"India's Daughter" is my Daughter

I grew up in the old-fashioned southern city of Hyderabad in India, in the eighties. I was born into a liberal family and quickly came to realize that the world out side was not a reflection of my family's values. There were invisible rules in the real world that gave more freedom to boys and less to girls. The rules for young women, mostly as an excuse for their own safety, did not apply to men. Women had a curfew, they could not be seen walking with men unless they were married to or in some way related. Women were trained to clothe themselves keeping in mind the "male gaze". Riding behind a man on a motorcycle was seen to be sexual, unless married. If you were to ride with a male friend, there was a certain distance that needed to be maintained on the seat and certain decorum to be followed. Show of affection in public between the sexes was taboo. While young men and women on college campuses enjoyed some freedom, in public spaces they had to adhere to a different set of rules. The separation was subtle and permeated through the culture as a code.

As a teenager, I recall stories of my sisters being harassed for wearing jeans or being too "western". My older sister gained notoriety on college campus for once slapping a man on a bus who tried to grope her. She was brave but also fearful of reprisals and sought protection of her male friends. I also remember my sister being shot on her arm with an air gun while walking down a street, a victim of someone's twisted idea of fun. I experienced harassment from the police in my youth first hand, when I was out with my girlfriend past curfew time. It was 9:30 pm and we were sitting by the lake talking and a police van pulled up. The questioning by the police constable was direct. Who was this girl to me? Was she my sister, wife etc.? If not I was breaking the law. Confronting him was dangerous, so we had to scurry. Life in most cities in India was comparable, but there were some exceptions.

Some things have changed in India since my time, but others have not. Women in India still feel harassed and preyed on. In cities like New Delhi, they fear for their safety after dark. Today more and more women work the night shift in call centers across India servicing the west. Bringing them home safe is a task all companies take seriously. More women in urban India are financially independent, and therefore ambitious and are challenging established norms, demanding freedom and equal rights. This is causing a seismic shift, as traditional mores are challenged and families are forced to adjust to the winds of change. At times when that adjustment is resistant, it leads to violence and shocking human behavior, like acid throwing and honor killings.

The predicament of Indian women suddenly came into sharp focus in December of 2012, when two students boarded a bus after seeing the film, Life of Pi. What happened next shook everyone to his or her core. The man was brutally beaten and the woman was gang raped by six men, one among them a seventeen year old. They were then discarded like trash on a dark New Delhi street to fend for themselves. The woman was badly mutilated and later succumbed to her injuries. As the details of her ordeal emerged, the nation was enraged. The youth protests in the capital sparked pitched battles with the police, the city was on edge. To calm things down, the rapists were caught in a record seventeen days and were "fast tracked" to hang. The juvenile rapist was sentenced to three years, as that is all the law could deliver. New laws were quickly passed to make punishment of rapists more severe than they already were. The story of the victim and her parents captured the imagination of the public and there was an earnest push for some tangible change. 

Suddenly the reporting of rapes in the media saw a dramatic increase. Almost every week a grisly rape story greeted the front pages, and outrageous statements began to emerge from men in power who saw rape a woman's own doing. Many of India's power elite expressed outrageous opinions, which exposed a medieval mindset that was no mystery to many. Asaram Bapu, a powerful religious leader said "She should have taken God's name and could have held the hand of one of the men and said I consider you as my brother and should have said to the other two, brother I am helpless, you are my brother, my religious brother. She should have taken God's name and held their hands and feet...then the misconduct wouldn't have happened”. 

This month to commemorate International Women's day BBC television planned to air a documentary titled India's Daughter across India, United Kingdom and elsewhere. The film began to attract controversy before its broadcast, as graphic excerpts were released to the press. India's Daughter is a hour-long television documentary, constructed in the "true crime" genre that meticulously re-imagines the December 2012 rape and murder of Jyothi Singh. Through interviews of her parents, a friend, one of the rapists, his lawyers and other experts associated with the case, the film walks the viewer through a sequence of events as they occurred on that dreadful night to a young woman who we learn was filled with dreams, aspirations and a zest for life. For the first time in two years the name of the victim is revealed and the harrowing nature of her trauma is laid bare on the screen for all to digest. What caused most controversy was not the telling of her tragic story, but the lack of remorse exhibited by the rapist who candidly expressed his motives and rationalized his actions. The egregious mindset of his attorneys, who openly blamed the victim for her misfortune, was more shocking. But what was most unnerving was the Indian government's decision to trample on its citizen's rights, by calling for a ban on the broadcast not just in India, but the world. In the days of the Internet, a hope to achieve this was folly. What they instead accomplished was exactly the opposite. 

