What Summits, Diplomacy, Lobbying, Fraud and Crises look like to Ignoramuses!

I like imagining the Eurozone rescue packages as pretty gift boxes that they hand over to each country during their financial crisis, with a card that says “With Best Compliments”… Feliz Navidad Spain, Feliz Natal (also Fatal) Portugal… Ho Ho Ho to Italy, Merry Christmas! :)

This year felt like a war of words. It has been full of countries opening channels of dialogues to solve problems, albeit ending each dialogue with everyone papering over their disagreements on what the problems are, what the solutions need to be, and how to collaborate in the future.

To add to this, there have been copious number of media-related conspiracies and political and business scandals that have been widely reported.

As I scan through the news and see what is happening in the world, I find myself looking more for rundowns of whatever is being discussed than opinions. I can’t even be bothered to piece the facts together and make inferences. Most often than not, the only inferences I seem capable of making are the obvious kind, like “Barkha Dutt should have been more careful!”

I am hopeless at keeping up with the summits. Take November alone… Even before we could get a grip on where everyone stood with respect to the issues being discussed at the G20, we were bludgeoned with APEC, NATO and EU-US summits. There was the economic recession to discuss, currency disputes, fiscal stimulus, financial regulations, protectionism, free-trade agreements, UN, World Bank and IMF reforms … and so on…

Moreover, it’s just like watching a soap opera! Now we have to wait for the Cannes and Honolulu summits in 2011 to learn about how everything will be resolved… or not! (Even soap operas have a shelf life. The Days of Our Lives has finally ended after 45 years!)

In contrast, the UN’s Climate Change Conference (COP16) in Cancun seems more calm, almost like a business vacation.

It gives us time to reflect on some things that have happened over the year that are not entirely our fault – like the earthquake in Haiti, followed by the earthquake in Chile, followed by the earthquake in China, followed by the earthquake and volcanic eruption in Indonesia, the Pakistan floods, and the flash floods in Ladakh, and my most favorite… Volcanic ash eruptions in Iceland that disrupted air traffic across Europe. “Sigh! Global Warming!”

Speaking of air traffic, there was that Ethiopian Airlines crash earlier in the year that killed 90 people, followed by another plane that killed the President of Poland and 96 others, which was then followed by the Air India plane that overshot the runway and killed 158 people. I also want to add here, the 74 people who drowned after a ferry-boat capsized in India recently!

Should we consider the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the mining accident in Chile as unfortunate catastrophes beyond our control as well?

Should we ignore the ethnic riots in Kyrgyzstan that killed 2000 Uzbeks and displaced 100,000 people?

Also the elections seem to have favored the center-left (albeit partially!) in several of my favorite countries, which is, I think, an Act of God to balance out all natural calamities!

As I consider these on a philosophical level, there are the Wikileaks dump and Barkhagate to take on board. There are also hordes of scandals related to money laundering by Indian ministers… India has also seen many changes to State governments over the last few days. I am learning quickly that world crises is inexhaustible!

Aside from crises and high-level meetings and other scandals, there is a need to understand the issues themselves. I haven’t the slightest idea how to go about comprehending the ongoing European sovereign debt crisis, or the US financial crisis, and the US foreclosure crisis. I haven’t still made sense of the Healthcare and Wall Street reforms we have seen over the last year… and I am still digesting the Mid-term elections! Did that devastation really happen?

Apparently, in most cases, learning from the past is not an option. It seems rather foolhardy to look at the European crisis now in light of the previous crises in Russia and Argentina. It is also near impossible to relate textbook theories with real life scenarios. And we can’t look at any one country or one issue in isolation of several other world events!

Speaking text book theories, sometimes I have to wonder if the media needs to ask itself what its role is in this collective order of the world! Perhaps they should spend a year contemplating media ethics, and how far they can go about their journalistic enquiry without making themselves synonymous with political brokering and corporate peddling.

I am in no way trivializing their role as mediators, but I find it irritating that they disrespect diplomacy! It can’t be right to destroy confidentiality and trust between foreign officials and hamper peaceful resolution of disputes!

That to me is more wrong than the media lobbying and causing scandal just to drive sales or forward personal agenda.

I can however see leaks as being useful to expose wrongdoing or make questionable policies known to the public. In the case of Wikileaks I don’t see this as being the case. James Rubin explains this point well.

For me, the "question of the moment" is “Is everyone going to be more straitlaced and inhibited in their talks in 2011”, and can that be good?

What the fuck has Obama done so far?

I've been watching Palin closely and taking her very seriously for her fashion sense. :) Even within the conservative pulled-back hairstyle, the sleek rimless glasses and neutral color palette, she manages to sneak in some haute couture fashion. She works those beautiful parkas, perky ruffled collar suits, sequined blazers, silk polka dot shirts and ruby peep-toe pumps and bold danglings like nobody else can - i.e. in a conformist and yet playfully defiant way.

She has as much to offer to Fashion Week as she has to politics.

I really can't wait for her to be President! :)

As much as I dislike the current Republican politics, I can't help but feel like they could have done better for themselves in the Senate had they chosen more moderate candidates (like in Colorado, Nevada and Delaware). While there is no denying that they had incredible turnover (the biggest swing since 1948), they could have easily seized the Senate and leveled the Democrats like dough and had the cake and eaten it too (while sipping on tea).... for that the Tea Party is to be blamed and congratulated, (and thanked immensely!).

I don't want to read too much into this Tea Party extremism or "the sense of abandonment" that the Democratic-left is feeling. I am happy to note that a majority of Republicans are either being opportunistic in their support for the Tea Party or don't support them at all. Given the kind of media and financial backing they've received, it is highly inevitable that the right-wing frenzy has taken over the nation the way it has.

What is reassuring is that all the liberal Democrats who stood in the elections did very well for themselves (except Alan Grayson). The Democrats who lost were those who were the least Democratic! Even in the Senate, only two of the twelve Democrats who stood for the re-election lost and they too didn't lose to right-wing fanatics. Feingold and Lincoln were both booted by their own liberal base and because of the independents swinging towards the GOP!

That says to me that this mid-election vote isn’t about endorsing the Republicans as much as it is a national referendum against the moderate and conservative Democrats.

