WALKING WITH THE PEOPLE

Stigmata in Sonada.mp4

2010-11-26T22:23:00.001+05:30

Corruption and emerging India

2010-11-24T15:48:00.004+05:30

Its been a long time I used my Blog to record my thoughts.
Many things are happening in and around my world. The Television cries every day with corruption stories from Kalmadi to Raja. The amount of corruption is mind boggling. If it is spend to feed the hungry at least 50% of 21% hungry Indians can be fed through out the year. 50% of 49% underweight children could be rehabilitated. But who talks about the development of the "faceless" population. I have started to believe that the nonpoor wants these "faceless" to vanish from this earth so that the country can proudly say "we have no poor in our country, we have significant growth, our infrastructure is good." What an irony in one hand 1.83 million children die every year in India, 21% of population go to bed hungry everyday and on the other hand lacks of crores of money is swindled evry year which could have saved these 1.83 million lives, fed the 21% hungry stomachs. And on top of it Barack Obama declares "India is not emerging but already emerged".
The corporate espionage and govt official nexus is another hole in the development of India. It is not public servant but even the army officials are in this contest, look at the issue of Adarsh nagar scandal.
This is the emerging India where Corruption is rampant and Prime minister taps (loving) the corrupt, corporates justifies their mischief, politicians change the side.

Where are the Indian Poor: Tendulkar report

2010-07-28T10:40:00.003+05:30

Perspectives on India’s riches

2009-11-03T08:33:00.002+05:30

By Jyoti Mukhia
India is the country of two Indias: Shining India and Suffering India.
The Shining India:
India was positioned at 12th among the wealthiest nations by World Bank in 2005 based on the GDP, wealthier than Mexico, Russia and Australia but lagging behind China which was at 4th position.
According to recent Forbe’s list (2009) of Wealthiest people in the world, there are 23 billionaires in India with combined net worth of $99bn, surpassing former Asian leader Japan’s 27 billionaires with their total worth of $67bn. Out of top 100 billionaires India’s contribution is 6 billionaires whereas US has 36 top 100 billionaires. India ranks 7th in the number of dollar-billionaires, after America, Mexico, Sweden and Germany. Yet, we rank 134th in human development.
The news of the newly-minted Indian billionaires and the obscenity of riches of IPL are bringing sharper focus on the growing rich-poor gap in India. The list appearing in public domain through media regarding top 10 highest paid salaries CEOs, suggests that the number has increased both in size and numbers.[1] The list is being added by new debuts every year meaning thereby that more and more people of fat and vulgar salaries are being born in India.
On the one hand, 23 Indian billionaires constituted 25% of India’s GDP while on the other, 70% of Indians had to do with Rs 20 a day and a farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes, husband sells his wife in lieu of debt waiver from landlord.
The top 10 per cent of the richest Indians are 7.3 times richer than the poorest 10 per cent.[2] India, according to data from the CIA World Fact Book has a PPP of $3700, while countries like the US are way ahead with $43,500 and the UK at 31,400. Brazil is also higher than us at $8,600. So even if the top ten percent of people in the US are obscenely rich, the poor there aren’t as poor as the poor in India.[3] On the basis of the prosperity Index India is at 45th position out of 104 countries.[4]

India’s poverty Estimates:
Estimates for India indicate a continuing decline in poverty. The estimates suggest that the percentage of people living below $1.25 a day in 2005 (based on India’s PPP rate, works out to Rs 21.6 a day in urban areas and Rs 14.3 in rural areas in 2005) decreased from 60% in 1981 to 42% in 2005. Even at a dollar a day (Rs 17.2 in urban areas and Rs 11.4 in rural areas in 2005)[5] poverty declined from 42% to 24% over the same period. Our poverty line has decreased and a sizeable chunk of our poor have moved up the economic scale to become middle-class (300 million today).
Although India has had significant success in reducing the number of the poorest of its poor - those living on less than a dollar a day – there are still a huge number of people living just above this line of deprivation. This is most evident when we study absolute numbers. The number of people living below a dollar a day is down from 296 million in 1981 to 267 million people in 2005. However, the number of poor below $1.25 a day has increased from 421 million in 1981 to 456 million in 2005. This the biggest challenge facing India today. This indicates that there are a large number of people living just above this line of deprivation (a dollar a day) and their numbers are not falling.[6]
Paradox: the suffering India
Despite the facts that there has been a decline in the incidence of poverty over the past two decades, and annual growth rates that cross eight percent, one in four persons in India still lives below the income poverty line. The health indicators and socio-economic indicators do not speak eulogy for us.
According to World Health Organization, about 49% of the World’s underweight children and 34% of the World’s stunted children and 46% of World’s wasted children live in India. India has the largest number of working children in the world, and accounts for 20% of the world’s out of school children. Girls’ life chances, in particular, are often severely limited, so much so that in some areas the number of girls has fallen to less than 800 per 1,000 boys. On contrary to this, about 83, 000 Indians have liquid assets more than 1 Million dollars. There are millions of people who own more than 5 palatial buildings whereas there are hundreds of thousands of people who sleep under sky.
There are still hundreds of villages and towns which are not electrified and connected with good roads. We use mineral waters in cities whereas; people in many rural areas do not have access to safe drinking water. There are millions of homeless people and Indira Awas Yojna, a flagship scheme for providing homes to BPL families is still to provide even the minimum space required homes to all eligible BPL families. On the other hand there are people who spend 700 crore on one building to live in.
Amartya Sen has rightly said that growth without democratic distribution brings no prosperity in the country, after all the ongoing financial crisis and global recession has been caused due to ‘privatizing profits and socializing losses’ and if we want to create sustainable social and economic order, we will have to distribute the profits also and not only losses.

[1] Persons like Mukesh Ambani who tops the list gets more than 44 crore (440 million) as annual salary, whereas as Pawan Kant Munjal of hero Honda gets more than Rs/-150 million per annum.
[2] The rich in countries like Brazil are 57.8 times richer than the poor, and the ratio for the United Kingdom is 13.8 times, the United States almost 15.9 times, China 18.4 times and Russia 12.7 times. More horrifying – the top ten per cent of Bolivia’s population is 168 times richer than its poorest 10 percent! The ratio for Namibia is 129 times and Lesotho 129 times.
[3] Being poor by American standards didn’t mean insufficient food. It didn’t mean starvation. It meant not having a car and depending on social security. Perhaps being homeless and falling back on government shelters.
[4] Poor but rich - dnaindia.com A survey by Legatum Institute. The index looked at variable like democratic institutions, personal freedom and social capital.
[5] Economic and political weekly, October 2008
[6] ibid

Time to improve relations between police & minorities

2008-12-20T12:40:00.000+05:30

SHASHI THAROOR
As the country copes with the aftermath of the horrors of Mumbai, the hard work of reconstruction, of rebuilding - of reimagining our country-has begun. One genuine cause of satisfaction must be that there was no demonization of our Muslim minority, which the terrorists must have hoped to provoke. The victims of the killers were from every faith, and Indians of every religion have stood united in their anger and determination. And yet it was just the weekend before the attacks that the PM had urged senior police officers not to widen "the fault lines in our society" and to act to "restore the faith of the people- especially those belonging to religious and ethnic minorities and the weaker sections - in the impartiality and effectiveness of the police." His words reflected a real conundrum: the general public feels it is not adequately protected against the random violence of terrorists, but every pro-active policing effort seriously alienates India's largest minority community. Young Muslim men have been picked up and brutalized for no reason other than their demographic profile, and yet the sneering triumphalism of the terrorists' Islamist propaganda seems to leave the authorities little choice. But if the efforts to stamp out the sources of terror merely incite the sullen resentment within which terrorism breeds, every crackdown will prove counter-productive. There has to be a better way. And there is. Indian dealt effectively with Sikh extremism by the skilful use of the talents of a pluralist state. The Khalistanis never succeeded in making their cause one of the Sikh community versus the Indian state. Instead, we saw the majority of Sikhs stay loyal to their country, as a largely Sikh police force, led by a charismatic Sikh officer, K.P.S. Gill, ably combated the minority of Sikh terrorists, while the Indian state orchestrated a democratic political process which brought elected Sikh leaders to power in Punjab. There is absolutely no reason why a similar approach cannot work with the Muslim community, the overwhelming majority of whom are proud and loyal Indians. To do so we must start by getting more Muslims into the security forces. There are well-known historical and sociological reasons that explain why Muslims are under-represented in the country's police forces, the Central Reserve Police and crucial gendarmeries like UP's Provincial Armed Constabulary. Obviously, we cannot infuse a significant number of Muslims into these forces overnight. But it's obvious that we need to enhance the recruitment and retention of minorities in the police forces and to conduct police outreach to minority communities. Such an approach would simultaneously reduce a major source of grievance in the Muslim community, increase the trust between the police and the people they are policing, and dramatically improve our own intelligence about currents within a community whose vulnerability to the blandishments of terror is high. We can learn some lessons from how other democracies have dealt with similar concerns. Despite the Sachar Commission report, few in India want to see an additional layer of reservations for minorities in state institutions. But Britain, which abjures quotas altogether, follows a policy of 'positive action' to help under-represented groups compete more effectively in the selection process for police jobs, and conducts extensive outreach work through mosques, black churches and community groups. We in India also need to recognize that if we want under-represented Muslims to compete effectively for police jobs, they need to feel the police is part of them, rather than an external entity. It's clear we need to: actively solicit applications from minorities for the police at all levels (including the Provincial Armed Constabulary and the Central Reserve Police); offer special catch-up courses open only to members of the minority communities that will prepare them for the entrance examinations; at the moment few feel qualified to take the exams, and fewer still pass; and require police officers to work with community organizations, mosques and madrasas to encourage minorities to apply. In other words, instead of more "reservations", with the resentment that breeds, let us make it easier for minorities to join the police. But let's not stop with recruitment: we also need to focus on the retention and progression of minority officers. Unless young people from minorities see that the police service offers real career opportunities and a good quality of life in the workplace, they will not overcome their negative perceptions. The fact that, in many Western countries, there are several officers from the visible minorities now at senior officer rank, sends a powerful message to these communities. In India, the promotion of minority police personnel at senior and middle levels and using them as visible symbols of the police force would constitute a powerful model to the minority community. We could also take a leaf out of Britain's book in what they do to combat racism within the police, as well as enhance cross-cultural knowledge, offering training courses to white officers that include a 'long weekend' spent living with a minority family. Britain is far from perfect - as the current discrimination case filed by Deputy Commissioner Tariq Ghafoor suggests - but many Hindu policemen, especially in Gujarat and the suburbs of Mumbai, would benefit immeasurably by spending a few days in a Muslim mohalla. Let's face it: if our police are not properly and continuously trained in minority relations, the current problems will continue. Of course India is not Britain, and no foreign ideas can simply be imported wholesale into our country. But we must acknowledge the grave risk to the national fabric of any community being alienated from the police. Our police forces must reflect the diversity of India. Such a policy would be the "other side of the coin" to a tough security policy which is indispensable to reassure the common urban resident, terrorized by the bomb blasts, that the Government can keep them safe.

