight of a book to that of an iPad, don't be sold by the wonders of it, but ask do I really need another "screen" in my life? It is what it is.

The American War Movie

All the wars America has been embroiled in, have brought pain, profit and global influence to a nation that does not seem to get enough. From the war against the natives of this land, the Civil War to the present Iraq and Afghanistan war, conflict has defined and wounded the soul of this nation for more than two centuries. Yet America cannot relent. Always finding new ways to further its power and influence across the planet through the compelling use of its military might.

Wars have scarred the psyche of this nation by sacrificing its youth. The same wars have brought back huge profits to the military industrial complex, the bedrock of its economy. Another contribution the wars have made, is provide rich material for writers to spawn an impressive volume of books, movies, music, video games and television shows which have captivated the minds of a global audience. Cinema for one through its century long existence has shaped how the world sees America's wars and how America sees its men and women engaged in the act of war.

Movies made on the subject of war have brought us stories of heroism, horror, histrionics and angst in vivid detail. If one were to count the number of movies made in Hollywood on the subject of war since the silent era, the list would be grand. War contributes to the full range of human experience, from life unto death and all that comes in between. War brings out the monster and the hero in its participants. Therefore the "theater of war" is an obvious place to go to find stories that can sear the human imagination. But it is always the hero that is given more credence as it is complicated to confront the monster.

Charlie Chaplin's silent short film "Shoulder Arms" (1918) set in France during World War I is one of the earliest films to deal with the subject of war as a theme. From that to the recent Oscar winning "The Hurt Locker" the subject has been tackled in every incarnation possible. From comedy, drama, graphic horror to science fiction America's wars have rewarded film makers with rich material to make statements about the human condition and the insanity of its actions. Since the 1930 classic "All Quiet on the Western Front" movies about war have often been handsomely rewarded with Oscars, underscoring the importance given to movies about war and by creating a genre of its own.

Off all the wars, The Second World war and the Vietnam war have been the favorites of the Hollywood establishment. Partly because of their dramatic outcomes. The second world war was the "just war" which America won and saved the world from annihilation. The Vietnam war brought home the horrors that were much too real to bear and unpopular for the reasons we all know today. While films made on the Vietnam war by far more honest and potent in their depiction ("Full Metal Jacket", "Apocalypse Now", "The Deer Hunter", "Platoon", "Tigerland") the ones made on the Second World War in general seemed embellished ("Casablanca", "The Longest Day", "Kelly's Heroes", "Where Eagles Dare") even though the horrors were no different. As a result the second world war is still being milked for stories by filmmakers like Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg as they feel it was never explained in all its dimensions. Their latest epic television installment "The Pacific"- similar to their earlier contributions "Band of Brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan"- tries to set the record straight once again by showing the horror juxtaposed with heroism. The message here, lest you forget wars were and are a gruesome enterprise. There are heroes, but they are mostly dead ones and the ones who survive to tell the story become one by default.

While other warring nations such as Britain, Germany, France, Russia and Japan have made considerable number of films dealing with the subject of war they come nowhere close to America's obsession. In the last two years alone there were more than a dozen big and small films made dealing with the subject of war. Quinten Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds" set during the second world war and Katharine Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" set in Iraq, grabbed the most attention this year.

Almost all American films about their wars are always from an American point of view. And in most cases from the point of view of the white male soldier on the front line who is bearing the brunt of America's heroic or unjust dirty excursion. In any case the boot on the ground is most often the hero even if he is tormented by the dirty business he has to engage in to stay alive. If there is any villainy it is always attributed to secondary characters who are jealous or are plain evil and are trying to bring the good man down. The enemy most often is primitive or caricatured or is always the shadow we don't quite understand and simply don't care to. There are only a handful of films that have tried to see the war from the non-western point of view. "Letters from Iwo Jima" by Clint Eastwood, is one recent film set during the second world war that sees the war from the eyes of the Japanese. It was even made in the Japanese language.

The rationale for this is simple. It is the Americans who are making the films about their war so obviously it is going to be from their point of view, as it is only their point of view that is reported and therefore that is what they understand. But when these films drop on the rest of the world like a juggernaut, they seem to skew the way the world views America's wars. And there in lies the problem.