When Obama won the Presidential election, I was convinced that we were seeing a revolution -- by this I don't mean a progressive socialist revolution, but an democratic one full of hope and self-motivation. I thought we saw parties divided by ideology, offering real solutions as opposed to politics.

Minorities and young voters felt empowered and came out wanting to play a huge role in the Obama Agenda and the transformational change he promised....

There wasn't talk about whether we were overreaching or being ambitious as much as that we were working towards something meaningful.

But soon, Obama was beginning to sound more and more professorial and therapist-like to his supporters, and even suggested that a lot of change was happening in places that weren’t being talked about... which meant he left his people out of the game altogether.

His present even-keel placidity (especially during a crisis) is the opposite of his optimistic charm about hope and responsibility that had us fired up. There was a sense of awe and wonder that he inspired in us. His commitment to lead us out of this mess was almost poetic. I am now somewhat reminded of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. His supporters must feel like the children who were lured away from home with beautiful music.

I think the mid-term elections is a sign that we have given up hope. Many of Obama’s supporters stayed home this time turning a cold shoulder to his last-minute persuasion.

Independents voted Republican not because they offered a better alternative, but because neither of them do. No one seems to be bothered even to ask to what end the Tea Party is working so hard to overthrow Obama.

I am not buying that the Democrats overreached or focused on the wrong mandate. I think they focused on some pertinent issues that needed to be addressed. It was their internal discord that proved fatal to them. Perhaps, they showed their opposition to Obama's policies too strongly for their own good. I would even argue that they weren't being bipartisan enough. It is really shameful the way Pelosi and several of really good Democratic senators were vilified by the Tea Party.

Back then, I wasn’t able to see why the Democrats did not stick together and stop Bush. Now I am not able to see why they are sticking together to stop Obama, and otherwise not sticking together even for their own good! What am I missing here?

Now the party is back to where it was before 2004 - restricted to east and west coasts, among affluent, creative-class professionals, and with no support from a majority of the country, especially the working class (as well as the young and minorities).

Obama too sounds helpless, and continues to cast himself as an outsider while succumbing to the role of the insider. In his address to the media, he sounded prosaic about the gunk he is cleaning up, but seemed to stand by his policies in spite of all losses to his party, while also glumly and almost unconvincingly offering to work on a compromise in some areas with the Republicans.

Personally, I am very proud of what has been accomplished in the last two years given the infernal circumstances in which he took office - what with the political discord, the recession, the oil spill disaster, he managed to pass the economic stimulus bill and the healthcare reform, expand the children's health insurance, work a strategy to withdraw troops from Iraq, order additional troops to Afghanistan, remove restrictions on Stem Cell Research etc....

I don’t think it is Obama (then) or Tea Party (now) that is trailblazing. It is our own inability to act without swinging!

We should stop wanting for him to be the Brady Bunch dad and walk gaily into The Daily Show and outperform Stewart and win us over. Let’s just hear him say "Yes We Can, But..." and get on with it!

I read a funny e-card today that said "Congratulations to San Francisco on having their first heterosexual parade in decades" That’s what this election feels like. :)

I am alarmed at the celebration over Kasab's death sentence. It's the kind of perversion that I can't wrap my head around. Somehow the line between retribution and revenge has become nonexistent. How can one immoral act be the answer to another immoral act? How can two wrongs make a right?

How are we bringing balance of good over evil if we are proclaiming that a person should be hung to death? Where is our good that we take so much pride in when we make flippant statements like "Kasab should be stoned to death or chopped to pieces"?

Would the good in you personally do it? Would you hold the stone or a knife and do it yourself, or is murder a casual thought you entertain in your mind because it is done behind closed doors by someone else pretending to uphold justice?

I am upset beyond belief and objectivity. There is something to learn from Europe for abolishing capital punishment. Somehow they seem to have managed to cross over to the good side of humanity, while we are still stuck in this barbaric parallel world with no respect for life. Clearly ours is a lesser society! And it will remain so as long as we continue to do wrong under this cloak of upholding justice.

We'll only keep quoting Gandhi's teachings of nonviolence for effect and pretend to take pride in his ideals, when in fact we have little respect for them. His statements are all bogus words of idealism to us that have no real bearing in this rational world where violence is more realistic than peace.

So then, let's be honest and get rid of everything Gandhi said. Let us pick all his quotes on nonviolence and destroy them once and for all... here's a start! 

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

“The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives”

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”

“Nonviolence is a weapon of the strong”

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" 

(To the supporters of Kasab's death sentence: I hope you are not the change I want to see in this world!

Art and I are as apart from each other as the Everest's summit is from its base. But, as long as we are on the same mountain, there is the hope that I can climb to the top of it at some point, or at least look up and appreciate the daunting wonder that is the Everest (art)! :) But, lately I have been looking up and seeing a summit polluted with cruddy, mannerless men. It is upsetting beyond the boundaries of what is reasonable!

Let me share some perplexing news stories that I came across over the last few days.

In Maria Abramovic's "otherwise" celebrated exhibition in MoMA, her eight new performers who were standing on display were poked, prodded and groped by visitors until they had to be thrown out of the museum. What is such a disreputable lot (and I speak of the visitors, not the art-people) doing in an art museum anyway? I wonder if this is all we have to write about the "21st century art-loving neanderthals" in our history textbooks of the future: Will this be described as the era where the art-viewing experience of adults involved "touch-and-feel", as did their book-reading experience as kids? (On a slightly-unrelated side note: I love the children's touch-and-feel books. I find them fascinating even now. My first one as a kid was a book called the "Egg in a Hole". In it, Henny runs around the farm looking for her lost egg and meets lots of farm animals on the way. It was the book I read almost everyday for a whole year. Back then, I used to think of it as a work of art, although today there are tons of other sophisticated touch-and-feel books that are far more engaging and innovative. Which brings me to my point: Is there an expiry date on art? Do some kinds of art cease to be considered art once they have been improved on?)

In another news, The Bloomberg administration wants to shrink the art space in New York, because there are way too many art vendors crowding parks and streets, and making it difficult for pedestrians to walk, especially on the sidewalks! I can see why this poses problems from a pure logistics point of view. But, shouldn't we be looking for alternative avenues for these artists to express themselves and sell their works? There is no talk of requital... only wreck-quital! What does it say about us that we are struggling to find space for artists to make a living in the open? It raises a lot of existential questions that I don't even know how to begin to ask!