Religion, politics: Potent mix, potential threat

2008-11-18T09:10:00.001+05:30

CNN-IBN

The investigation into the September 29 Malegaon bomb blast case has revealed that Hindu groups may have been indulging in terror acts. Some Hindu religious leaders including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur have been arrested in the case.
A serving Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Srikant Prasad Purohit, is now being questioned not just for the Malegaon blast but also for the February 2007 Samjhauta Express blast in which 66 people died as well as the Hyderabad Mecca Masjid blast of 2007 in which 42 died.
Now Hindu religious leaders are uniting and some of then met in Panipat on Sunday to form a Dharam Sangrakshan Samiti to defend the blast accused from the allegations levelled by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad.
In Panipat, the Sangh Parivar demonstrated its united resolve to fight for those accused of terrorism. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) now plans to hold a massive rally of religious leaders on November 26 to demonstrate their support for the blast accused.
With the Malegaon blast investigation forcing Hindu leaders to speak in a united voice CNN-IBN show Face the Nation debated: Should Hindu religious leaders stay out of politics? The panel included former Bharatiya Janata Party leader KN Govindacharya, Professor of Sociology in Jawaharlal Nehru University Dipankar Gupta and BJP National Executive Member Siddharth Nath Singh. The discussion was moderated by senior editor Sagarika Ghose.
When Hindu leaders are accused of killing innocent people and indulging in terror acts isn't it time to do aatmachintan (introspection) just as they want the Muslin leaders to do when Muslim youths are accused of being involved in terror acts.
Govindacharya set the ball rolling by claiming that the government has been ignoring the Hindus and such terror acts only reflect the frustration in the society.
"Hindu Samaj has definitely done the aatmachintan and this kind of emotional outburst are the result of such aatmachintan. There are two reasons: First when Hindu samaj (society) feels that there is no government that takes care of their interests and feelings then such outburst are a natural consequence though undesirable. Similarly when the legitimate established organisations espousing the cause of Hindu society apply double standards to their own convictions and they are not honest about their concern of large section of Hindu society, then definitely the Hindus do the aatmachintan and the result is mushrooming of such outfits," Govindacharya said.
Tit-for-tat?
When asked if he was justifying terrorism, Govindacharya replied, "Not at all. I don't justify but just condemning won't do anything. One has to be quite dispassionately honest about the state of situation and responsibly find the solutions. If solutions are not there we may go on indulging in blame game against each other just as it was on December 6, 1992. But lessons were to be learnt from December 6, 1992 by politicians, judiciary and executive also but none of them have learnt lessons. Politicians have indulged in duplicity, double talk. Bureaucrats as always are lack lustre and irresponsible. For example, ATS is leaking news. What good does it do to the society or to the nation? There are inordinate delays in the judiciary. If anybody has committed crime let the law take it own course, let them punish the guilty but they should not go through such untoward publicity like leaking sources of ATS."
BJP President Rajnath Singh has said that Hindu saints are being maligned and VHP's Praveen Togadia says a Hindu can never be a terrorist so isn't it the same politics as what BJP accuses the Muslim politicians of.
BJP's Siddharth Nath Singh justified his party's stand by invoking Mahatma Gandhi.
"There is a difference. In Batla House the issue was they were supporting those who acted against the nation and condemning those who fought and died for the nation. So there is the difference. I think the basic thing which we all are forgetting is when you say religion or Hindu being into politics, I think we must also understand it is not just a religion which you are talking. Gandhiji also said ‘politics without religious values is of no use to me'. He meant the Dharma. Dharma needs to be in politics otherwise it will become immoral. When you take religion which you mention as Hindu religious people should not be into politics, it is the Congress and others so called secular parties which bring religion into politics. For example; the Dharma of any political party which is religious values is that there should be a uniform civil code. Now the Congress doesn't want that. They bring in religion at that stage," Singh argued.
But India today is a very different country from the early 1990s when rath yatras were taken out and when Babri Masjid was demolished. So if the BJP does return to the hardcore Hindu agenda can it win votes?
BJP's way to votes
Dipankar Gupta argued that BJP can never every rid itself of its Hindutva agenda.
"When you come down to the wire, the defining characteristic of the BJP is Hindutva. It can occasionally take on other issues as well like economic regeneration but everybody is talking about that. So what's different about the BJP? The difference is Hindutva. So when push comes to shove, its Hindutva colours come out. I don't have a very strong position on whether Hindu religious leaders or Muslim religious leaders should be in politics or not but I have a strong position on one subject which is this that character certificates cannot stand in for the law. You can't have faith saying that this is more important than law and legal procedure should be suspended because Rajnath Singh says so and to say ‘we believe so and so to be above reproach. Why should the law come into the picture? How dare the law come into the picture?' This is exactly what the people are talking about. This is what I think is most unconstitutional and dreadful for the democratic structure of the society. It is something reprehensible and there is no way by which one can condone such statements made by a national leader like Rajnath Singh and the fact that the rest of the BJP is standing by him," Gupta said.
Govindacharya too tried to buttress the point the hardcore Hindutva may not yield the desired results and pointed out the states elections held just after the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition as an example.
"I want to say that after 1992 demolition BJP lost all the states in the 1993 elections. Therefore such acts need not end up in increasing the votes. Secondly I want to say that BJP President who was today roaring on behalf of Pragya just 15 days back his statement was that he feels ashamed of his association with Pragya. Incidentally he had met Pragya just once. Therefore I say that such kind of double talk is also remembered by the people and their memory is not so short. The lost credibility of the last 15 years of BJP will also have some impact on the mind of the people," he said.
Is not the BJP by brining in religious leaders into politics actually ruining the moral symbolism of Hinduism?
"I feel political leaders should keep distance from the religious programmes and activities publicly. If Advaniji had not led the rath yatra then perhaps the discourse on validity of the civilisational aspect of Lord Ram would have been brought forth," Govindacharya said.
Singh quipped, "Probably Govindacharyaji is forgetting that he was part of the BJP at that stage."
The Hindutva agenda
When the NDA was in power, it seemed that the BJP was moving away from it core agenda and forging a new identity. Now it seems with BJP party president back with sadhus and sants (religious leaders), the party is back to the hardcore Hindutva position and is not going to alienate allies who have secular positions.
Singh did not buy the argument and instead said that Rajnath meeting religious leaders should not be made into a big news.
"Firstly all the allies are free to follow their own policies. Secondly, I don't really understand why to Rajnath going and attending the meeting of sadhus and sants is becoming a big issue. Why only Rajnath Singh, there are so many political leaders who carry some religious leaders to catch certain votebanks. Here it was a get together of various saints of India. The Dharam Sangrakshan Samiti is for Congress and others are maligning Hindus. They are maligning Hindus and the terms being used. The news says Hindu terror and a newsweekly says saffron in uniform. This needs to be criticised by all of us not just the BJP," Singh said.
However, Gupta cut him short. "It shows that the BJP lacks moral fibre and that it indulges in double talk. As you mentioned a little while back when it comes to Muslims they are more than happy to condemn them even before a case is tried out and even after an alleged SIMI activist has been released they say the court has been very lenient."
Singh was not to be left behind and retorted, "We as a political party have never said ‘a Muslim terrorist’. We have said the Congress doesn't want to hang Afzal (Mohammed Afzal Guru who has been given death sentence in Parliament attack case) because it relates to a votebank. We criticise that, we condemn that."
Gupta continued to argue that the BJP was trying to circumvent legal process.
"Not getting the sants or whoever they are when they are allegedly being charged for explosions is a violation of our democratic principles and laws of land. This is a police case and they have filed a case. At this point of time for Rajnath Singh to say that I know these people are innocent and that the case and any action taken against them is political vendetta is completely anti-democratic and should not be allowed at all. Why is the BJP doing it? It is simply because the Congress has stolen its thunder when it comes to the atom bomb, on economic policies and almost everything. The only thing left with the BJP right now is Hindutva and they are falling back on it," Gupta said.
Singh once again harped that Hindutva should not be seen as one-dimensional. "Dipankar perhaps doesn't understand that Hindutva is perhaps a progressive way of leading the country, it means development also."
But Gupta did not backtrack. "I don't see anything progressive when the BJP President says the law is not important but my character certificate is? I see everything regressive in that and it is the worst thing the BJP can do."
Singh continued to defend his party's stand and said, "Rajnath Singh going and attending a function is not wrong and the party stands with him. Secondly Rajnathji has not gone and defended anybody. He has always maintained that the law should take it own course. But Congress should not use the ATS and selectively leak information. Now Lt Col Purohit is not linked to Samjhauta blast but two days back it was being said that 60 kgs of RDX was used in the Samjhauta blast."
Should not the leaders come out and say that there is something wrong when Hindu youths indulge in violence?
Govindacharya concluded the debate saying, "If established organisations indulge in double talks then this is the result which is totally undesirable for the nation. They have failed in their duties."
Final Web/ SMS poll: Should Hindu religious leaders stay out of politics?
Yes: 61 per cent
No: 39 per cent.