The reasons for doing so, as usual came from a place of fear, weakness, insecurity and prejudice. Not having faith in its citizenry to make decisions about important issues, exhibits an impotency of a nanny state. With many male members of parliament facing rape and other criminal charges, the response was not surprising. Then there was the usual mudslinging and discrediting of the filmmaker, that she was white, exploitative, Eurocentric, undermined Indian feminists and was out to smear the image of India with her imperialist, post-colonial world view. And then there were the legal issues, which to some extent were a valid concern. The rapists have an appeal pending in the Supreme Court, on which a decision has yet to be made, and a worry that this documentary could influence the legal process was valid, but highly unlikely. The rapists had already been convicted in public opinion and "fast tracked" to death by the media frenzy that engulfed the nation soon after the incident. So to assume that this film, two years later would cause interference in the judicial process was asinine.

India’s Daughter is not exhaustive in its purpose, intent or treatment. It is not a film about "rape" as a social evil in the context of India. It is not an in-depth investigation into this subject matter with all its nuances and does not pretend to be so. It is only interested in telling this particular story in the way that it happened. But by telling this singular story in gruesome detail, it hints and reveals very effectively how rape is a horrific social evil and how its perpetrators come to be formed. It puts a human face on the monster. It shows how poverty, destitution and a lack of education and an unhealthy family structure, can lead to a total collapse of humanity. The rapist's lack of empathy reveals the true nature of crime, both internal and external. By listening to the rapist we come to learn, how when men come of age without structure or a space for healthy sexual interaction and expression can become deviant. As a result, the rapist believed and continues to believe, that the purpose of a woman is to serve a man's libido - that is all. 

The seventeen-year-old juvenile rapist is a victim of his fate. His family was so destitute that he had to run away to live in the city slums, making a living among deviant men. When his family was informed about his crime, they had not heard from him in three years and presumed he was dead. 

Monsters are created by society, but that does not give them impunity to commit crime, but it should give us pause and not resort to a knee jerk response as we have witnessed in the media and on online diatribes making a case for the film’s demise. 

While the documentary is set in India and is about an Indian crime, it in no way makes assumptions that this is an Indian problem alone. It definitely makes the assertion that it is a "male" disease.

Ever since this particular rape in New Delhi, the western media has made India the rape capital of the world by focusing its attention with undue concentration. The west's fascination with all things dark and dismal when it comes to India or the "third world" is not new, but it need not necessarily be a cause for every defense leading to senseless bans and over reaction. The reality exists for all to see, people should be given the freedom to make a decision on the lens they wish to see by.

While the plight of Indian women has been a cause for concern since as long as I can remember, India in no certain terms is the rape nation of the world. In numbers, more rape cases are reported in South Africa, Sweden and America than in India. But in the same breath, it is safe to say that large numbers of cases go unreported in India and many are never investigated as they take place inside marriages and in villages where law and order is fragile or non-existent. Blaming the victim for her own rape is widely prevalent in the culture. Justice for rape victims is far from real or its lynch mob or crude rural justice as seen in a recent case in Nagaland. 

In America for the most part, the victims are front and center and justice is swift. Even when evidence is hard to come by, the victim is given the benefit of doubt. Why women in such large numbers are violated in the west, where it is assumed they have a better standing in society, is a quandary, but it is not hard to find the symptoms in an over sexualized environment that is all too pervasive.

While Indian women face sexual harassment and other challenges, as women do all around the world, they have achieved more than what they get credit for. The feminist movement in India is strong and powerful. Women in leadership positions are spread across all strata of society. Indians love to flaunt the fact they have had a woman prime minister govern them for more decades than any other nation. Though grossly under represented, there are many women in politics and in position of power all across India even today. Much like President Obama's ascendancy did not bring an end to racism in America, having women in power has not brought any significant reform to the mindset of Indian men. In many instances there has been a regression.

While India may not top the list in rapes committed, it certainly takes the lead in female foeticide. Decades of families discarding their girl child in the womb, has resulted in a lopsided sex ratio that is troubling. Data between 1951 and 2011 shows that the sex ratio decreased from 983 to 918 women for every 1000 men. While sonograms have been made illegal in India to fight this scourge, it is not improving the situation in any significant manner. This is also a contributing factor to rape and harassment of women. 

I live in New York City now, with my wife and two daughters. There is no denying, women I have known, including my wife, who have moved here from India, feel a sense of liberation. My seventeen year old takes the subway everyday to school and while you see women on trains alone at all hours of the night, you also see women being whistled, honked, heckled at and lewdly approached. I am sure my daughter has been on the receiving end of some if this diseased behavior. While my daughter does sometimes have to deal with this, in no means does she feel unsafe. Most women who live here, feel rather safe in one of the largest cities of the world. 

But rape in America is a reality one cannot shy away from. A misogynistic culture is pervasive in the media. Over sexualized movies and books, such as the world wide smash hit 50 Shades of Grey (which was incidentally banned in India), while asserting they empower women, also spread a deviant and skewed image of what women want and desire. The abhorrent extent of rape in the American military was documented powerfully in the film The Invisible War. Women being treated as mere disposable sex objects in rap music as "bitches”, is widely prevalent in the youth culture of America. The statistics on the phenomenon of "date rape" on college campuses is frightening as one in four women, will be a victim of sexual assault before she completes her academic career. But in America, these issues are largely openly discussed, confronted and attacked. Films are made, books are written and information is freely exchanged for all to make up their minds. If India wants the world to see it as a modern democratic developing nation, then it really needs to look at how it deals with issues of free speech and expression.