There is also news that NYPD is peeved with the complaints it is receiving from people about statues on top of buildings that look like real people who are about to jump down! This, I think is a valid concern! As it is, tall buildings apart from mountain cliffs and monuments attract a lot of self-destructive people. (Disclaimer: I am only being sarcastic... don't mean to me insensitive) But, in anycase, I also have to wonder what the public can do if a person is about to jump down from a building. The thought alone scares the living daylights out of me. Should these First Aid manuals also teach us how to respond to suicidal situations? What I am really surprised about is that the police haven't received any calls from people worried that the statues (easily weighing more than 100 humans) might fall on their heads! To me, that seems more probable. What is even more interesting is that London had a similar statue-project going on all over their city three years ago and it didn't attract the paranoia that threatens to overwhelm the NYPD now.

Then there was Robert Ebert's declaration that video games can never be art. Even though I disagree with him, I am not eager to defend video games either. I think the discussion itself is rather silly... and like someone else said, the counter argument is turning out to be like a 26-year-old trying to convince his parents that he's a grown-up. But, I am disappointed that someone the likes of Ebert would get into petty two-dimensional (no pun intended) arguments about art! As much as I enjoy his film reviews and think highly of his style of critiquing, he isn't really an authority on art!

Ok. This next piece of news is not entirely bad. In fact, it may be good in some ways. Museums around the world are raiding their own closets to find artwork to display, so that they can cut down on their costly "art exhibition" budgets during this challenging economic time! The Metropolitan Museum of Art pulled out some rare Picassos from their vault. The fact that museums display less than 10% of the artwork in their collection at any given time is alone something to think about.... then the fact that they are hoarding art by artists the likes of Picasso for a rare "economic apocalypse" is beyond anything I had imagined.

There is another intriguing article about street photography becoming "a contested sphere in which all our collective anxieties converge: terrorism , paedophilia, intrusion, surveillance". I remember a discussion I had very recently with someone about the "right to privacy" on the streets. People-watching is for the most part an accepted hobby. We like haunting places where there are lots of people; we enjoy concertedly observing everyone as they go about their lives, while at the same time being aware that we too are being observed just as much. I won't say we are all entirely oblivious to our roles in this experience as "watchers and watchees". We dress well and present ourselves as befits the place and the occasion and we conduct ourselves with some consideration for where we are. Point is, we all know that "observing" and "being observed" are part of the deal (even if openly gawking at people is considered disrespectful... Indians notwithstanding)... but there is still the illusion of placidly going about our lives as if the world around us exists only superficially, as "ambience" and the only thing we care about is that thing we came to that place for (shopping at the mall, enjoying a concert, eating at a restaurant etc). But, the minute you pull out your camera and take a picture of this very same person you have been gawking at, you are invading their privacy! It is to say, you can take pleasure in their presence all you want (even clandestinely), but can't capture a fraction of a second of their lives even if it is only the slightest of everything you have entertained yourself with in them! The ethics of people-watching are grey while pretending to be black and white! I find that objectionable! I also find it thought-provoking how this is the rare case where sly covert operations are considered more respectable than direct, honest-to-goodness appreciation.

Although this post is about bad or borderline-questionable news regarding art, I can't help but share some good news. The New South Wales Government announced recently that people charged with child pornography offenses will no longer be able to claim the "artistic merit defense". Previously, this was a grey area, and criminal law had to consult art experts to clarify if some artwork portraying children should be considered art or child abuse (that it should be either-or is debatable, but I am happy this issue is being addressed). Having said that, I think about old mythological paintings and sculptures of nude children and wonder if they will be held to the same standard and be banned as well! (Fair to ask?)

Have you ever wondered why only a few art collectors in the world end up with lots of really good artwork? Of course, the obvious reason is they have the means to pay for it, but beyond that, how do they get to those pieces before someone else does? In the art market, oftentimes art gets sold to a select group of buyers even though there might be people willing to pay more for it! This exclusivity of the art world, the unspoken rules of trade, the competitive nature of bidding, even in these hard economic times is intriguing. Art world can be so murky sometimes. But, which world that sells products worth millions of dollars is not?

Sometimes I wish I could just scroll down to the next page of the news story I am reading by blinking my eye, rather than using my hand to click a button. :)

The picture below, I am told is my Expression of the Year! It is not my most flattering picture but it has "internet addict" written all over it. I know I look like I am reading something that's giving me a headache, but I am actually enjoying a write-up on Francis Bacon's art.



Last year, I transitioned to using the net more to consume entertainment than to make social conversation... which means I don't quite need both hands on the keyboard! Perhaps, we all made that transition. Are you not consuming more news now than you did before?

But what has all this information overload done for us?

Last year's news stories should be relatively easy to sort out. Before I started this post, I quickly did a rundown of the US news I followed, and found an infographic that agreed with me. I am sure there are better lists out there, but this highly general graphic uses terms like "Obama Administration" to speak of everything from stimulus spending to healthcare reform to Obama's family getting a dog or him winning the peace prize :) So it is unlikely that it does not include anything of importance... and is perfect for superficial musing.

For instance, I was thinking about what a similar graphic on India-specific news stories of 2009 would include: The Indian general elections, the telangana issue, YSR's death, Satyam scam, followed by Tech Mahindra's acquisition of Satyam, the Liberhan report leak, dispute between the Ambani brothers over the pricing of natural gas, the Yeddy-Reddy(brothers) battle in Karnataka and allegations of illegal mining, India's inflation dipping below zero, the the rape charge against Shiney Ahuja, the sex scandal involving ND Tiwari, the land-grabbing allegation on PD Dinakaran, public criticism of Mayawati's statue mania, Pankaj Advani winning the World Billiard's Championship... there is also news related to terrorism... the maoism insurgency...!