Needed: a black Elton John

2008-11-15T10:59:00.002+05:30

Steve Lopez:

It was a point I hadn't considered.But just before the Nov. 4 election, a black friend told me his theory: The attitude toward homosexuality and gay marriage won't change dramatically in the African American community until someone comes out of the closet and makes it more socially acceptable.

"There's no Elton John or David Geffen in the black community," said my friend, an AIDS-prevention activist.I suspected this had to be wrong, so I began racking my brain to come up with such a person.Well, there's . . .Hmmmmmm.Outside of RuPaul, I was stumped. Rumors and speculation throw a couple of names on the table, but no one of the stature of John, Geffen or Ellen DeGeneres is front and center.Does that mean there are no prominent African Americans who happen to be gay?"I think in the black community we have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, where everybody knows there are gay folks, but if it's not said, it's easier," said state Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who along with dozens of other legislators, opposed Proposition 8 and is now supporting legal challenges to the measure.Proposition 8 narrowly succeeded, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The Yes on 8 campaign got huge support from white voters and religious institutions, including the Mormon and Catholic churches. But the overwhelming African American turnout for Barack Obama also helped Proposition 8, which was supported by a large majority of black voters, as well as Latinos.It's the black support that seems to have surprised and upset Proposition 8 supporters the most. Blacks are such a reliable liberal vote, a lot of Californians just assumed they were simpatico. I've had gay white friends ask me how blacks, of all people, could help beat back what many people saw as a clear civil rights struggle.Jasmyne A. Cannick, a black lesbian, had an answer Saturday in a provocative opinion piece in The Times. The black community has more important matters to tackle than gay marriage, she argued, saying the clumsy No on 8 strategists failed to understand the link between Christianity and civil rights and were clueless in taking support for granted.I thought Cannick scored a few smart points but failed to call bigots and hypocritical ministers to account.I don't care who does it -- white, black or brown -- but someone needs to tell ministers and all true believers that their literal interpretation of the Bible is dividing people, driving gays underground and killing them.HIV rates among blacks are staggeringly higher than among white people, and silence makes for a crowded morgue.The Rev. Eric Lee of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference opposed Proposition 8. But he understands why some black congregations endorsed it: "The African American community, for all intents and purposes, embraces Scripture as a literal message from God," Lee said. The obvious problem with that, he added, is that the Bible also endorses slavery, the subjugation of women and the beating of children.Lee appeared at a pre-election No on 8 rally with a black actor named Douglas Spearman. When I asked Spearman if he thought it would help to have a high-profile openly gay black person stand up for the cause, he raised his hand.I was thinking of a slightly higher profile, I told him. But to his credit, Spearman has been doing his own part since 2003, when he and other gay black professionals, including doctors and elected officials, attended a retreat in Miami to discuss strategies for beginning a national conversation.At 46, Spearman is one of the stars of a TV series called "Noah's Arc" and the recently released movie version, "Noah's Arc: Jumping the Broom." Both are about gay black men."None of the issues have anything to do with color or race," said Spearman, who plays a gay college professor. "Never do we talk about that, but this is the first time gay black people get to see themselves in three-dimensional roles doing normal things. We see a part of our lives on the biggest screen our culture can provide."Spearman sounded a little like President-elect Barack Obama when he said it was time to push harder for an honest conversation in the black community on the costs of homophobia, and to engage the opposition, including socially conservative ministers. It's something the Black AIDS Institute and other groups have begun, but there's a long way to go."When I came out, I had an extraordinary set of parents who didn't give a crap and loved me, and I was never told I was going to hell," said Spearman, who grew up in the Washington, D.C., area, and came out at 17. "They had a sense of God that was larger than a chapter in Leviticus."When DeGeneres came out 11 years ago, he said, "it was huge. I thought it was pretty amazing and incredibly brave on her part . . . But it's easier for a white lesbian to come out than for anybody else."Everyone has rumors about which prominent black people are gay, Spearman said."It would help if somebody major came out, but it would have to be somebody that sort of goes against all stereotypes," Spearman said. "There'd have to be some shock and awe, and then people would have to get used to it."And, over time, they would.

mailto:would.steve.lopez@latimes.com

Mr. Obama's Promise

2008-11-15T10:45:00.000+05:30

T he election of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States affords our country a chance to reverse its dismal standing in the world. The opportunity comes not a moment too soon. A recent opinion survey of America’s most trusted allies, carried out by eight leading international newspapers, revealed that after eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, America can no longer count on the friendship of even its closest neighbors. Only a minority of citizens in the countries surveyed, which included Canada, Britain, Mexico and France, described their country’s relations with the United States as “friendly.” In Britain, arguably America’s closest ally, over 65 percent of those surveyed said their view of the United States is worse or much worse since President Bush took office in 2001. In France and Canada, that number is more than 70 percent.
During the campaign Senator Obama acknowledged this global discontent, saying, “These are not the best of times for America’s reputation in the world,” while promising the American people and the world that the intransigent, America-first foreign policy of the Bush years would give way to a new approach based on “real strength and vision.” If Mr. Obama is to make that vision a reality, he must overcome a daunting set of challenges: two wars (one nearly universally unpopular, both draining the United States and its allies of blood and treasure), a global economic crisis and a planet in ecological peril. Yet Mr. Obama can take some dramatic steps in the next several months that would help to meet these challenges and reverse world opinion.
Mr. Obama’s choices for secretary of state and a new ambassadorial corps should signal a renewed commitment to engagement and public diplomacy and should indicate that the inflexibly ideological and self-interested policies of the current administration are relegated to the recycling bin of history. His selections for these posts should be men and women of ability and standing, professionals with the expertise in global diplomacy that the times require and who are not chosen simply to appease a wing of the party or to reward a generous political donor. This was too often the approach of the Clinton administration, which generally regarded foreign affairs as an afterthought. Mr. Obama took pains to say during the campaign that Mr. McCain’s election would amount to a third term for President Bush. Mr. Obama should ensure that his administration does not resemble a third term for Mr. Clinton.
Though Mr. Obama’s inaugural address will likely and appropriately focus on domestic concerns, he should not ignore foreign affairs. In fact, he should use the address to renounce unambiguously the Bush doctrine of preventive war. He should also unequivocally state that the United States will never again engage in the torture of its enemies, nor in semantic gymnastics in order to avoid illegality. An executive order closing the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, which has become a notorious stain on the nation’s honor, should quickly follow. Mr. Obama should also revive national support for a stronger, reformed United Nations system that can respond more effectively to the “duty to protect” crises that increasingly occupy global diplomacy in the 21st century—for example, in Myanmar, Darfur and eastern Congo.
Above all, the United States requires new approaches to the world’s seemingly intractable problems. Mr. Obama indicated during the campaign that he would meet with the leaders of some of the world’s authoritarian regimes without preconditions. This approach involves the kind of inventive thinking America’s diplomacy now requires. Yet Mr. Obama must be careful to balance engagement with realism. The Iranian nuclear standoff, relations with neo-imperial Russia, balancing economic and environmental concerns in our relations with China, facing down the warlords and endemic poverty in Africa, rebuilding the nuclear nonproliferation regime, kick-starting the Mideast peace process and redesigning international financial institutions will require sustained, multilateral and multidimensional solutions. Success will depend on coalitions built in a true spirit of strategic partnership, an uncommon occurrence in world affairs, and one that will also demand sacrifice.