The recent academy award winning film "The Hurt Locker" attempts to a look at the Iraq war from a very personal American point of view but still succumbs to some conventional Hollywood cliches. It was clear right from the start that a decision was made by the storytellers to make subtle comments on the politics of war, by only focusing on its human toll. "The Hurt Locker" is the story of a soldier who's job is to disarm roadside bombs before they detonate and kill American soldiers and innocent Iraqis. So marches in our American hero putting his life on the line for the greater good of humanity. And he does it with no less flare than Rambo or Tom Cruise in Top Gun. He is macho, brash, fearless, determined, obstinate and damn right good at what he does. He has disarmed over eight hundred bombs in his short career. And that is what heroic Americans do in times of war, they put their life at risk to save the world and only they know how to do it best. And much like Rambo our bomb squad hero cannot function in the sane world so he must return to the insanity of war to get his adrenaline fix. As usual the enemy is a shadowy entity, every Iraqi on the street is suspect and no one can be trusted. While the film does capture the precariousness and unpredictability American soldiers face in Iraq, as they are an occupying force, the Iraqis just form an ever threatening backdrop. Much like Iraq and Afghanistan in reality has become to most Americans, a mere backdrop.

In many ways like the films that came before it, "The Hurt Locker" tries to capture the psychological toll wars take on its executors but falls way short in its impact. Films like "Full Metal Jacket", "Apocalypse Now" and the 2006 French film "Indigénes" did a far better job in capturing the damaging nature of war. "The Hurt Locker" has a thin plot and fails to justify adequately some of the motivations of its characters. Other than the fact that we get an exciting documentary style look into the world of a bomb squad on the front line. Gender politics aside, then why the critical acclaim? Is it another case of a movie being given credence as it embodies the angst of a war weary nation or was it just time to award a "war movie" to punctuate this generation while the wars are deeply unpopular and still in progress. As if there was ever a "popular" war.

It is a known fact that the military has always seen Hollywood as its propaganda partner. At the same time it has known to be less cooperative with films that are critical of the military establishment as in the case of the recent film "In the Valley of Elah". The military has always embraced Hollywood where it seemed fit by providing unfettered access to its hardware to be used as sets. The film"Top Gun" had a full airplane carrier at its disposal through the shoot. In 1999 Steven Spielberg received the military's highest civilian honor from the Pentagon for making "Saving Private Ryan". The very establishment that orchestrates the wars gave an award to a filmmaker who claims to make anti-war films. Can there be anything more ironic?

Wars will always be a treasure trove of subject matter. Stories of human suffering always make good entertainment, the only thing that deters Hollywood is the box office. "The Hurt Locker" was the lowest grossing Oscar winner ever. Hopefully one day in that treasure trove there will be a movie where the Americans will play the role of the backdrop and the misery and brutalization of the so called "enemy" will be the forefront. Only to show there is no such thing as a "just war" all there is, is just violence, death and mayhem. And I hope that film wins an Oscar and not in the foreign film category. It is what it is.

Where is the President we elected?

A year in, if there is one thing President Obama can say he has categorically accomplished, is escalating the war in Afghanistan and increasing the controversial drone attacks in Pakistan ten fold. The drones seem to terrorize and kill more innocent people than the alleged terrorists they are supposedly meant to. Now with the "surge" and push into Taliban controlled territory underway the White House waits to declare the operation a success. On the domestic front lofty goals of passing a revolutionary Health Care reform bill, dealing with a record deficit, putting a stop to Wall Street's debauchery, closing down the abhorrent Guantanamo Bay prison camp, holding the past regime accountable for war crimes and criminal violation of the constitution all seem to have fallen by the wayside. Partly because of a corrupt, inefficient, impotent, partisan congress that puts politics before the good of its people, and also due to a lack luster performance by a leader who treads too softly in a jungle of wolves.

Historically the congress has always behaved the way it does today. There is nothing revealing about it. There have also been moments in the past when the country has been as polarized as it is today. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was filibustered a record 54 days before it was passed thanks to President Lyndon Johnson's legendary craft at maneuvering the congress. The only thing that is unprecedented today is that we have a black president in power. That definitely is an underlying factor for the stalemate we see in certain quarters of the congress. But what seems to be missing in President Obama, is his ability to navigate and manipulate the congress to get the people's work done. He seems to rely too heavily on his earnest, honest image to bring about a bipartisan solution to everything, which as we know has failed time after time. Or maybe he just does not have the metal that we so fervently were lead to believe that he did. The message that is being sent through all the noise and the anger being absorbed and propelled by Fox News and the Tea Party cult, is that the President is incapable, inept and bad for the country. The democratic party and the White House are not helping either. They are not able to capitalize on the gains the President has made on "keeping America safe". Under his presidency more terrorist threats have been foiled than in all the eight years under President Bush. 95% of Americans are enjoying tax cuts even in a time of financial crisis. These achievements are not cutting through due to the mismanagement of the message by the White House and the party. A historical symptomatic problem of the party and its inability to unify.