So where do we begin to teach men to behave and treat women with respect and dignity? In India there is a dream to change the long established "mind set" of men through education and protest. This is a daunting generational task but it has to begin in earnest somewhere. But if we begin by banning films like India’s Daughter, we only move backward not forward. 

Laws cannot change values, but they can scare people into behaving when enforced. The only way I can teach my daughter to navigate the difficult world, is by giving her the tools to make the right choices and hope that she makes them. Even if she makes the right choices, I am aware that as a woman she will be at a disadvantage. But for her to begin to make the right choices she needs to have full access to all information. Censorship does damage to all our daughters and our sons. It is what it is.

A Chilling Effect

It's more than a month now, since the horrific murders of the cartoonists at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The debate that has ensued since, on issues of free speech and the place of religion and religious extremism in western society, has had a chilling effect that is troubling. Many defenders of free speech came out in solidarity using the term Je Suis Charlie, despite not agreeing with the long established tone and content of the magazine. In my last posting I gave my reasons for supporting them for expressing their intellectual views through caricature. There have been many others who have danced around the issue of free speech, by condemning the murders but at the same time saying that they were not "Charlie" because they found them to be overtly racist and xenophobic. By doing so many writers and commentators sent mixed messages on where they stood on the idea of free speech and where they saw its limitations. The audacious response from Charlie Hebdo to publish the image of the Prophet Mohammad on their cover page after the murder of most of its senior staff, sent a signal that there are no boundaries to intellectual freedom, there never can be, if we are to live in a mature free society. The chilling effect caused by opposing views is beginning to have dire consequences as the propaganda war heightens and the culture war sees no reasonable conclusion. This week there was another victim. A blogger was hacked to death in Bangladesh for expressing his views on Islam and atheism.

The Paris incident, created a troubling environment leading to a state of paranoia, very similar to what America experienced when a few maniacs flew airplanes into lower Manhattan on a grisly September morning. The response by certain groups in Europe is invoking the ghosts of a past whose diabolical legacy is still fresh and ever present in the shadows. Antisemitism has steadily been on the rise in Europe for sometime now, and now Islamophobia threatens to single out another minority group. Many Jews in France and Germany have openly expressed fear for their safety, and many Muslims are now beginning to express the same sentiment. In Dresden, Germany, the marches held by a group called Pegida or as they call themselves "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the Occident" have been disconcerting. The marchers commit no violence and say nothing overtly racist, although the protests draw Neo-Nazi tourists from all over the country. Many counter demonstration are also being organized but the fear and mistrust of the "Muslim" continues to grow. In polls taken across Europe and America the numbers who think Islam is not compatible with the west is rising. In France according to a poll conducted by Pew Research, 56% think Islam is not compatible, and in America it is 44%. These are disturbing statistics, which clearly show that people are responding to a mass hysteria being created in the media by its coverage of terrorism and the brutality that is being doled out onto our conscience, by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The stigmatization of a whole group, due the actions of a few, seems to be becoming an accepted norm.

The 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, the failed Arab uprisings, the perpetual Israel/Palestine bloodletting and the horrific destruction of Syria and the birth of a medieval cancer called ISIS, have all taken a steady toll on people's perception of Islam and the two billion or so of its followers. Like most religions and faiths, Islam is practiced and followed by people all around the planet in as disparate ways as any religion. While the Qur'an is what binds all Muslims in identity, the Islam practiced in Africa is culturally different from that embraced in Bangladesh, India or Malaysia. You have Shias and Sunnis and countless different sects within Islam, whose value systems are as varied as Hasids, Orthodox and Reformists in Judaism or Protestants and Catholics in Christianity. There is liberal Islam as followed by the Ahmediyyas, there is conservative Islam and then there is the militant kind. The militant one seems to be garnering most attention on the front pages, distorting ones view, breeding ignorance and disdain.

There is no question some Islamic countries in the middle east have not moved with the times. Women in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region are treated as second class citizens and homosexuals are largely considered non-existent and or deviant. In Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE, a slave economy generates wealth and prosperity that is un-Islamic in every way possible. In Egypt a democratic movement sprang and crumbled returning one of the largest Muslim nations on earth back to the old guard with a military dictator firmly in control. Even though Iran has the most liberal youth among all Muslim nations, their voice has been silenced by the clergy and the zealots. In Turkey, democratic Islam is as western as can be, albeit under threat from hardliners. Malaysia and Indonesia the most populous of all Muslim nations have been successful democracies for many years and coexist peacefully with other religious groups. India, with one of the largest Muslim populations in the world in numbers, has been democratic since 1947, despite sporadic ethnic conflict. The Islamic world is diverse, but the perception that is propagated is something skewed and distorted.