Mr. Obama claimed during the campaign that he was the best choice because of his experience and expertise in bringing people together, raising not only our hopes but also the hopes of the world. “Obama represents something different,” Klas Bergman, an official at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, recently told The Guardian newspaper. “He seems ready to listen rather than dictate. That he’s African-American only adds to the mystique.” Long after the mystique has faded, as it inevitably will, let us hope that Mr. Obama’s potential has been fulfilled and the new era of international cooperation he has promised will have begun.
(The America)

US ropes in Pak security experts, India jittery

2008-11-08T12:24:00.000+05:30

Indrani Bagchi, TNN

NEW DELHI: As new US Centcom commander General David Petraeus begins a strategy security review in Tampa, Florida, the presence of two security
analysts from Pakistan as consultants have raised eyebrows here. Ahmed Rashid, an acknowledged authority on the Taliban and Afghanistan, and Shuja Nawaz, author of a book on the Pakistan army, have been named "consultants" at the classified review starting in Florida this weekend. The aim is to review the war plans in Afghanistan and Iraq as the Barack Obama administration considers the wisdom of a troop surge in Afghanistan. About 100 military specialists, known as the Joint Strategic Assessment Team, will help with the wide-ranging assessment and are expected to report in February. They will be helped by policy officials from the participating countries. India's concern stems from the possibility that Rashid's latest recommendation of the "grand bargain" to solve Afghanistan's mammoth problems of security and terrorism may have found fertile ground in the Obama set. Certainly, the central argument in the article draws the same connections between "solving" terrorism in Afghanistan and "solving" Kashmir that Obama has been advocating for a while, including in the same journal some time ago. In a much quoted article in the esteemed 'Foreign Affairs' journal, Rashid and America's best known Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin wrote that Pakistan would be persuaded to stop supporting terrorism if India can be persuaded to solve Kashmir, which they argue to be a bigger strategic threat to Pakistan than terrorists on their soil, which "can be controlled". This is a "grand bargain" that India will not support. However, sources said, it's premature to be hyperventilating about such a diplomatic initiative. Indian policymakers believe that once the new US administration takes shape, the realities of the situation will become much clearer to the new Washington. At its worst, India expects to have to do some diplomacy to counter any such perceptions. The Rashid-Rubin article goes on to make the following suggestions:
• Pakistan should not be "pressured", because its security establishment believes that it is threatened by a US-India-Afghan alliance to dismember Pakistan.
• Pakistan's military command continues to believe the two-nation theory and wants Kashmir to be incorporated into the South Asian homeland for Muslims. To this extent, Afganistan, they say, is "within Pakistan's security perimeter".
Pakistan continues to believe that the Indian threat is superior to stabilizing Afghanistan. The article goes on to recommend a "contact group on
the region authorized by the UN Security Council. This contact group, including the five permanent members and perhaps others (NATO, Saudi Arabia), could promote dialogue between India and Pakistan about their respective interests in Afghanistan and about finding a solution to the Kashmir dispute." According to the article, the rest of the world should be involved in a single exercise — to "reassure Pakistan" that it is under no threat. And the best way to do that would be to "resolve Kashmir". Only then will Pakistan lift its umbrella of support of terrorists and terrorism. In short, Pakistan should be rewarded for its support to terrorism. "A central purpose of the contact group would be to assure Pakistan that the international community is committed to its territorial integrity — and to help resolve the Afghan and Kashmir border issues so as to better define Pakistan's territory," the article says. For good measure, the US should consider a nuclear deal for Pakistan and India should "become more transparent" about its activities in Afghanistan, it adds.

Will an “untouchable” become India’s Obama?

2008-11-07T16:46:00.002+05:30

By: Alistair Scrutton

Will a Dalit, or “untouchable” become India’s Obama? That is the question being posed by some commentators in the India press after the United States elected their first black president.
One Dalit woman, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh known as Mayawati, is the first person to come to mind. Her astonishing rise from Dalit teacher to head of India’s most populous state has led to speculation she could be a prime ministerial candidate in 2009.

For an interesting article on the subject, read “Waiting for India ’s Obama” by T.K Arun.
Unlike the United States, which directly elects a president, Mayawati could win power in parliamentary system through negotiations between India’s political parties after the general elections, due by May.
There is evidence her Dalit-based party could become the third biggest party in the election, becoming a possible kingmaker.
In one sense Mayawati could represent an even greater revolution than Obama in a country where Dalits have been oppressed for centuries and who still suffer the kind of discrimination that reminds oneself of the United States’ Deep South in the 1950s.
On the other hand, as some commentators point out, Mayawati parades her caste to win over Dalits. Obama reached out across the race spectrum and did not use his colour. He campaigned mostly on policy. Maywati has made headlines as much for allegations of corruption and excess — such as erecting statues in her honour — as original policy ideas.
I went to Mayawati’s birthday party in Lucknow this year. There, she had the various top public figures, from police chiefs and civil servants and politicians, finger feed her with cake. Most of them were upper caste.
Will she be asking the same of Sonia Gandhi in New Delhi after the general elections?

How Obama should view India

2008-11-06T15:50:00.001+05:30

Mr Obama has to decide whether he wants to push India into a corner or whether he will see that America has India where it wants, says T. C. A. SRINIVASA-RAGHAVAN.

This can happen only once in the life of the universe. An African-American has become the President of the US, and it is my turn to write on this page.
So, much as I would like to berate the Finance Minister for what he is doing to the economy, the markets, banks, institutions and regulators, I am afraid that will have to wait. After all, he is not going to stop, is he?
This US election is historic. Don’t forget: The last lynching of a black man took place a mere 73 years ago in 1935, within the lifetime of at least 40 per cent of Americans. Until the 1960s, inter-racial marriages were not allowed in many parts of the US. Why, blacks and whites could not even eat together. So without doubt, this change is as monumental as the one I expect in India next year — Ms Mayawati as prime minister.History was made
Still, one has to ask the question: Have the Americans voted for the Democrats or for Obama? Would Mrs Clinton have won, too, had she been nominated, or any other candidate from the Democratic Party? Definitely, because after the economic crisis, it has been curtains for the Republicans. Even if, in the unlikely event, they had fielded a black candidate, they were goners.
In that sense, history was really made when the Democrats chose a black man — but over a woman. They had the courage and the political sagacity to pose a choice between two hitherto forbidden categories. That was the real act of daring. It has paid off.
Hundreds of thousands of words will be written over the next few weeks in India on Barack Obama. Even worse, millions of words will be spoken on TV. However, when the dust settles, it will all boil down to just one thing —what’s in store for India over the next four years. The answer will depend on how well the new President balances his domestic political constituencies and personal beliefs — and hobby horses — with the imperatives of foreign policy.
As long as India didn’t figure in the US foreign policy calculus, it wasn’t hard to achieve the balance. But since the collapse of the USSR, and the emergence of China as a possible long-term threat to American security and, more recently, the terrorism thing, India has gradually begun to matter more.
That is why in his first term, Bill Clinton adopted a much tougher approach towards India than in his second term, when India began to appear as a possible ally against China. In fact, the great, unanswered question is if it had not been required by law, would Clinton have imposed sanctions on India after Pokhran-II? Any number of studies had shown that sanctions don’t work. Few people give Clinton the credit, but it was he who turned things around.
George W. Bush only took that soft approach forward, until he bought off India with the nuclear deal. Now — if I may borrow a phrase from James Hadley Chase — when the US says jump, India says how high, that too on the way up. On that at least, Prakash Karat and Co. are right.
But then, until 1985, India used to ask the same question of the USSR. Remember Indira Gandhi, despite being furious with the USSR, did not condemn its occupation of Afghanistan?
Indeed, if you ask the pros, they will tell you that India’s foreign policy independence has always been something of a myth, especially after 1971. In South Block, at least, it signifies that a joint secretary has been over-ruled and is leaking stories to the press.Indo-US relations
There is also a belief in India that the Democrats treat India worse than the Republicans do. I examined this notion recently while collaborating on a monograph on Indo-US relations for the Institute of South Asian Studies of Singapore (ISAS).
I found that on the economic side, at least, this is as much of a myth as India following an independent foreign policy is.
I also discovered something else: American advice, when taken, has never harmed India and has, in fact, always benefited it. Even more strikingly, the opposite is also true: whenever India has ignored American advice, it has paid a price, sometimes a rather heavy one.
India ignored American advice in the 1950s to build steel plants in the private sector, and paid for it.
It took American advice in 1966, under duress though, to build fertiliser plants and go for high-yielding varieties, and benefited from the resulting Green Revolution.
Then, in 1971, India went into the Soviet camp and dropped off the world economic map. But don’t forget: It was American help in the nuclear field that helped in Pokhran-I in 1974.
It was not until 1991 that India, once again on its knees, just as it was in 1966, became ‘receptive’ to US advice on reforms, delivered via the IMF. It has paid off, in more ways than one. If India is something on the world economic stage today, America has been a major factor in our getting there.
This has not come without a price. India has had to accede to US demands on the two things that matter most to America: Market access, especially in the financial sector; and non-proliferation.Why push too hard?
Not surprisingly, India has not only opened up its financial markets, when it has dragged its feet — for good reason — the Finance Ministry has turned against the Reserve Bank of India which is the supervisory authority for the financial sector. And, of course, there is the nuclear deal, which basically tells India that it will get the goodies till it doesn’t carry out any more nuclear tests.
The real issue, therefore, that Mr Obama has to decide is whether he wants to push India into corners over things like Kashmir, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and outsourcing, or whether he will have the good sense to see that America has India where it wants, and that the rest is a matter of detail. Unlike in the past, India is not only co-operating, it has nowhere else to go. So why push too hard?
But it is not as if only India has nowhere to go. Even the US needs India for its markets and its (so far supposed) ability to be able to resist China’s advance into the Indian Ocean and to counter China’s influence in East Asia. This ought to give India some room for manoeuvre if Mr Obama trots off on a tangent.
Net-net: We can expect some turbulence that comes in the wake of a big change, but really nothing much more than that.
Illustration by Rajesh
Related Stories:India-US relations — What will happen after Bush era?Advantage, Obama!