Then there are other world news stories whose omission from the infographic is perplexing: The copenhagen summit, the debt crisis in dubai, the ethnic conflict in Xinjiang between the muslims and Hans, the costly (not just deadly) Nigerian oil war, the beginning of LTTE's end (Prabhakaran's death), the beginning of Pakistan's onslaught against the Taliban, the Mexican govt's war against the drug cartels, the Iranian ethnic unrest, Buffett's deal with Goldman Sachs (and other interesting business deals or "no-deals" as would apply), GM and Chrysler filing for bankruptcy, Roger Federer's French open/Wimbledon win, Michael Jackson's death, Edward Kennedy's death, Ford Hood shootings, the development of the AIDS vaccine, the lifting of the ban on stem-cell research, finding water on the moon, the discovery of solar systems much like our own, the discovery of Ardi - the 4.4 million year old skeleton, the decoding of the human genome, scientists levitating a mouse, the launch of Windows 7, the launch of Nook, Steve Jobs' much anticipated comeback, Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems, and MySpace losing its popularity...

I wonder if all of this news is connected somehow. Can we make sense of all of the global events using one blanket statement.... like 2009 is the Year of Crises ...

Is 2010 is turning out to be the Year of Resolutions or Re-solutions?

Perhaps what is more important to address is what we gain from following news the way we do! At the expense of sounding preachy and putting people off with my blanket statement of immense wisdom :P, the one thing I gained from the elections in the US and India last year is an appreciation for liberal democratic ideals. When you see the way these elections have amassed support from millions of people, (in some ways more dramatically than in the previous years), you can't help but wonder how or where you fit into this participative process (and if you do at all!). Likewise, I am also suddenly experiencing a lack of democratic freedom! Last year, it was annoying having to follow the elections both in the US and in India and not be able to vote or take part in the process beyond a point! I suppose it is true that we learn the value of what we had only after we've lost it!
On the plus side, because I can't vote anywhere, I feel like I might as well observe and react to every democratic process world over... like the looming UK general election, which is so entertaining!

I wonder too, if I will learn the value of this information overload only when I suddenly experience the lack of information... which immediately makes me think about internet censorship China and how the country challenges our way of thinking about freedom... progress... technology... education... among other things!

When I began this post, I didn't really want it to become a full-blown summary of the biggest news stories in 2009. I was merely trying to list out some big stories so that I can make sense of what I've been reading. I also wanted to see how news from the previous year spills into the new year, and if in fact they are as relevant today as they were before... or if we have moved on! But it ended up being expository! Pardon my idiocy :)

Ok. I don't know Swami Nithyananda beyond the sex scandal that erupted recently, but I can see why people are drawn to him. His videos were quite intriguing. He has a magnetic quality about him. I'll go ahead and confess that I also thought some of what he says is compelling, even if not sagacious (while most of it is repetitive and elementary). While his discourses on rumors and scandals are clearly inspired by his own current predicament, he doesn't really defend his acts or seem to want to justify them in anyway. In fact, he calls to mind the fact that we (humans, devotees, and others... not god-men!) enjoy reacting to perceived outrages... we rake up muck about people, participate in scandals, present them dramatically and savor all the gossip as much as possible to satisfy our own subconscious desire to feel the emotion of horror and disgust. It is as if to say this whole sex affair is less about him and more about us.

Here's one video.



I watched this video exactly for the reason he mentioned... for vicarious pleasure! But, while I don't agree with his act, here is why I agree with his take on scandals - Sun News!

Lovely movie this My Name is Khan! Karan Johar took the filter out of his brain and made mixed vegetable kurma out of a million global calamities and served it alongside bheja fry (mine and few other minorities). Most people seem to have liked the full-on dishing out of anti-patrioterrorism rhetoric. I, for one, enjoyed it completely, but for reasons that would make Shiv Sena question my (dis)loyalty!

I have always maintained that verbal diarrhea is a result of repressing strong emotions for too long. What better example can I find to establish the validity of my claim than this epiglottis Khan film!

After years of bottling up his emotions about all that he had been reading in the op-ed pages of newspapers that his favorite juhu beach peanuts came wrapped in, Karan Johar could not restrain himself any longer and had to vomit out everything he felt about everything in one go.

There is a scene in the movie where Khan identifies all the animals in a crossword puzzle competition and wins his stepson a stuffed animal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a metaphor for all the social issues the film touched upon that the audience needed to identify.

Moreover, it was a three-hour long exercise in suspending disbelief except for two occasions where he showed some restraint. One: Khan did not have the hurricane victims pump out flood water from their town by converting their bicycles into motors (perhaps because he already did something similar in Swades, and hey! Funny Hair Joel broke his bicycle after the accident!) and Two: Obama did not sing "Hum Honge Kaamyaab".

I was in tears as I did a mental rundown of when the stock market crashed in the US. Had it not been in the nonexistent timeline that the film was based in, Chacha "Khan" Chaudary, whose memory works faster than a computer would have solved a global economic crisis and restored normalcy to our dysfunctional markets as easily as Superman circled the globe and made time run backwards.

Is this what happens to opinionated filmmakers who restrict themselves to the romantic genre for too long and need an outlet to vent their political discontentment? What was the film propelled by and what propels Karan Johar! Seeing as the film celebrated a "direct symbolism" bonanza, should he have called it Montezuma's Revenge (a.k.a. Traveller's diarrhea) instead?

I am usually a few months behind on magazines. While I am still "Dealing with America's fiscal hole" (The Economist Nov 21st issue), the world thinks it is "Time to Get Tough" and learn "Lessons from Obama's first year" (The Jan 16th issue)!

If you read magazines like I do, line by line, cover to cover, you are essentially treating it like a novel. And if that has been your modus operandi for some time, you will begin to respond to news stories the same way you would each episode in a series. You read them with close attention, go over what might happen next, and wait eagerly for the drama to unfold. Given that most magazines are a 100 pages long, it is time consuming and I am usually behind all news.

Now, don't let this fool you into thinking I do this before I think my method has virtue. For one thing, I am terrible at remembering facts. Everything I read, be it about politics, art, technology, science, environment or finance, turns into the same glop of cogitative matter -- none that I can use in a social conversation. Moreover, by the time I have read it, people have moved on to something more current and know so much more.  

Even with the podcasts I listen to, the news articles I read online, the TV shows I watch, I find that it is less about keeping up with affairs and more about adding to that same glop of cogitative matter, which only satisfies my mind. 