Another perception that Europe is being over run by immigrant Muslims who are not assimilating is a very prevalent one. The numbers prove otherwise. The Muslim population of Europe is less than 6%. France has one of the highest Muslim populations mostly as a result of its brutal colonial incursions into Algeria and elsewhere in North Africa. The United Kingdom has 4.6% and Germany about 5%. The history of Muslims in Europe is ancient and most have coexisted with the laws of the land, but on the margins, distanced and discriminated. In France assimilation has not been easy or made conducive and has posed serious problems giving room for radical elements to take root causing mayhem as witnessed at Charlie Hebdo. The conclusion being made by many that Islam is not compatible with the west, is a recent one. And is a reaction to a paranoia that is rapidly spreading, which if not addressed with ration, could cause more mayhem.

Austria's parliament passed a law this week titled the"Law of Islam". This law bans foreign funding of Islamic organizations and requires any group claiming to represent Austrian Muslims to submit and use a standardized German translation of the Qu'ran. Other religious groups are exempt from this law and its passing met very little resistance in the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic nation. Many of Austria's half a million Muslims are of Turkish descent. Many of their Imam's are financed by Turkey. It seems like this clearly discriminatory law was passed in the present climate, in response to a fear that is engulfing Europe.

Some commentators in America have been very vocal about their views on Islam creating a schism that is breeding paranoia. The FOX News Network has made it their mission to frame Islam as a backward religion that is not compatible with western values. Recently when President Obama refused to use the word "Islamic Terrorists" in order to separate the word Islam from violence and not feed the propaganda machine of ISIS and the hardliners, FOX News was relentless in calling him  dishonest and shifty. Rupert Murdoch, the Chairman and CEO of News Corp., the parent company of FOX News, in response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks did not flinch to stigmatize all Muslims as baring responsibility for the violence being perpetuated in the name of Islam. Others on the left such as Bill Mahar and Sam Harris have called Islam "the mother lode of bad ideas", while in the same breath acknowledging that a majority of Muslims do not endorse violence, but the religion does, and is being interpreted for those purposes alone and not many are speaking out against this corruption. While those who disagree, point that Islam is a religion of peace and harmony and has nothing to do with violence, and the clash of words and ideas goes on unabated. Through this noise what filters through is mistrust. Partly because there are is no one influential and rational filling the gap.

The theological debate of what Islam is or is not, is vast and complex. If Islam for a moment is to be considered as "the mother lode of bad ideas" then so should Christianity and Judaism as they are all essentially Abrahamic religions sharing similar content. Therefore this statement is misleading, shortsighted and counterproductive, especially when large numbers of people subscribe to these ideas with deep faith.

The reality is that all religions have hardline elements within them that are becoming more and more influential. The hardliners are primarily clerics who believe in an interpretation of their religion that is absolute, that does not reflect the times. Christians have their conservative clergy and so do the Jews, and every other religion which is resistant to change. The hardliners within Islam in the recent past have become more powerful and influential than ever before. Financed by conservative nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar some Imams, Sheiks and Mullahs have hijacked the debate and are exercising their power, with devastating effect using the internet and their pulpit. They are consciously and deliberately spreading a message that Islam is not compatible with other religions and systems of governance, and therefore a culture war must be waged against those who they perceive are insulting and undermining of Islam. Therefore it is the sworn duty of every Muslim around the world to wage Jihad (religious war), against those (mainly the west) who seek to diminish their religion and therefore their identity as a people. The examples they use very legitimately and powerfully, are the indiscriminate and illegal wars waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and now Syria, where countless Muslims have perished at the hands of western powers. Other examples used are the immoral westernization of their society and the colonization of their lands by western military bases all to subdue, seduce and dominate their tribe. These are powerful ideas to the young and impressionable who seek an identity and conviction beyond their current one that is conflicted, discriminated and disillusioned. Much like how Hitler devised a program to brainwash and conscript the youth of Germany to form an army of pure bred Aryan killing machines, the ideology of ISIS and other clerics is similar. To create a Islamic utopia based on a draconian vision, that is all consuming, merciless and sociopathic in every sense of the word. The Taliban achieved this utopia for a while in Afghanistan and now ISIS is attempting to establish one in the heart of the middle east.

What is not widely spoken about and cloaked by many extremist Mullah's is the overwhelming number of innocent Muslims who perish everyday, as a result of the violence triggered by their militancy and terrorism.

There is a small but sizable population that is influenced by this rhetoric. There are those who are willing to take action, by joining groups such as ISIS or Al Qaeda. There are some who are willing to support this cause from the shadows. But an overwhelming majority do not pay heed to this violence that is spreading within. But if we are to create an environment of fear and mistrust of all Muslims, by being careless in the kind of rhetoric that is spewed on our television channels and social networks, more will gravitate to the other side, making groups like ISIS gain legitimacy. When powerful people like Robert Murdoch, in their ignorance cast dispersions on a whole group of people, they behave no different than the extremist Mullahs, who make a living brainwashing people to commit violence.