Repercussions on Asia of Obama's win

2008-11-06T15:39:00.000+05:30

China - BEIJING, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama's victory in the U.S. presidential election is likely to have major repercussions on relations with Asia. Here are some analysts' views on how they expect an Obama administration to affect ties.
CHINA
Jia Qingguo, expert on relations with the U.S. at Peking University:
"I don't think an Obama administration will make big changes in policy towards China. But there will be a shift in emphasis to more pressure on trade and currency issues, as well as human rights and the environment and climate change. I expect there'll be less friction over China as a traditional security threat.
"I don't think we'll see the usual lift in tensions (at the start of the administration). The international economic situation won't allow for that. Because the Democrats have been out of power for so long, there will be some friction, simply because they lack the familiarity with policy and mutual understandings that developed under eight years of Bush."
Shen Dingli, international security analyst at Fudan University in Shanghai:
"He is our man, I think. China wants to solve problems through international cooperation. The new president will create much more space for international cooperation than under Bush.
"Trade and fairness issues are going to be one point of contention, but overall this creates more opportunities for the two countries to cooperate."
INDIA
C. Uday Bhaskar, strategic analyst in New Delhi:
"While Mr Obama represents change in the U.S., for the U.S.-India bilateral relationship, the big change has already taken place over the nuclear issue." (The Bush administration reached an agreement with India over nuclear energy cooperation). "India-United States relations till recently were shaped by the nuclear issue, the next big ticket item is countering terrorism and state support to this phenomenon."
SOUTH KOREA
Kim Sung-Han, professor of international relations at Korea University in Seoul:
"For the past several years, the Bush administration was preoccupied with Iraq and the Middle East. In the meantime, China has approached Southeast Asia and has been established as the champion of Asian multilateralism and regionalism.
"Obama needs to pay more attention to Asia. He will put more emphasis on Asian policy, particularly the regionalist policy. And the other (priorities) are pretty obvious such as China, Japan and South Korean policy, with China being high on the agenda."
Chun Bong-geun, expert at Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in Seoul, affiliated with the Foreign Ministry, said progress was expected in negotiations on the nuclear issue and also for Korea peace talks.
"Looking from his reaction to terrorism delisting, Obama has indicated a more active engagement in dialogue with North Korea. For him, dialogue itself is not an incentive and reward for the North, as it was for Bush and even Clinton, but dialogue is meant to solve problems.
"But if Obama tries to focus on human rights, dialogue could get bogged down again."
- - - - (Reporting by Chris Buckley in Beijing, Jon Herskovitz in Seoul; Editing by Nick Macfie) Copyright 2008 Reuters,

Barack Obama's victory speech: Full Text

2008-11-06T15:30:00.001+05:30

Barack Obama has become the first African-American President. The following is his speech to a massive crowd in his home city of Chicago:
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.
It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.
It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he's fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader.
I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation's promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice-President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation's next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House.
And while she's no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.
To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you've sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.
I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.
It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give US$5 and US$10 and US$20 to this cause.
It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation's apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organised, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth.
This is your victory.
I know you didn't do this just to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.
Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.
There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.
And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for 221 years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.
Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity.
Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours: "We are not enemies, but friends… though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection."
And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.
To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you.
And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that's on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She's a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the colour of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she's seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can't, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women's voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbour and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome". Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.
This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can.
Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
(November 5, 2008)

ANALYSIS-Why John McCain lost the White House

2008-11-06T15:20:00.000+05:30

By Jeff MasonPHOENIX, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Republican John McCain lost Tuesday's presidential election because he could not overcome a hostile economic environment, distance himself from an unpopular president or convince voters he could lead them out of the crisis.As the blame game game, analysts also said McCain's choice of inexperienced Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate raised doubts about his judgment. It ultimately may have alienated more voters than it attracted.McCain's attempts to portray Barack Obama as a tax-raising socialist with friends who were terrorists drove away moderate voters, who handed the Democrat a decisive victory on Tuesday.An extremely unpopular Republican president coupled with a sputtering economy made for a tough political climate for McCain. Even if he had run a perfect campaign, it may not have been enough this year.After eight years of Republican White House rule, the party had turned off racial minorities, young voters and more educated voters. The final blow was the large-scale defection of working class whites devastated by the economic crisis.But the Arizona senator's response fell flat. He did not distance himself early or forcefully enough from President George W. Bush, party strategists said, and his lack of a coherent economic message loomed large as the issue trumped the Iraq war in voters' minds.In a gracious concession speech late on Tuesday, the former Vietnam prisoner of war reflected on his campaign and took responsibility for its failures."I don't know what more we could have done to try to win this election," he told supporters at a somber post-election rally in Arizona. "We fought as hard as we could. And though we fell short, the failure is mine, not yours."Republican strategist John Feehery said McCain's association with Bush was a key stumbling block that could have been addressed more decisively."He did not break from Bush early on and he should have," Feehery said. "He hired a lot of Bush advisers and they were just as loyal to Bush as they were to McCain."McCain add a line to his campaign speech in mid-October saying "I'm not George Bush" but it was too late.The financial crisis that erupted in September was a turning point, reversing McCain's temporary lead in the polls. He never recovered."The economic meltdown restructured the entire race and made it difficult for McCain to compete for those undecided independent voters," said Republican strategist Scott Reed.McCain's decision to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to broker a Wall Street bailout deal turned out to be a "strategic and tactical mistake," he said.McCain asked for the first presidential debate to be postponed, but Obama calmly responded that the candidates could focus on more than one thing at a time -- forcing McCain to climb down. When the debate took place, Obama won.TOUGH CLIMATE, ECONOMIC GAFFESMcCain wounded himself with other economic gaffes. He said the fundamentals of the U.S. economy were strong and then tried to paint the mistake as a defense of the American worker.He championed himself as someone who largely opposed regulation in the financial industry but reversed course when banks started failing and the Wall Street crisis spread.The financial crisis also put McCain's "maverick" image into a harsher light. Voters viewed Obama's response to the crisis as cool and McCain's as unsteady.Aides said the economic and political conditions in the country severely hampered their candidate's electoral chances."It is highly doubtful that anyone will ever have to run in a worse political climate than the one John McCain had to run in this year," McCain's top strategist Steve Schmidt told reporters a few hours before polls closed.Feehery faulted McCain for abiding by campaign finance laws and not making more of Obama's association with his controversial former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah WrightWhat about Palin? McCain's last-minute choice of the Alaska governor ignited conservative voters but alienated independents, who viewed her as unprepared.High-profile Republicans such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell rejected McCain partially because of Palin."McCain spent the entire summer drawing a contrast with Obama over experience and the Palin decision threw that out the window," said Reed. ""(But) you can't blame Palin for the loss. She energized the party and the base ..."McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace said the Arizona senator got a rough deal from the media compared to Obama, who already enjoyed a massive financial advantage. The Democrat vastly outspent McCain in all the key swing states."No objective analysis suggests that the Obama team and the McCain team have received an equal amount or a fair amount of positive and negative scrutiny or coverage," she said.(Editing by Alan Elsner)

A New Era for America

2008-11-06T13:48:00.001+05:30

By E. J. Dionne Jr.Wednesday, November 5, 2008; Page A26
Yes, it is time to hope again.
Time to hope that the era of racial backlash and wedge politics is over. Time to imagine that the patriotism of dissenters will no longer be questioned and that the world will no longer be divided between "values voters" and those with no moral compass. Time to expect that an ideological label will no longer be enough to disqualify a politician.
Above all, it is time to celebrate the country's wholehearted embrace of democracy, reflected in the intense engagement of Americans in this campaign and the outpouring to the polls all over the nation. For years, we have spoken of bringing free elections to the rest of the world even as we cynically mocked our own ways of conducting politics. Yesterday, we chose to practice what we have been preaching.
Barack Obama's sweeping electoral victory cannot be dismissed merely as a popular reaction to an economic crisis or as a verdict on an unpopular president, though the judgment rendered on President Bush is important.
In choosing Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress, the country put a definitive end to a conservative era rooted in three myths: that a party could govern successfully while constantly denigrating government's role; that Americans were divided in an irrepressible moral conflict pitting a "real America" against some pale imitation; and that market capitalism could succeed without an active government regulating it in the public interest and modestly redistributing income to temper inequalities.