But sometimes, I wonder if I should be less ignorant and put an effort into remembering those facts. Most people I know who do, seem to have so much more to offer to a conversation... and seem so much more knowledgeable. I find that I am utterly fascinated by what they have to say, even though I have read about it before... their cogitative glop is more meritorious and full of cognizance, while mine only makes me look ignorant! 

But perhaps, what mine helps with is in understanding a dinner conversation with my smart better than I would have if I had not read anything in the first place.

What is it about Obama that makes everything happen too soon! He became President too soon, and now he won the Nobel Peace Prize too soon. The whole world seems to be in a hurry to honor this man ahead of everyone else who seems far more deserving. 

Why is he so popular?

I can’t think of anyone prior to him that received such reverence from the entire world even before he set to prove himself. Even Gandhi had to make statements through actions and put himself through hunger strikes and endure incredible resistance from his people and from the outside in his struggle for India's Independence. He not only “spoke” but “did” for peace and nonviolence; for self-reliance and the moral regeneration of his country, through unimaginable personal sacrifices. And after all that the Nobel Peace Prize eluded Gandhi, despite his being nominated five times for a whole decade until he passed away. There are many such Gandhis both alive and dead who deserved the Nobel Prize and did not get it!

What about Obama are we blinded by?

Even the criticism about Obama seems to be less about what he has done or is doing (since it is too early to say), and more about us unrealistically pinning our hopes on him alone to set the whole world right. Take his acceptance speech for instance. He is the only person to have accepted a Peace award as a “call to action” (!) . He called on nations to address global challenges such as peace in the Middle East, the threat from nuclear weapons, global warming and the battles against poverty, disease and injustice.

Are we looking for only one man to potentially change the world we live in? If there is such a man, would it be him? And if it is him, should he not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize just for earning our unswerving faith in his abilities? or has someone upped his game and promised to deliver more… and more convincingly?

Millions of people including influential leaders from all over the world have thrown their weights and stood behind him just to anchor his words and carry his message. I can’t imagine why! What about him makes us a generation of sheep, eager to follow blindly?

What is this Nobel Prize for and what does it do?

Just like when he was elected President, this award seems to speak less about him and more about where we are as a people. We have somehow made him a symbol for a transformation we want to go through in our lives! We are looking to be guided towards a point where our world is at peace with itself. And we keep strengthening his commitment as a leader and egging him on as he eggs us on to get us there in an interesting helicoidal fashion. Clearly now, there is no running away from working towards peace for him or for us. We all need to be committed to it whether we like it or not.

We have heard why the Nobel Committee awarded Obama this Peace Prize. In their speed read, they speak of the Time for Hope. We've also heard Obama's remarks on winning the Prize.

The significance of what he has achieved becomes more apparent and humbling as you start looking at who else won the Peace Prize before him and why, and who else was nominated this year. The reactions of nations, of leaders around the world and the media over Obama's Nowegian (:P) victory have been both amusing and compelling. There is a lot of discussion on who should have won both this year as well as over the years, who deserved to win and did, and a lot of postmortem scrutiny and "symptomatic" analysis of Obama and the Nobel Committee. This seems to be such a mountainous burden for one person to carry alone. How is he going to be the leader we want him to be anymore than he already is! What does he have to do now? Where should he have been less than a year since he was elected that he is not in already!

My brother wrote an email, parts of which are pasted below

“The Nobel Prize isn't about recognizing people that do things in their own little way. It is about recognizing achievements that can potentially change the world we live in. It is the same basis used for every other Nobel Prize, including those in science (scientists don't get prizes for making actual applications of their discoveries). Obama has done enough, in my mind, to change the way the world leaders are discussing and acting on issues related to war, climate and the human condition. This comes in the wake of one of the most turbulent times in the world order caused by one of the worst leaders in modern history.  

The Non-proliferation Treaty isn't a joke given that we are only decades removed from the Cold War; it still is the most effective deterrent to a potential nuclear war. Obama hasn't just appointed people... he has followed up on everything he said he would do (to a practical point). To expect policies to bear fruit the next day would be fanciful and unrealistic -- but he has set the wheels in motion and put highly capable people to reinstate a dialogue that was impossible in the Bush era.

Bush did not act in the interest of his country... he nearly brought the country to its knees with his absurd international policies (not to speak of his general ignorance about every single issue) that even he apologized for. His mistakes are countless, from the invasion of fundamental rights to the violation of international treaties. To bring US back into the global fold of acceptance is a world changing effort and President Obama has incredibly done that in one year.

I have always wondered who might win a “world democratic election”, if there was such a thing that is. But again, if the world was really one, and there were no international conflicts to resolve, but just conflicts of interests, what kind of dialogue would we see between nations and who would make that possible?

It has been an ambience of merriment and grief over the last few days. The merriment mostly has to do with the state of affairs at home. The grief has to do with the affairs of my home State.

AP is turning into a cesspit of anarchic madness and I am an unwilling audience to the wave of mass hysteria that has engulfed it. I say unwilling because I want to be in it. I want to experience the madness firsthand...and not the helpless madness of the common people, but the wild opportunistic excitement that the politicians are experiencing right now! This is the time to exploit the highly tragic death of a great leader. The battle over succession is making headway in a riveting and comically muddled manner. I can’t seem to work out if all the clowning around in the name of decision-making is our way of taking politics seriously. Perhaps it is…or perhaps it inadvertently takes us on the (right) path of decision-making “in spite of” all the clowning around. We are now where we “wait and watch” but we are not waiting passively of course! God knows what we are watching... which is why I want to be in it!

When you are just a spectator to the events unfolding around you, it is a bit like believing in God and destiny. You know that your State’s future and the development of events thereupon is beyond your control, even though you are contributing to it in some way. A force of agency that is invisible to you usually predetermines what ensues, but you feel the need to have a say in this process. You want to address whatever dictates this inevitable series of events, but you don’t even know if it is a person, thing or supernatural being. NT Rama Rao for instance never quite revealed who or what he was! He arrived on earth as a black and white messiah dressed in a costume of a divine being; and took flight in color wearing an oversized superhero outfit. Somehow throughout all this, while we were watching him dance stiffly but charmingly with a vulnerable damsel half his age, he founded a political party and shaped the character of the State like we had never imagined!