As the wars escalate in Syria and Iraq, and ISIS creeps into our daily lives by committing more and more brutal acts of violence, it is very important not to lose perspective. And it is the obligation of those in power, in the government and in the media, to provide perspective and caution. The extremist elements within Islam are minuscule but like any cancer they are a danger and must be dealt with a firm hand both intellectually and otherwise.

There are real threats that are emerging as this war escalates on various fronts and like in any war the casualties are the innocent. Avijit Roy, a Bangladeshi blogger was hacked to death for being atheist and expressing secular values in a democratic Muslim nation that is politically polarized. Raif Badawi, a Saudi Arabian blogger was arrested in October of last year for insulting Islam as he posted critical remarks about powerful religious leaders on his blog. He was sentenced to ten years in jail and has been ordered to receive a thousand lashes. The first fifty were delivered on January 9th in an open square in Jeddah. Three young Muslims were shot and killed in North Carolina, USA by a deranged man. While some called it a hate crime, others a dispute over a parking space gone extreme. The reality is, in the present climate, if the killer was Muslim and victims were not, there would be no hesitation in calling it a "terrorist act". A grandfather from India who was taking a walk in an Alabama suburb was found to be suspicious by some residents. The police were immediately dispatched, and a frail 57 year old who spoke no English was roughed up, leaving him paralyzed and disabled. ISIS continues to shock and nauseate by committing extreme brutality against innocent civilians. These are all victims of a paranoid, violent and deranged society being created in many parts of the world because of extremism on all sides.

With all that is going on in this world, it seems like we are at a crossroads. Compared to previous centuries, even though a majority of the world lives in relative peace, there is a growing perception that things are at a tipping point. The reality is, there are both existential and physical threats out there. If not addressed rationally by one and all, they can easily spiral out of control. There is a line in the recent Ridley Scott film Prometheus, where a character says "big things have small beginnings". The poignancy of this sentence and what it can encapsulate, is powerful and is something one has to be vigilant about at all times. The mass extermination of Jews in Germany during the second world war started as a small deviant, diabolical and delusional idea inside one person's mind. If one is not careful, small misguided ideas can have big devastating effects. It is what it is.

JE SUIS CHARLIE

“Religion, a medieval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” - Salman Rushdie

Having been a victim of persecution for his ideas, no one is more qualified to make the above statement. Violence in the face of freedom of expression cannot and should not be tolerated in any civilized society. The brutal assassination of people who use their intelligence and wit to hold a a mirror to hypocrisy in this world, is an abomination. This kind of demented terror is not endorsed in any religion, and if it is, that religion should be rejected by anyone with any sense of decency and humanity. Unfortunately today, humanity is in short supply in many parts of the world, and madness is taking its place.

The staff of Charlie Hebdo are heroes who went to work despite a threat to their lives. They did what they were meant to do with a sense of passion, commitment and audacity. Many found their work offensive, xenophobic, homophobic and racist, bordering on hate. But in a free society you have a choice not to subscribe. But you have no right to kill someone for expressing their views. 

There are no degrees to free speech and there should not be any. Only self imposed caution where desired. There is no room for censorship in a free society. You don't like an idea, counter it with another idea. Nations that struggle with or thwart free speech are societies of fear and insecurity. 

Therefore the men and women of Charlie Hebdo are the true soldiers of democracy and for that reason should be revered and seen as an example to follow against the insanity of intolerance that is plaguing the world today. Therefore Je Suis Charlie.

The most effective way to fight violence is with a pen. But one's need for self preservation could deter one from bringing a pen to a sword fight. Incidents like these could have a chilling effect, forcing journalists and free thinkers to self censor their thoughts and ideas. Even so, the pen is and always will be, mightier than the sword.

It is what it is.

UPROAR

The city I live in, was enraged this month. People poured onto the streets chanting "No Justice, No Peace", "I Cant Breathe" and carrying banners that read "Black Lives Matter". Once again the system had failed to deliver justice, and the ugly face of racism emerged. The outrage was justified and the uproar was expected, as yet again men in uniform who were tasked with the job to serve and protect, brutally choked an unarmed citizen to death. And it all happened in front of a camera wielded by an onlooker for the world to see. A specially convened grand jury did not find the dying words of a black man, "I cant breathe" convincing enough to indict the policeman who strangled, while five others jumped on the victim. Eric Garner pleaded eleven times to be allowed to breathe. The officer's humanity did not kick in, and that shocked everyone. But what stirred the public with a clear sense of right or wrong, was the grand jury's decision to not even think there was anything unlawful that took place, when the evidence could not have been anymore glaring.