What is also appalling is that on matters of war and invading other nations the congress historically has always come together promptly without much debate or deliberation to give the President a go ahead . On the contrary on matters of real progress and change for its people on a fundamental level, the congress has always stalled and delayed. For example there is a dire immediacy to pass Health Care reform, as people are truly suffering as the economy continues to sour. If and when the Health Care bill passes it is only expected to take effect in 2014, while the decision to invade Iraq was arrived at in record time.

What essentially comes through as a result of the dastardly failings of the congress in a time of monumental crisis, is that this so called democracy is essentially being run by a single party and not two parties as we are lead to believe. The party in question is the "ruling-class" which predominantly rules from the center. Ralph Nader said "America is run by a single party with two wings" and that assessment seems to ring true today. We elect politicians hoping they would put our immediate needs at the top of their agenda, but their behavior time after time shows that they put the needs of the corporations first. Lobbyists from the big financial firms are storming Washington preventing congress from passing the tough legislation that is needed to curtail Wall Street and its risky behavior. And once again they have been stunningly successful. Goldman Sachs posted record profits even in this climate by engaging in the same risky behavior that brought the whole economy to its knees. Only this time from a position of competitive advantage. Things on Wall Street are business as usual. One year later, this is by far this administration's biggest failure. Obama's campaign pledge of keeping special interest groups out of reach seems to have failed miserably. And now he runs the risk of those same corporations not doling out the money needed for his party and its campaigns.

On the international front, in his first year President Obama spanned the globe dropping bouquets of peace and extending overtures of friendship to Iran, North Korea and the Islamic world, for which he was awarded a Nobel peace prize. He made impressive speeches asking nations to follow the ideals of democracy and respect human rights and the rule of law for everyone. He championed nuclear non-proliferation and has made it his priority to reduce and rid the planet of nuclear weapons. But in action he passed a record defense budget, escalated the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, refused to address issues of political freedom, human rights and democracy on his visit to China and snubbed his fellow Nobel colleague the Dalai Lama not once but twice. The first time he refused to meet him and the second time he did it in the most muted fashion possible, all to appease the Chinese who have the United States in a strangle hold, controlling 800 billion dollars of its debt. Even if it was a token gesture and did not mean much, in contrast President Bush awarded the Dalai Lama with a Congressional Gold Medal. Even in this equation it is obvious that China needs America as much as America needs China, so it is a mystery why America cannot substantially confront China on matters of human rights, aggression and political freedom. The sad truth is that in this new year of the Tiger, it is China's roar that is heard loudest around the globe, and it is to it's dominance that America clearly bows today.

Maybe it is premature to ask where is the president we elected? After all it took sixteen years to bring America to this state and so it might take as many to rise back up, or maybe there is no rising back up. What is expected though expeditiously, is a promise of strong steps taken in the right direction in a time of crisis. If the current trend persists a president that still enjoys popularity runs the risk of rapidly loosing all his capital. If we do not see a radical shift in the mood of this nation, if there is no glimmer of "hope" that was promised, then what little was gained is lost. One does wonder if the optimism candidate Obama embodied was just a projection of the hopes and fears of a disenfranchised and dejected populace or was it truly "change" that is yet to come. While President Obama has restored dignity, flare and poise to the office that has made him a poster boy for the planet, if he cannot deliver the radical change his supporters so desperately need and look to him for deliverance, November will stunt his presidency forever. It is what it is.

A Method to its Madness

My last four weeks were spent in India, in a city down south called Hyderabad. This is the city I was born and raised in. I left Hyderabad eighteen years ago in search of America. Ever since, I have returned every couple of years from my current home in Brooklyn, to reconnect with my roots. My trips back are always complicated and conflicted with the inevitable question always posed, whether I could return to live here again-in urban India-and feel at home.

India is announced almost every other day in newspapers and on TV globally as "BOOM TOWN" nation. Even President Obama in his State of the Union address, highlighted India and China as two nations to watch as they transform into economic giants. While there is some truth to it and it is reflected in the rampant consumerism you see in the rapidly expanding urban middle class, there are other indicators that are far from being reached that would qualify India to be evolving into a "developed" nation. Clean air and drinking water for most is a luxury, poverty is sizable, corruption is ever present, social unrest is always round the corner, quality public services are in short supply and collective social responsibility is limited only to its expanding gated communities. Yet there is a method to this madness, and therefore India survives and thrives as a functioning democracy, decade after decade, falling, failing and rising to be reckoned with.