I have decided therefore that I am a political agnostic. I claim neither faith nor disbelief in politicians. It is impossible to know whether there is such a thing as a good, well-meaning politician. If there is such a politician, it is impossible to know if he has complete understanding of what might be good for us, for there is no single correct solution to any political situation. Your best bet then is to BE the politician with an agnostic belief in yourself!

So far this uncertainty has worked in my favor. When chaos calls, bedlam abounds and brings with it some good, some bad, some opulence and loads of penury. There is balance in the world, and it seems to be tilted in my favor. I am where I feel for my State but am safely removed from it, so nothing about it affects me adversely.

Even so, it is only when a great calamity occurs, or a leader passes away that you notice how “soundly” people who are far removed from it choose to express their shock or grief. There are ardent enthusiasts who see YSR as a tall leader, an uber secular man of ideas, who undertook unprecedented projects of rural restitution. Then there are those who don’t want t see beyond his corruption and exploitation of power for personal gain. Their tribute to him is filled with blasphemy.

But, the thing that bugs me most throughout all this is not people’s adverse criticism for the political scenario in AP but the cynicism for the future. All discussions on “what now” seem to be wrought with great bitterness for “what has been” and “what is” on a very shallow level. A few disparate statistics and facts are thrown here and there - all pulled out of context, distorted, misconstrued, simplified and then blown out of proportion! But there seems to be no discussion on "what must" happen! Somehow our intellect terminates right after we pan, pummel, roast and tear apart our government. Who is going to eat the shredded and barbecued feast?

We have already made it amply clear that our politics is murderous! It is rife with caste wars and ideological struggles. It is studded with benighted stars who may be unenlightened intellectually or morally! This has been the case since time immemorial, but we continue to be baffled by this and keep bringing these nutters to power. But so far a lot of good has come out of it, and that we must not deny.

But, YSR is neither an incompetent nutter nor an unenlightened intellectual. He was a tough man who knew what he was doing and so did we. His election campaign rested solely on the continuity of projects he had undertaken in his previous tenure. He had no free TV and laptop schemes. His portfolio has been relatively impressive. The triumph of Congress recently was mostly his triumph. The support for him was like nothing the nation had seen in over four decades. It speaks for our approval of his previous efforts and faith in his leadership – something the Grand alliance failed to secure. He fought against odds of anti-incumbency and an almost unified opposition. The naxal movement saw a peak and a trough during his tenure and has remained at the trough point for sometime now. That in itself is a huge achievement. 

I want therefore to be able to ignore the denigrating remarks about his corruption and understand what about him prompts the glowing tributes that we have been witnessing over the past few days. What did he get right about our needs and what do we think we need!

“Doom” which is the constantly agreed upon prediction of our States future, seems to be eluding us somehow! I want to understand how we have managed this.

For now, I am thoroughly perplexed at the lack of clear procedures to facilitate the succession process and yet everything seems to happen involuntarily in a frenzied hurry. There is all this talk on how parties will choose to harness the emotion turbulence caused by YSR’s death to their advantage in the short and long term. In the mean time, there is Rosaiah and Jagan Reddy representing conflicting paradoxes within the same party. The topic of current interest is what it takes to be a good politician!

Here, we speak of the ideology of legacy, which is being tested to its limit. Is it the legacy of the Congress, or of YSR, is it of stability or of change? Do we need an old wizened politician or a young dynamic one; and do Rosaiah and Jagan Reddy rightly represent these two types or will their common link of egocentricity and dishonesty supplant this delineation.

This whole thing has got me thinking not about what we want of our future. I can hardly get a grip on what it takes to run a State and here I am wondering what I would look at when choosing a political party or a leader to assume responsibility and lead us in the direction of progress. Maybe I ought to think beyond my own life which is so removed from the real affairs of the State. I am so blind to the real identify of my State because I am not seeking to discern its identity, but looking to identify with it somehow. I put myself in it, but I am not its real denizen. When I speak of it, I speak as if I am an outsider, analyzing the government's rights and wrongs on issues I know little about, feel little empathy for, because they don't directly affect me. I know that if it doesn't work in my favor, I can have out! What meaning then does my pride or pessimism have for my State? And if it has little meaning, maybe I should stick to just feeling pride? Perhaps that will bring me closer to home?

So the verdict is out! After the maelstrom of uninterrupted election activity in the country, and the media's foofaraw over all trifling matters, a decisive victory has come into view. All the protracted drama and chaos has led to a stolidly calm end! Only, we are exactly where we began... with the same government, but a realization that this is exactly what we've always wanted! :) So we've made a hoopla about this democratic exercise and have finally voted for continued stability!  

I am relieved! I almost didn't know what to make of this election juggernaut push taking shape everywhere! We got dealt some fanciful cards of celebrities and performers, and despite the bewildering rumpus that they were creating,  and the blistering war between the radical left and right, all of whom were pushing portentously for power with overwhelming force, we seem to have chosen prudently!

At the end of it all, this election turned out to be a surprisingly peaceful one! The people who made the least noise have emerged victorious, leaving the opponents quite dumbfounded. Clearly, no one anticipated this smooth walkover, not even the Congress!

So, it is now time to make whoopee and glorify the elected government! It won't be too long before we are contemptuous again. The media will start inveighing against every seemingly important and unimportant decision that will be made by the ruling party! I am curious to see how people react to the priority of this season being judicial reform! Something tells me this can only be beneficial, but the impact of it may be less visible and may therefore go uncredited.   

Our lagging economy will see some rough times in the next year or so, and with no investment in infrastructure, and no major economic reform, it won't be too long before the people begin to sound pessimistic. The discussions will tend towards the pointlessness of this democratic exercise and we will forget all the intense passion that we just felt over the last few months. 

I don't mean to sound defeatist at all. I swing from this way to that and change my opinion on politics every day depending on who I speak to, and how passionate or dispassionate they are about politics. Some days I am overawed by the order in chaos that is the norm in our politics, some days I am deeply humbled by the sheer complexity of this democratic process, with its hundreds of political parties that address a myriad of issues, many of which I am completely clueless about. On other days, I am utterly baffled by the absurdity of it all. We have a sense of humor about our politics on a level I cant quite fathom! How else does one explain the buffoonery that we witness everyday as our leaders threaten to upload nude pictures of their adversaries, pass vile remarks about certain social classes, show incessant affinity with miscreants! We are one comic race, acting out an eccentric play with several exciting, emotional, unexpected series of events. 