Last year I had the privilege of serving on a grand jury in Brooklyn. While I was familiar with the term and knew a little about it from watching TV shows and movies, I only clearly understood its purpose, by serving on one. Unlike a trial jury the grand jury can be made up of more than twelve members, and the purpose of it is to examine and investigate whether there is enough evidence of a crime, to bring someone to trial. The grand jury's purpose is not to prove someone innocent or guilty but to find "probable cause" , "reasonable cause to believe" and "legally sufficient evidence" to prosecute someone. It is a lower standard they must adhere to than a trial jury, whose job is to unequivocally find someone guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".


This is not the first time an African American citizen has been assaulted with overwhelming force by police. The list is long and many altercations have not attracted the level of attention the recent incidents in Staten Island, New York and Ferguson, Missouri have. The first one ever to have been recorded on camera ignited a nation in 1991. Rodney King was captured on grainy video being brutally pummeled by a group of five officers on a highway near Los Angeles. In the pre-internet days, this video went "viral" across all national and local broadcast networks. I had just arrived in the United States from India as a graduate student, and to see the video on television day in and day out was unsettling and disturbing.


Rodney King's case unlike the present ones, actually went to trail and the policemen were acquitted of all wrong doing by the county court. This caused riots to break out in Los Angeles, killing 53 people and causing billions of dollars in property damage. The abuse of Rodney King was so disturbing to so many, that the federal government had to intervene, bringing a civil rights trial against the policemen. Subsequently, two of the officers were found guilty and sentenced to prison, while the others were let go. Attorney General Eric Holder has initiated a similar investigation in the Eric Garner case and people are hoping that a civil rights trial might restore a sense of justice and will bring some closure to a situation that begs for immediate attention.


The conversation around police brutality has always polarized America. Every time the issue rises to the surface it is brushed aside by many. Some make it a point to sight that we should be talking more about "black on black crime" as it is more rampant than crimes committed by the  police who have to do a dangerous job in black neighborhoods risking their lives. The absurdity of this argument is as distant from the truth as reporting is on the right wing TV channel Fox News, which mainly spews such talk. While one could be a symptom of the other, the social reasons behind high crime in blighted black neighborhoods and why American prisons are overflowing with largely black inmates, is a consequence of poverty, racism and a breakdown of a social fabric. The history behind this is long and complicated, tracing back to the days of slavery. But there can be no excuse for police crime no matter the circumstances. Men in uniform are in uniform by choice. And they are paid to serve the people, regardless of race, gender and status. And when they end up killing the people they are supposed to serve, regardless of the crime, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, so that the men in uniform who actually do their job, are not feared but respected for their sacrifice. So when district attorneys, do not prosecute policemen who commit crime, they send a signal to the public that they are above the law. That in no way is acceptable in any democracy whose foundation is the rule of law.


While the police crimes disturbed many around the country to draw them out in protest, the CIA torture report that the Senate Intelligence Committee released perturbed anyone with a conscience. For anyone following the dirty and illegal wars waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, it should not have come as a surprise. Revelations about the secret CIA rendition programs, the Abu Ghraib prison photographs, water-boarding and the term EITs (Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) have been circulating in the American media and consciousness for sometime now. Torture was sanctioned at the highest echelons of American power and men were branded "Enemy Combatants" and locked away for good, stripping them of their rights to human dignity. The term EIT was used to cloak torture and compromise all what America stood for. With the Guantanamo Bay prison still open for business, America's association with torture still has not ended and the uproar is muted.

On December 9th, when Senator Diane Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee made the "Torture Report" public, what disturbed many were the techniques that were used to grossly violate the human rights of individuals that were protected under the "Geneva Convention" rules. What was most disturbing to me, was the revelation that 26 innocent people were tortured and a couple died as a result. This admission was chilling, disgusting and horrifying in every way possible. It grossly diminished America's standing in speaking routinely as it does, against torture in places like Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and other dark places. And there in lies the problem.

When the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to release such a report to the public in September, there was severe resistance both from the present administration and hawks from the previous one. CIA directors past and present raised an alarm, that such a report would embolden the enemy and risk American lives on the never ending and nebulous battlefield. After the report came out, the CIA chiefs defended their actions by literally stating that torture had in fact kept America safe and had yielded intelligence that actually saved lives. Former Vice President Dick Cheney came out of the woodwork and actually admitted on television that the torture of innocent people did not bother him as long as the program yielded results, as we were at war with an "unconventional enemy" and any means necessary were justified. Such an argument could very well be made by any power to justify its dubious and diabolical actions. And that is the explicit reason the Geneva Conventions were established to keep human madness and its capacity to do evil under check. America's links with torture as a means of waging war, diminish its standing separating it only slightly from the Jihadist's who make a gruesome spectacle of beheading people to make a point. Its association with torture jeopardizes the safety of its citizens around the world than anything else. 

The police and the CIA exist to serve the people who pay their salaries. Their clearly defined objective is to keep the nation and its inhabitants safe from harm. But it is also their obligation, to uphold the values of a system of government, that at its core protects individual rights and human dignity. Not just of its citizens, but of all those who inhabit the planet. That's what is expected of any civilized nation. So when some "bad apples" lose their way and compromise these values, they need to be reprimanded, otherwise all that is sacred and hard won is lost.