John McCain believed he could win by attacking Obama as a "socialist" who had said he would "spread the wealth around." But a substantial majority rather likes spreading the wealth if doing so means health coverage, pensions and college opportunities for all, or asking the wealthy to bear a slightly larger share of the tax burden.
"John McCain calls this socialism," Obama said at a Pittsburgh rally last week. "I call it opportunity." So did the voters.
Right to the end, McCain and Sarah Palin thought ideological name-calling would work yet again. On the eve of the election, McCain attacked Obama for being in "the far left lane of American politics" while Palin warned of a victory for "the far left wing of the Democrat Party." This year, those epithets didn't hunt.
After 1980, Democrats often chose to accommodate themselves to conservative assumptions. Obama exploded the old framework. He explicitly rejected the idea that Americans were choosing between "more" or "less" government, "big" or "small" government.
He cast the choice differently. "Our government should work for us, not against us," he would say. "It should help us, not hurt us." Obama ran as a progressive, not a conservative, but also as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. That combination will define his presidency.
Since the Nixon era, conservatives have claimed to speak for the "silent majority." Obama represents the future majority. It is the majority of a dynamic country increasingly at ease with its diversity. It reflects the forward-looking optimism of the young. It draws in new suburban and exurban voters whose priorities are resolutely practical -- jobs, schools and transportation -- and who dislike angry quarrels about gay marriage, abortion and religious orthodoxy.
It is the majority of a culturally moderate nation that warmed to Obama's talk of the importance of active fathers, strong families and personal responsibility. He emphasized reducing abortion, not banning it. He honored faith's role in public life but rejected the marginalization of religious minorities and nonbelievers. For large parts of the world, his middle name will be an icon, proof of America's commitment to religious pluralism.
And Obama not only broke the ultimate racial barrier, he also spoke about race as no other politician ever has. He was uniquely able to see the question from both sides of the color line even as he embraced his black identity. He is not post-racial. He is multiracial. The word defines him as a person. It also describes the broad coalition that he built and the country he will lead.
And the majority Obama built wants the country to be strong but also respected, and prudent in its use of power. Iraq was on the ballot after all: Pew's final survey found that those who thought the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong backed Obama by better than 5 to 1; those who thought it right supported McCain by a nearly identical margin.
Obama inherits challenges that could overwhelm any leader and faces constraints that will tax even his exceptional political skills. But the crisis affords him an opportunity granted few presidents to reshape the country's assumptions, change the terms of debate and transform our politics. The way he campaigned and the way he won suggest that he intends to do just that.
postchat@aol.com

What India wants from the new president

2008-11-06T13:44:00.000+05:30

NEW DELHI: Barack Obama enters the White House riding the crest of history. The sense of promise —of restoring America's primacy in the world — will by and large be welcomed in India. Certainly, in large parts of the world, Obama will be a welcome change after eight years of George Bush, whose efforts to change the world as he found it had some disastrous consequences. Obama will be a breath of fresh air in almost every part of the world. And to the extent, there is a growing convergence between the two democracies. India can only hope to benefit from a rejuvenated US leadership. Why, then, is India keeping her fingers crossed? Over the past eight years, as George Bush wielded his scythe, in a strange sort of way, he helped to change the way the world looked at India. In many ways, the way India herself looked at India. India has gotten used to being on top of the US president's mindspace, whether as an exceptional democracy, a rising power or as the beneficiary of a unique nuclear agreement which pulled India out of a technology hole. India successfully "de-hyphenated" from Pakistan giving itself a lot of international legroom. In an Obama administration, the India-US story could grow bigger. Or not. There is little clarity on how the chips will fall on several issues in the Obama-India dynamic, issues that are very close to India. In order of precedence, they would be Pakistan, China, terrorism, nuclear issues, trade, all issues on which India has had a prickly relationship with the Democrat party vision. Obama's own advisers are upbeat on the India question. Refusing to come on record on election day, those that TOI spoke to said an Obama that restores America's place in the world is exactly what India needs. "Obama is a 21st century leader. He understands that the US needs other major powers to get things done, and that certainly includes India.... Ultimately, India needs a US that is respected and able to get things done in the world, and Obama will help restore that." But, Obama is yet to clarify his strategic vision of India. One of the reasons why the Bush presidency was good for India was that Bush proceeded from a simple premise — that India, warts and all, deserved an exception from the international system. US specialist on South Asia, Ashley Tellis, one of the main architects of the nuclear deal did a quick preview of Obama's India policy. "Obama says he will sustain the relationship with India. His administration will likely be dominated by people who view the relationship with China as the most important US relationship in Asia, and by individuals who have difficulty accepting either the legitimacy or the reality of India's nuclear weapons." From all accounts, Obama starts out with the right ideas, of taking forward the India-US relationship. Early 2008, after an India gaffe in 2007 (when his campaign described Hillary Clinton as D-Punjab), he wrote a piece for an Indian-American newspaper where he said, "The world's oldest democracy (US) and the world's largest democracy (India) are natural partners, sharing important interests and fundamental democratic values... And that is why I will move forward to build a close strategic partnership between the US and India when I am president of the United States." However, his commitment to removing the sources of terror from Pakistan-Afghanistan may have the unfortunate effect of reviving yet another form of "hyphenation", this time on terrorism, which will be far more dangerous, certainly so far as India is concerned. While on the one hand he says he wants to appoint former US president Bill Clinton as his special envoy on Kashmir, in another recent interview, Obama said, "We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India but on the situation with those militants." This is clearly a considered position, because on September 25, in another interview to Arms Control Today, Obama said, "I will continue support of the ongoing Indian-Pakistani efforts to resolve the Kashmir problem in order to address the political roots of the arms race between India and Pakistan." This is not music to Indian ears. It shows only one thing — that there will be a long period of painful diplomatic exchanges before the Obama administration can be made to realise that the "Kashmir problem" is just an alibi for Pakistan as it seeks to secure its objectives in Afghanistan and have its way vis-a-vis India. Many of Obama's advisers are still in the "solve Kashmir" phase, between India and Pakistan. Why this can cause complications for India? As the US gets more involved in disentangling Pakistan and Afghanistan from terrorism, Taliban and al-Qaida, it will be tempting, for Democrats to push a "Kashmir solution" as a carrot for Pakistan to undertake tough policies on its northwestern border. Already Pakistan army chief Ashfaque Kiyani has reportedly told US generals that he cannot concentrate whole-heartedly on two borders at once. This argument has clearly been made after Pakistan detected "fertile ground" in the Obama camp. In his article in Foreign Affairs, Obama showed a dangerous misreading of the issue. "I will join with our allies in insisting not simply requesting that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work towards resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look towards the east (India) with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban." India has faced this argument before and successfully defeated it thus — that Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan is of a piece with the violence in Kashmir. Bowing to the Pakistani argument would be tantamount encouraging Pakistan believe that terrorism as a foreign policy tool actually works. Which, of course would be disastrous to Obama's real objective of cleaning out the Taliban. Obama, for that matter, the Democrat establishment, are eight years behind the curve on US-India relations, which are on a completely different trajectory now.
On nuclear issues, despite the nuclear deal, India is likely to find the going tough with the Obama crowd. Some of the deal's best known critics
like Strobe Talbott and Robert Einhorn are likely to find prominent jobs in the US nuclear establishment — and their dislike of the Indian nuclear deal as well as India's nuclear weapons in general is not going to lessen. If the Bush administration sought to push for an "exception" for India, a Democrat administration is likely to do what it can to mitigate it. Remember, despite the much touted bi-partisan support for the nuclear agreement in the US Congress, all naysayers were Democrats. Obama himself is the author of one of the biggest "killer" amendments of the Hyde Act, the Obama amendment to deny lifetime supplies of nuclear fuel to Indian reactors, and needed strong political push by Bush and Manmohan to reverse it in the 123 agreement. Obama eventually voted for the deal but there's a sour note. Therefore, getting licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wont be easy, as non-proliferation wallahs use the famed American bureaucracy to roll back the effects of the nuclear deal. There is a strong expectation that among the non-proliferation priorities of the Obama administration would be pushing through the CTBT, if he can get his own Congress to agree. That would be another pressure point for India, particularly after Manmohan Singh has gone on record to say that India would not sign the CTBT. On the other hand, Obama supports the global disarmament initiative, started by Kissinger, Perry, Schultz and Nunn. India is a strong votary of the global disarmament efforts too and this could be a better meeting point for the two sides than CTBT. South Block is more likely to push for a full disarmament position than a test ban, which it considers to be "halfway house." The 2008 election campaign has been relatively free of "outsourcing" as an issue, but it is clear that on principle Obama would oppose outsourcing of jobs to countries like India. But here, the battle is best left to the private sector. It may be a little simplistic to suggest that Obama is categorically against outsourcing. In his speeches, he has said he wants to readjust the tax code to offer more tax incentives to companies who do not offshore jobs, but also that he did not want to close America to the "brightest and best from round the world." More recently, he has acknowledged the inevitability of outsourcing, saying that "evolutions in communication and technology have sent jobs wherever there's an internet connection; that have forced children in Raleigh and Boston to compete for those jobs with children in Bangalore and Beijing." In fact, post financial crisis, his views are likely to soften further, as analysts suggest that outsourcing may become more necessary, to cut costs and improve productivity. But then again, he may find greater traction for his views in a weak labour market in the US. Obama has raised the banner for "fair" trade rather than "free" trade, which has already raised eyebrows here among people who look forward to tough trade talks ahead, particularly in the unfinished Doha round. Of course much of the outsourcing is "irreversible" and the debate can safely be left to the private sector to resolve. Will Obama send out different signals on outsourcing of public sector jobs? As a corollary, what would it mean for more professional and tech visas for Indian professionals to the US? Indian and US companies have been clamouring for more H1-B visas, but its likely that a naturally protectionist Democrat administration with their core constituency being labour unions would find it difficult to increase those numbers from present 65,000. Then there is China. Like it or not, China and India will continue to be uttered in the same breath for a whole host of reasons. India has very uncomfortable memories of Bill Clinton in Beijing in June 1998, virtually appointing Beijing the "daroga" for South Asia. Democrats have always viewed the US-China relationship as "special" and generally have a more welcoming view of China. This is unlikely to change particularly in a global situation where China now wields greater clout. India's foreign policy, on the other hand is increasingly going to focus on "dealing with the rise of China" and its implications for India. Whether these two world visions clash or converge need to be seen. The next few months will tell whether the famed "transformation" of the US-India relationship will continue unabated, halted or slowed down. (TOI)