That being said, this seems like a very important exercise that we ought to engage in as often as possible! It has little to do with picking the right political party to lead us, for there is no telling what might come out of one party being in power over another. There is no such thing as making an informed decision, at least not for the majority of people, me included!   
 
Perhaps in democracy, one isn't really voting for a party, for issues, or for an ideology. We seem to be voting for the idea of democracy and freedom, of being a part of a frenzy, and acting together, mindfully or mindlessly, but passionately nevertheless. And it is apparent that one needs nothing more than this game of mindless mass action to keep up moving forward!
 
Today I am feeling a bit hopeful and sanguine, and it is because I am reading India After Gandhi, in which Guha speaks of the miraculous birth of India in a short span of two or three years. Around the time of our Independence, over five hundred countries, were merged together, to form what we now know as India. It is the kind of achievement on a level that I can't even begin to comprehend. I can imagine an India with several religious entities, several social castes and classes living together peacefully and clashing every now and then! But I can't imagine an India split into so many parts where each part is more different from the other than France is from Spain or Germany is from England, where most entities wanted to remain independent countries and not come under the common umbrella called India! If we could achieve that kind of unity, what are the issues in politics that we face today in comparison!

What is it about India that attracted so many different kinds of people and cultures! Why are we so welcoming! We should have a special day to celebrate Secularism, as we do Independence! Happy Secularism :-)

I wish it was a tsunami that wiped the farmers out

I hate this Earth Day weekend! The pretense of humanity, this fake democracy. It all seems pointless.

I am upset!

(On Request: Last year's posts on Earth hour can be found here and here!)

Last year, we switched off the lights for Earth Hour and played scrabble in the dark, which was a lot of fun and also the only way Tapi could beat me at the game! Will a billion really go dark this year? Will Earth Hour galvanize support for the fight against global warming? I wonder what happened from the time I turned off the light for an hour last year until now. My life continues to be the same. People continue to pull my leg about my pseudo environmentalism! I stay awake all night almost every day, when in fact I could be sleeping and saving power by turning off the lights! It is now 4 AM and I haven't slept! But, the issue was more than just put on the political agenda... an environmental revolution is taking shape in many parts of the world, and a radical alteration in our mindsets is happening in a big way!

I remember asking mom to turn off the lights for an hour last year and she said "I will, when the lights come back on after the power cut!" My mom is a horrible audience for my harangues on going green! I can't ask her not to buy liquid soap because she never does! I can't ask her to take her own bag to the grocery store, because she always has! She recycles newspapers, and donates clothes! Indians take the whole fun out of being eco-friendly! They seem to do all the right things without meaning to!    

We also missed out on Ugadi, the Telugu New Year's Festival, which also happens to be Dad's birthday according to the Hindu Lunar Calendar! What I miss about Ugadi is the show hosted by Dharmavarapu Subramanyam, where they play different comedy scenes from movies. He's a very entertaining host. His humor makes you laugh and want to tear your hair out at the same time!

Speaking of environmentalism, and the news about Earth Hour, I wonder what makes some kinds of stories newsworthy over others. With Earth Hour it is quite obvious why! But, sitting in my office everyday, I read tons of news reports on bone health that I find quite fascinating and noteworthy even: like how space travel offers insight on improving bone health; how hibernating bears hold the key to keeping our bones healthier; or how beer and wine can be good for your bones because they increase bone density (although binge drinking can cause bone disease among other things! and that's not good!)   
 
Beyond that, the environmental news I read on obscure websites everyday are quite sensational as well, like how we have finally saved the ozone layer (!), or that water production is the next big green tech innovation (!!), or even that the next step in space tourism is the development of space hotels, which is happening right now  (no kidding!!! I first need to learn to dance before I can "moon walk" and set up camp!)
 
But going back to health, last week I read about how scientists at Johns Hopkins University found the key to stopping malaria (by silencing a gene called caspar). Now, given that malaria kills nearly a million people every year, isn't this finding newsworthy? One million deaths a year is a lot more than all the reported casualties of Iraq war in over five years! If we were to look at malaria as an economic issue, where people spend close to half their annual income on treating this ailment in countries like Malawi, notwithstanding the exorbitant costs of healthcare, decreased productivity at work and eventual unemployment, I wonder why this new discovery that can possibly revivify people and economies isn't being celebrated on the front page of all big newspapers! To say that malaria seriously hinders economic development would be an understatement! 
 
In our many hundreds of years of progress we have come close to completely eradicating only a handful of diseases - plague, small pox and leprosy come to mind! We have fought many more wars than eradicated diseases, which as I pointed out, kills many more people!! Moreover war is an example of a horrible human transgression, finding a cure to a disease is an example of a great human triumph. Now, why do we "entertainment" and "maximum utility" seeking people want to do and hear more of the former and less of the latter? Why is it that when we hear that a disease has been eradicated, it seems less exciting than the news that the "I am a PC" ad was staged!
 
This baffles me especially given how small our world is now owing to globalization. People, goods and capital flow across geographical boundaries at such vast numbers, that it is hard to estimate their effect on global environment or human health, except to say that it is not entirely positive! Some of the deadliest diseases known to humans have spread over continents switfly killing thousands at a time, including malaria! They spread from one to another in all five transmission modes - air, water, blood, contact and germs!  
 
If you think the Bubonic plague of the 30s that manifested in china and raged through europe or Leprosy that began in India and spread all over the world through crusaders, spanish conquistadors, arabs, american slave traders, etc.. think of how much more faster diseases spread in this era and the impact they have on our health and the environment! (HIV  (AIDS) being the newest deadly disease entry!)

Now going back to space travel, shouldn't the giant cruiser ships we are developing, or the different space tourism options that are being made available, make it to the front page as well? Who would have thought, that we will have travelled to the moon even a few decades ago and now we speak of not just walking on it but vacationing!! This has got to be more exciting than political news which seems to be the only thing reported significantly in newspapers everyday!
 