America as a superpower democracy sends a message to the world, that we are a nation of laws and no one is above the law. By releasing the Senate report, America wanted to send a signal that it does make mistakes and loses its way, but eventually it does acknowledge and rectifies. But only to confess does not mean anything unless people are held accountable. The architects of torture in America roam free and are allowed to appear on television and defend their actions. They are immune from prosecution and have been so since the Vietnam War and before. Policemen are set free even when the evidence is clear as day. By not punishing those responsible America sends a signal, that yes we do make mistakes, but trust us, we will not do it again. To the outside world, America's checkered past does very little to instill faith. Unless people are prosecuted for the extra judicial police killings and CIA renditions and torture, the change will only be marginal and superficial and the risk of it happening again remains high.

The public uproar is therefore justified. I am only disappointed that there is so little of it. There were no street protests when the torture report came out. There was no uproar when little children got gunned down in a suburban school in Connecticut and very little was done to outlaw machine guns. There were no street protests when unbeknownst to its citizens, emails and phone calls were intercepted by the NSA. There was very little noise when drones killed innocent people in far off places. There are many things to be enraged about, but there is very little uproar.

A few weeks ago I was called by BET Television to edit an interview of President Obama for broadcast. In the interview he was addressing the African America community about the protests surrounding the recent killings of unarmed citizens in Ferguson, Cleveland and New York. When asked what he thought of the protests, he said they were essential in a democracy as long as they were non-violent, as it forced those in power to pay attention to issues they normally would not. He went on to quote the adage "power concedes nothing without demand". 

While the protests demanding justice in the police killings are diminishing with the cold weather, they are only simmering under the surface. The violent culture that we live in and have become accustomed and numb to, is disturbing, pervasive and destructive. The violence pushes those who are given the task to protect, turn violent too. Where and how we break this cycle, is a quandary. But if we are to suppress the rage, we need to address the violence in the streets, on the battlefield, in our minds and in the new year, in our hearts. 

It is what it is.

Thanksgiving

Today we celebrate Thanksgiving in the United States of America. There is nothing more American than this annual family gathering that takes place across living rooms and then dining rooms. Weeks before Thanksgiving day, recipes are shared on cooking shows and in magazines, and between neighbors and friends. The art of baking the perfect moist Turkey, becomes the subject of many a conversation. In a seasonally early supper, Turkey meat is carved and consumed in copious amounts and the Trypotphan from the meat and alcohol from the wine puts everyone in the mood for some drowsy family time, which can get complicated and revealing at times. Many Americans joke about how Thanksgiving feasts are obligatory, special and sometimes the most painful meeting to be at every year. From being merry to being sorry, many American movies have depicted the Thanksgiving meal in its full spectrum of emotions. No matter the unpredictability of any family gathering, everyone looks forward to Thanksgiving as it officially marks the beginning of the holiday shopping season, the start of a cold winter with the new year on the horizon.

The first Thanksgiving dinner on record, took place in 1621 somewhere near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. In 1620 a small ship set sail from Plymouth, England carrying 102 passengers, mostly comprising of religious separatists who were fleeing persecution. The Pilgrims, as they later came to be known, dropped anchor off the coast of Massachusetts after a treacherous 66 day long journey. A month later the Mayflower crossed the Massachusetts bay to establish a colony. The Pilgrims, were the first illegal immigrants to arrive on the shores of this land who decided to stay. Through the first brutal winter most of the colonists decided to stay on the ship where many died of disease. Only half of them survived to see the first New England spring. When they moved ashore, they were warmly greeted by members from the Abenaki and Pawtuxet Indian tribes, who taught the severely malnourished immigrants how to cultivate corn, extract sap from maple trees, catch fish and avoid poisonous plants.

In November 1621 after the Pilgrims' first corn harvest was a success, the governor organized a celebratory feast and invited their fellow Indian tribesman to the three day long festivities. This was the first Thanksgiving feast which started a tradition that is celebrated to this today. Historians suggest that many of the dishes prepared may have used Indian spices and cooking methods. A chronicler recorded that a few of the settlers were sent out on a "fowling mission" which probably sealed the fate of the Turkey today. While Thanksgiving was celebrated mostly in the northeast in some shape or form, it was Abraham Lincoln who in 1863 at the height of the Civil War, declared it as a national day of remembrance and thanksgiving to "heal the wounds of the nation". In 1939 Franklin D. Roosevelt moved it up a week to spur retail sales during the Great Depression. Since then Thanksgiving is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November.