If one were to pick a metaphor to describe the state of affairs in this nation, any city roadway would paint an apt picture. The traffic in any urban city in India has always been in a state of complete chaos. It has steadily gotten worse with the astronomical growth in vehicular traffic, a reflection of the increase in purchasing power. People for some reason on the street do not see any purpose in obeying any rules, unless there is a policeman involved. Traffic lights seldom work, and when they do they are seen as an irritant. Then there are vehicles of all different speeds on the same road. From the rickshaw, mopeds, motorcycles to the buses, all fight for space on the same narrow street. While today you see, Benzes, BMWs, Bentleys and other gas guzzling mammoth machines shunned by the west, the fact of the matter is the roads have not changed at all. They are still bumpy, in disrepair and full of potholes and speed breakers. The new cars offer air-conditioning without which driving is an ordeal and injurious to health as the pollution is out of control. At every traffic stop one is stormed by destitute beggars and street vendors trying to eek out an existence selling tissue boxes and other cheap Chinese made knick-knacks. Sidewalks do not exist so people have to walk on the same street as the traffic. Having to cross a street as a pedestrian, is putting ones life at risk. And so the urban Indian street becomes a vivid representation of the struggle being waged inside the psyche of this great nation.

The person walking the street or riding a two-wheeler feels it is as much his/her street as the person driving a shiny Benz. And there in lies the problem. While India has achieved phenomenal growth since the economy liberalized two decades ago, certain fundamentals have not changed. And whether they will change is a question I ponder, every time I am here. I feel there is no cohesive vision for the future to level society in terms of basic human rights and dignity. It is a difficult proposition to fundamentally bring about change in the social and cultural behavior of a people, who have come to accept the apathy of the system as a constant companion. Navigating it is the only way to exisit. Class-ism, caste-ism, regionalism, ethnic division and disparity still seem to tear at the nation, and most people put up blinders to avoid confrontation in plain sight. A sense of collective social responsibility seems to be missing across all levels of society as a loss of sense of history seems to plague a people. On the other hand consumerism creates a greed that is insatiable, putting it in direct conflict with its spiritual foundations. It seems like there are two Indias that exist side by side. One that has money and aspires to afford an American lifestyle, and the other that struggles with inflation and just about makes ends meet. The India that wants to be America is the one that is celebrated and projected into the consciousness of the people via television, films, popular youth culture and everything else. All the while corruption becoming the mainstay and an ethical existence becoming harder to achieve as money becomes the only defining factor of ones success and status.

While corruption is not native only to India, it just happens to be in your face here. It runs from the bottom to the top touching every one in its path. While in America, the corruption seems to exist only at the highest levels. As America struggles to pass a Health Care bill and fails to fix Wall Street's debauchery, the cancer that grips its political and business establishment at this juncture, shows its devastating impact touching everyone in its path not just at home but around the globe. A nation that prides itself to be developed and wealthy, and a defender of democracy and freedom, in some ways is no different.

The over arching mood of any nation defines the people that live in it. One does get a skewed vision of reality when viewed through the eyes of the media, but the view one gets from one's car window sometimes is more telling. Hyderabad was a place I once loved, I am ambiguous about that love today. The people here are near and dear to me, but the city seems to be slipping away. Whether it is just the change I see that is not to my liking or whether it is the nostalgic self that yearns to see the past that is gone, in my eyes the corruption of the soul of the city is hard to escape from. Within one's four walls the culture is rich, irreplaceable and heart warming beyond compare. The generosity of its people is unmatched but why this does not translate out into the public sphere is a mystery. The Hyderabad of today is dotted with malls, hotels, fancy restaurants, trendy living spaces, software companies and multiplexes. What are gone are the wide open spaces, the culture of respect and the recognition of its rich history that made it a unique city. Every place has to change, and change is inevitable, but change that does not value the past is oppressive.

During my stay in Hyderabad, my father-in-law, to whom I was very close, met with a sudden end. He was an honorable professor who stood tall and believed in the dream Jawahar-Lal-Nehru envisioned in his youth. All his life he refused to bribe anyone and resisted all forms of corruption and lead an ethical life. It so happened that it became my responsibility to record his death at the local municipal office in order to receive his death certificate. The irony of it all is that I had to bribe an official to receive his death certificate in a hurry. 

Despite all of the above, despite all its flaws and frustrations there is something very present, tactile and sublime about this nation. Even if I don't physically live here, Hyderabad will always be home.
It is what it is.

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.