I have reams and reams of thoughts waiting to explode on why development news never gets reported as much as it needs to be even though some of them can topple the economies of their countries simply by being unreported by the media. I understand the line of reasoning for doing this, even though I don't quite agree with it. At the same time, I think it is deplorable that only very bleak and gloomy news about developing countries gets reported internationally. But news about breakthroughs in research that can eradicate diseases is not third-world news!! It should interest anyone globally, and especially self-important people, like me who want to live longer and disease free! It is a life-altering human victory... a feat of defeat... that ought to be celebrated!

Happy Earth Hour! and
Happy Birthday Appa!! :)

I don't generally get "encore" responses to my posts, but yesterday's post about the G20 Summit seems to have come at an exciting time when the weekend meeting took a constructive direction. The members pledged to more than double the cash that the IMF has to lend to distressed countries. The new target is now at $750 bn. Holy Frikkin'God! Again, as always, I am curious to see "how" they propose to raise this money. Will the IMF sell its gold reserves, issue bonds and create standard drawing rights (whatever that means!) as is being suggested or will member countries donate money.
 
The former option seems favorable given that countries are already struggling to muddle through this crisis, but the latter in all likelihood is more probable seeing as Japan and the US have already pledged $100bn each.
 
I wonder what all this means in terms of reforms to the policy changes being made to the IMF. Will the governments that are pledging money have a greater say in these multi-lateral institutions than they did before? Like China, Russia, Middle East and wait... India! Do they get to decide where and how this money gets funneled or is the IMF still going to be dominated by the US and Western Europe! 
 
We seem to be seeing a power shift in the world, which is happening amidst so much chaos that there is no time to contemplate its impact and react accordingly. It is already anticipated that a large number of big western banks will come under the ownership of these new developing countries. Whatever this means for the future, it certainly can't be helped.
 
Since yesterday's post, I have been asked to explain why I think the summit might focus on saving europe from itself. (Did I really think I could get away with sounding vague? :-)
 
This is an exercise I need to do for myself, mostly because I can see that this post is already question-ridden and I know a few people whose thoughts I am very eager to hear. 
 
Over a decade ago, the new EU member states began to import more than they exported, with the expectation that the difference would be financed by capital coming from the richer eurozone countries. But, the thought that seemed justified then soon put them on a deadly debt-ridden path. Now Eastern Europe has plummeted into crisis and is expectedly headed south! As the East defaults on an enormous volume of loans, their collapse is reverberating in Western Europe, with problems in one region compounding the problems in another. Western Europe for instance is expected to be flooded with economic refugees from Eastern countries.
 
Countries with fixed exchange rates, (many Baltic, Balkan countries and the Soviet Bloc) decided to cut wages and prices rather than devalue their currency, which seems to me like Economic Suicide! Then, real estate crashed in many Western European countries. Not to mention, thousands of job losses due to the shrinking of the financial sector globally. In short, shit hit the fan!
 
I wonder how countries with falling wages and prices and impaired banks facing budget constraints, will get out of this mad mess. There is this idea that creating a €2 trillion European emergency economic stabilisation fund, funded by the richer eurozone countries will help with the recovery. But, I don't really know what this means. There is also talk about relaxing the monetary policy, which is now controlled by the ECB.
 
And then there is this thought that Eastern Europe will need to borrow from the IMF, which only seems to me like political suicide, given that the IMF is over-represented by Western Europe, and who knows who else in the future! This can only end badly! I also wonder how Europe will present itself as a unified front given all the wrangling and disagreements over protectionism!  At the same time, I find it terribly amusing that all European countries must be lumped together and treated en masse/ en bloc, when each country seems to have very unique problems that need ot be looked at in isolation - like Byelorussia with its authoritarian government, or Ukraine with very weird problems such as its gas dispute with Russia, or Latvia which can't afford to borrow anymore!
 
I also wonder if the large European banks can really get big bailouts as is the solution proposed for large American banks, given that their liabilities exceed the economic size of their countries' economies! Like Deutsche Bank with liabilities of €2 trillion, which is over 80% of Germany's economy!
 
And what kind of experience do these Eastern Soviet Bloc countries with unstable currencies have with market economies, and really what kind economies do they have? And if they are manufacturing economies that are highly dependent on exports, how do they cope as the East is in recession and is moving towards protectionism? 
 
And therefore I wonder if the G20 Summit will end up focussing on the unfortunate and very unpleasant disaster that is Europe! But, truth be told, the same can be said about the rest of the world as well!

There is so much action planned around G20, it makes me wonder if there is way too much hope pinned on the summit to fix the financial crisis, or even prevent a deeper global recession. There is also that expectation that our world leaders will find ways to avoid future global economic breakdowns of this magnitude.

I am curious to see how each country maneuvers around these expansive, but fiendishly complicated agendas. What is intriguing is this unrelenting faith in multi-lateral solutions, when in fact each country is stuck between the rock and a hard place and is struggling to get itself out of this mess, let alone teaming up and seeking consensus.

In theory, there isn’t a lot one can disagree with the agenda. There is talk about comprehensive reforms of multilateral institutions (IMF and World Bank) to enhance their legitimacy and reflect the changing economic weights in the world economy; about giving developing nations a greater voice in these institutions and improving information sharing; enhancing accountability in financial markets, resolving deficiencies in financial regulation, improving risk management practices… and so on. The question of “how” this is done, will be interesting to see.

It is all great to talk about cleansing banks of toxic assets, clamping down tax havens and regulating hedge funds, but the larger and more important questions seem to be conflict-ridden. On the one hand, there is the US pushing for bigger global fiscal stimulus, and then there are the European countries in favor of more regulations to the financial system, both sitting on the opposite ends of the spectrum. It makes me wonder what a financial stimulus “with” appropriate reform might look like and what kind of common agenda might be developed as a result of this summit. 


Can some countries really afford to spend more or tax less? What kind of role does the IMF see for itself in the future? How is any international supervision possible over the power of major banks? How do governments avoid protectionism? Who will get out of the summit feeling "like a trillion bucks"? ;) Will this years agenda be less of a global solution for a global problem and more one focused on Europe alone, and saving it from itself?

I have a feeling the summit will turn into a fun discussion with lots of ideas and false promises, but there's little hope that real solutions will emerge from it.