Why John McCain lost

2008-11-05T17:56:00.000+05:30

Candidate John McCain seemed to have it all.

Few in America did not know about his decades of service, his breath-taking heroism as a war hero in Vietnam, his foreign policy expertise and his ability to reach across the Congressional aisle.

Mr McCain's opponent was largely untested, inexperienced and, initially at least, unknown; his race only added to his challenge.

If there is such a thing as a perfect political storm though, John McCain found himself caught in the middle of it. In a leaky boat. With limited fuel.

Financial squeeze

From the start, his biggest problem was finding the money to compete with Barack Obama's $650m (£403m) campaign juggernaut. By accepting federal funding (which Mr Obama declined) he capped his general election campaign spending at $85m (£53m).

He also struggled to free himself from association with the Bush years

Of course much more than that was spent by the Republican National Committee and other pro-McCain groups, but Mr McCain could never seriously challenge Mr Obama's ability to dominate the TV airwaves - even in states that were traditionally Republican.

Worse, Mr Obama had the money to force him to compete in states he should have been able to rely on, which reduced the amount of money Mr McCain had for states he needed to target.

His other big problem was in trying to separate himself from one of the most unpopular presidents in American history and a Congress which had been Republican for six of the past eight years.

As a mostly loyal Republican, his record was one of support for President George W Bush, which Barack Obama never let him forget.

Mr McCain insisted that he would be a very different president, without explicitly rejecting George Bush's presidency. Instead he tried to position himself as a maverick who had gone his own way in the past.

But conservative Republicans knew all too well that "maverick" also meant going against them on issues such as immigration and campaign finance reform.

The right-wing, evangelical Republicans who had got Mr Bush elected were unhappy about Mr McCain from the start. That forced him into selecting a vice-presidential candidate who would reassure them.

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska was a huge gamble from the start.

Mr McCain had said that the only thing he would look for in his vice-president was the ability to be president. Given that he would have been the oldest first-term president in history, that seemed particularly relevant.

Palin problems

But choosing someone with no national experience and no foreign experience as his running mate raised questions about his judgement and undermined his main argument against Mr Obama.

Sarah Palin made it difficult for John McCain to broaden his appeal

In the few interviews she gave, it was clear that she had not grasped foreign policy issues to the same extent as anyone she was running against. But there were other problems too.

She was the subject of an ethics probe in Alaska which eventually ruled that she had abused her power. Then came questions about her official expenses and her claims to have tried to end wasteful federal construction projects.

Her "hockey mom" persona was undermined by a revelation that the campaign had spent $150,000 on clothes and accessories for her.

As the weeks went on, her poll ratings fell heavily. She may have helped shore up the Republican base but she made it far more difficult for Mr McCain to broaden his appeal - especially with her forceful views on abortion and the environment.

She also helped drive away some in her own party. Mr Bush's former Secretary of State Colin Powell cited her as one of the reasons he had decided to endorse Mr Obama; he decried what he saw as an increasing "narrowness" of the party.

He also condemned the negative attacks on Mr Obama coming from the McCain campaign as having gone too far.

Hopes dashed

This was another aspect of the McCain strategy that seemed to backfire. Although Mr McCain ran only 10% more purely negative adverts than his rival, according to media monitoring groups, they were more deeply personal attacks - accusing Mr Obama of having a close relationship with a "domestic terrorist", for example.

Such ads created a backlash from independent voters, according to the polls, and Mr McCain was forced to change his tone.

Mr McCain could not match the appeal of his younger opponent

In fact, he could never quite find a narrative that worked. He went from being war hero, to the voice of experience, to maverick, to tax-cutter, but he never found a way to lift himself in the polls.

His team hoped the three presidential debates would finally reveal their candidate to be best qualified for the job. But in the "town hall" setting Mr McCain favoured, he wandered around the stage and forgot that what may work in a real town hall doesn't necessarily work with a TV audience.

In other debates he tried confronting Mr Obama, but was never able to shake the younger man's almost unnatural cool. At times, Mr McCain seemed to be trying to keep a simmering rage under control, which brought more negative coverage.

When the credit crisis erupted and the economy stalled, it seemed a damning indictment of an era of Republican deregulation and "trickle-down" economics.

Mr McCain's past quotes about the fundamentals of the economy being strong came back to haunt him. His tax plan - which seemed to favour the wealthy - rang hollow with people facing foreclosure and job losses.

His abrupt suspension of his campaign to return to Washington and "fix the problem" seemed erratic and was ultimately ineffectual.

In the end, he projected an image as a man from America's past, who had been through much and served his country well.

But in a disgruntled nation, deeply disenchanted with Republicanism, he couldn't match the appeal of his younger opponent and his message of change.

Archeologist finds 3,000-year old Hebrew text

2008-11-01T12:36:00.001+05:30

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- An Israeli archaeologist has discovered what he says is the earliest-known Hebrew text, found on a shard of pottery that dates to the time of King David from the Old Testament, about 3,000 years ago.

The Elah Fortress in Khirbet Qeiyafa, about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem.

Professor Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says the inscribed pottery shard -- known as an ostracon -- was found during excavations of a fortress from the 10th century BC.
Carbon dating of the ostracon, along with pottery analysis, dates the inscription to time of King David, about a millennium earlier than the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, the university said.
The shard contains five lines of text divided by black lines and measures 15 by 15 centimeters, or about 6 inches square.
Archaeologists have yet to decipher the text, but initial interpretation indicates it formed part of a letter and contains the roots of the words "judge," "slave," and "king," according to the university. That may indicate it was a legal text, which archaeologists say would provide insights into Hebrew law, society, and beliefs.
The researchers say the text was clearly written by a trained scribe.
The shard was discovered at the Elah Fortress in Khirbet Qeiyafa, about 20 miles southwest of Jerusalem. The fortress, measuring 2.3 hectares (about 5.7 acres), is the earliest-known fortified city of the biblical period in Israel.
Excavations began there in June. So far, just four percent of the site has been excavated, the university said.
Because the ostracon is similar to that found in other Israelite settlements, and because no pig bones were found at the site, archaeologists say the site was likely part of the Kingdom of Judea. Jewish dietary laws forbid the eating of pork.
Among the artifacts found at the site are more than 100 jar handles bearing distinct impressions which may indicate a link to royal vessels, the university said. Such a large quantity found in such a small area is "unprecedented," the university said.
The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa is located near the place where the Bible describes the battle between David and Goliath -- the Elah Valley, which shares its name with the fortress.
Garfinkel said it is the only site in Israel in which to investigate King David.
"The chronology and geography of Khirbet Qeiyafa create a unique meeting point between the mythology, history, historiography and archaeology of King David," he said.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest-known copies of the Bible, some dating back about 2,000 years.
It is widely believed that the first set of Dead Sea Scrolls was discovered in 1947 by a Bedouin shepherd who ventured into a cave in the Judean Desert in search of a lost sheep or goat.
The texts, written on crumbling parchment and papyrus, were found wrapped in linen inside earthenware jars.