While the original spirit of Thanksgiving was of harmony, brotherhood and coexistence, it certainly did not persist for long. The natives showed the immigrants how to survive and flourish, and inadvertently opened a door to their own demise. Over the next century, native American tribes were decimated and a new world order was established for those who made America their homeland. The growing immigration from Europe that followed carved out a new character to this land of unspeakable natural beauty and limitless resources. The forests were tamed, slavery as a system of commerce was established and then abolished, technology became the driving force behind progress and new waves of immigrants from around the world shaped and reshaped a nation at its core.

When the Pilgrims arrived on the shores of America, they were seeking refuge from persecution. The opportunity they were after, was to live in peace without fear of oppression. The natives gave them that opportunity. That act of generosity laid the foundation for a new nation to be built. While a great amount of blood was shed in that endeavor, no matter how much many have tried to steer the nation from its founding history, it has proven again and again that immigration is the backbone of this nation.

Therefore, America belongs to everyone who comes here. Power, economic and political is distributed along racial lines based on those who had more opportunity relative to when they arrived on America's timeline. The early immigrants and their descendants wield more power today in relation to those who were oppressed and discriminated. The later waves of immigrants are relatively more successful, as America had established and recognized itself as a nation of all peoples, races and religions of the world. Even though it is apparent that America's wealth and prosperity is created by the ingenuity stemming from the continuous flow of immigrants, immigration legal and illegal continues to be a contentious issue. And every decade "immigration reform" is placed high on the agenda of every administration, partly to buy the allegiance of voting  blocks. 

It is not just a chance at economic prosperity that draws people to cross oceans, leave families and risk lives to come to America. The very history and character of this nation beckons all. Emma Lazarus' poem inscribed on The Liberty Statue reads,

Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, 

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, 

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

It does not say give me your rich, most educated, most talented and the most desirable with a valid visa, but still many with skills choose this nation as their home. Even with issues of racism and prejudice, mainly emanating from a fear of a changing demographic, America offers a shot at glory, no matter who you are. It also celebrates those who make it, by calling it the "American Dream" achieved.

So when President Obama this month decided to use the power vested in him by the people, to offer a few million illegal immigrants reprieve from being hounded by law enforcement, he was called out for overstepping his powers and acting like a monarch. While everyone agrees that the immigration system is broken, and has been so for a very long time, the gridlock caused by partizan politics has become unacceptable to many. And so the president decided to do something about it. With 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, Obama's plan would let some 4.4 million who are parents of citizens and legal permanent residents remain in the country temporarily, without the threat of deportation. These undocumented residents could apply legally for jobs and join American society, but not vote or qualify for insurance under the president's healthcare law. This measure would apply to those who have been in the United States for the last five years. An additional 270,000 people would be eligible for relief under the expansion of a 2012 move by Obama to stop deporting people brought illegally to the United States as children by their parents, known as the "Dreamers".

In selling his decision to the people, President Obama said “We’re not a nation that kicks out strivers and dreamers who want to earn their piece of the American dream. We didn’t raise the Statute of Liberty with her back to the world, we did it with her light shining.” This small step in the right direction, will allow the few who live in the shadows, to live in dignity. Deporting 11 million people is unrealistic and expensive. Some think this might send the wrong signal to those who desire to come to this country illegally. The reality is those who want to come here, will come no matter what. The creation of a police state will not solve the problem of illegal immigration, as America is founded on the principle of accepting all those who want to "earn a piece of the American dream".

Thus America finds itself in a quandary. On one end it needs people to abide by its immigration laws, so that people who are waiting in line to become legal immigrants are not undermined. But on the other, it cannot effectively prevent people from entering its borders without becoming an inhuman militarized fortress, which goes against its founding tenets. And so the debate rages on, with politicians using fear tactics to dissuade illegal immigration and brainwashing the public by visions of terrorism and jobs stolen. The bulk of all undocumented workers in America are honest hard working people from South America and the Caribbean. They work in subhuman conditions, taking jobs most legal immigrants and citizens would not touch. They keep our strawberries cheap and our restaurants and meat processing plants competitive and open for business. They pay taxes but receive no services. They live as invisible people, contributing billions of dollars to the economy.

It is hard to argue for the deportation of people when this nation in its foundation was created by mostly illegal immigrants. Even though President Obama has deported more people than any president before, what he did with the signing of this executive order was not something out of the ordinary. Many presidents before him, Republican and Democrat, have offered amnesty to immigrants. But any serious change can only come about when the congress and the president work together towards meaningful long term reform. That is a gargantuan task in the present viscous political climate. But the president has shown that much can be done on the sidelines and he is willing to take necessary steps however small, to push for immigration reform. In a world defined by borders and increasing inequity and conflict, any humane longterm solution to immigration in affluent nations is knotty.

Another tradition that defines Thanksgiving, is the presidential pardon of Turkeys. This year President Obama pardoned two Turkeys, named Mac and Cheese. The chosen birds will live out their lives safe from slaughter on a 10,000 acre farm in Virginia. The president joked, "I know some will call this amnesty", alluding to the other Executive Order he passed earlier in the month. "But don't worry, there is plenty of Turkey to go around" he concluded. 

It is what it is.