All About Hebrew University of Jerusalem • Dead Sea

Why the Nation and the World Need Barack Obama

2008-11-01T12:23:00.000+05:30

Amb. Richard C. Holbrooke
The winner of the presidential election will inherit a perfect storm of problems, both economic and international. He will face the most difficult opening day agenda of any president since -- and I say this quite seriously -- the man who saved the Union, Abraham Lincoln. But a more instructive precedent is 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt offered inspiring rhetoric and "bold experimentation" to a nation facing economic meltdown and a breakdown in public confidence.
For me, the choice is quite simple -- and not simply because I am, by temperament and history, a Democrat. The long and intense political campaign has revealed huge differences in positions, style, and personal qualities of the two candidates. And the conclusion seems clear.
JUDGMENT. John McCain has shown throughout his career a penchant for risk-taking; in his memoirs, he proudly calls himself a gambler. His selection of Sarah Palin, a charismatic but spectacularly unqualified candidate, as his running mate, is just the most glaring of many examples of the real McCain. His bravery in combat attests to his patriotism, courage and toughness, but his judgment has been found sorely lacking time and time again over his career.
Barack Obama is tough too, but in a different way. No one should underestimate how difficult it was to travel his road, against incredible odds, to the edge of the presidency. But where McCain is impulsive and emotional, Obama is low-key and unemotional. He makes his judgments in a calm and methodical manner; McCain's impulsiveness is anathema to Obama, and rightly so; one cannot play craps with history. Having seen so many political leaders falter under pressure, I prize this ability above most others. And Barack Obama has it.
THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. The first priority will be the international financial crisis. Since the crisis hit, Obama has been calm and, indeed, presidential -- he consulted the best advisory team in the nation, weighed each course of action carefully, and then issued a series of precise, calm statements. Meanwhile, McCain veered bizarrely, issuing contradictory statements throughout the crisis, "suspending" his campaign (while continuing to campaign), and urging that the first debate be canceled (when it was all the more needed). Advantage to Obama.
FOREIGN POLICY. The most explicit differences are over Iraq, Iran, and Russia. But there are deeper differences. McCain's positions, with the notable exception of climate change, suggest that he would simply try to carry out Bush policies more effectively. Obama offers a different approach to foreign policy. By starting the drawdown of combat troops from Iraq, he would change the image and policies of America immediately. By engaging Iran in talks that would cover not only the nuclear issue but other aspects of Iran's destabilizing role in the region, he would either reach agreements that lowered the dangers from Iran, or he would mobilize a stronger international coalition to isolate Iran. Either way, engaging Iran is the right policy, and it is hard to understand why Bush and McCain have continued to hold out against such an obvious policy change, which, if carried out with firmness, will not compromise America or Israel's national security.
On Russia since its invasion of Georgia, Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden (who was the first member of Congress to visit Georgia after the invasion), stress helping Georgia rebuild its economy and maintain its independence in the face of a continuing Russian campaign against it. McCain, on the other hand, wants to punish Russia by such actions as expelling them from the Group of 8. Such measures may ultimately be necessary, but they do not help Georgia survive as an independent democracy. And even after the outrage in Georgia, there are issues of common interest on which the West and Moscow must work, such as energy and climate change. This was true even during the Cold War, and remains true today, yet McCain seems not to recognize it.
LEADERSHIP. In the end, presidential elections come down to the intangibles of leadership. The vote for president is a sort of private contract directly between each voter and his or her preferred choice. Who do you want to see on your television screen for the next four years? Who do you wish to entrust the nation's fate to?
And here again, the contrasting styles of the two men offer a clear choice between a calm and confident man and a highly emotional one, between a major change in the nation's direction and a minor one, between a combative style and a more conciliatory one. Finally, in a year when the Democrats are certain to increase their majority in both Houses, an Obama victory would offer the Democrats control of both the legislative and executive branches for the first time since 1994, and with it the possibility of legislative achievement after years of stalemate. After so many years of polarization at home and unilateralism abroad, the choice for president seems clear.
Richard Holbrooke is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the chief architect of the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement that ended the war in Bosnia.

Serial blasts in Assam

2008-10-31T10:11:00.001+05:30

more than 64 died

Response to Martin Wolf by Jeffrey Sachs

2008-10-29T14:27:00.000+05:30

Martin Wolf is right, in his generous review of my book (“Sustaining Growth is the Century’s Big Challenge,” June 11), that the biggest question in economics is whether there is room enough on the planet for 7 – 10 billion human beings, the tens of millions of other species, and economic convergence, that is the continued, reliable, and fairly rapid narrowing of income gaps between rich and poor due to technological catching up by the poor. The tendencies for convergence are powerful. Rapid economic growth in China and India reflect the powerful capacity of today’s poorer countries to close technology gaps. The results are impressive: income doubling periods of 7 to 10 years. The results are also harrowing: profound threats to the Earth itself, and therefore to continued economic development and even survival of vast numbers of people and vast parts of the biosphere.
Martin calls me both optimistic and pessimistic at the same time. My point is that either the positive trajectory or negative trajectory is possible, indeed both are plausible. I believe that physical resource limits alone will not do us in, or end economic convergence. On the other hand, the market economy by itself will not solve a now world-threatening crisis of sustainable development. The market system fails to solve four fundamental classes of problems: ecosystem functions (the bio-geophysical commons); population; extreme poverty (because of the very real dynamics of poverty traps); and technological pathways needed for sustainability. These are solvable problems. They require collective action, as they are fundamentally in the character of public goods. Yet for the same reason they are not solved. Part of the barrier is the ideology of market economics itself, which often denies these problems and therefore is short on producing practical tools and solutions.
The biosphere does not come packaged according to the assumptions of neoclassical economics. What we call externalities are the norms, not the exception. In ecosystems, the nutrients, carbon, water, nitrogen, energy, and species (including ours) are in flux. There are spatial migrations and temporal flows and interactions which make a lie of the underlying assumptions of “private” property. A farmer that encloses his farm, or drains groundwater, or introduces an invasive species, or puts on chemical pesticides, or replaces high biodiversity with a commercial monoculture, has pervasive effects on a whole ecosystem. These are, by nature, not fenced in his enclosure. None of this mattered in the extreme perhaps when the Earth was still populated by 1 billion of us, or perhaps even 2 or 3 billion. When local systems failed, there were new ecological niches to conquer. Yet in the past 250 years, the population has risen nearly tenfold. There are no more places to flee. And ecosystems everywhere are under profound threat.
It is often said that we have beaten Malthus, but that is also not quite right. We have had two main solutions to Malthus. The first is voluntary fertility reduction, especially in the past half century. Malthus really couldn’t imagine this. But the global demographic transition is still incomplete, and the human population is still rising by around 75 million per year. The second is massive mining of resources. We haven’t simply figured out how to get more for less, as we usually assume; we have just as often figured out how to get more for more . . . more groundwater depletion, more habitat destruction, more fossil fuel use, more use of chemical pollutants, etc. Our “solutions” have been really only half solutions. We are clever indeed, but less clever than we pretend, by counting as income what is in fact pervasive depletion of natural capital.
The answer then to the question of whether we’ve beaten Malthus, is “Yes, no, maybe.” Yes, we have enjoyed a pervasive rise in living standards ahead of the population curve, and have set in motion the powerful global dynamics for more. No, we have not done this yet in a sustainable manner. Populations are growing too fast, we are running out of some resources, such as conventional oil and fossil groundwater, and we will lose others, such as glacier melt. And maybe we can overcome these constraints as well, but with technologies which do not (quite) yet exist, or which exist but are still very costly, or which exist but for various reasons are not deployed (e.g. because the poorest of the poor can not afford them or because of market neglect of the commons).
Standard neoclassical economics makes four kinds of mistakes regarding sustainable development. First, it literally writes natural resources out of the baseline growth analysis. This is how we are taught on the first day, with the Solow and Ramsey growth models. This assumption is correct only if the neglected natural inputs are indeed available at constant cost relative to the outputs, in which case we can assume their effects away through aggregation. This is not the case. The recent rises of oil and food prices are real signals to the contrary. And there is even more output-threatening depletion and environmental destruction not yet registered in market prices. By the way, our international agencies until very recently operated with the same blithe assumptions. The energy sector forecasts of the International Energy Agency, for example, have been “demand-side” forecasts only, as they have implicitly assumed that the supply would be forthcoming, on the margin, at constant relative costs. In the same vein, mainstream economics vastly downplays the ecological costs of human activity, by treating the massive anthropogenic pressures as mere exceptional “externalities,” rather than the pervasive rule. Again, this did not matter as much on a global scale until recently.
Second, market economics neglects the importance of population policy, especially to help promote a demographic transition in the poorest countries through a rapid, voluntary reduction of fertility rates. The rapid population growth in the poorest countries is to nobody’s benefit: the poor themselves (especially the children’s generation), the world, and the environment. It results from a combination of factors, including the pervasive lack of access of the poorest of the poor to family planning services and contraception, high child mortality rates (which discourage voluntary fertility reduction), and lack of public financing of education of girls through at least secondary level. The demographic trap, in short, is part of the poverty trap, and it is threatening to the poor, global stability, and long-term environmental sustainability.
Third, and closely related, mainstream economics assumes that production functions and financial markets are such as to ensure market-based economic growth even in conditions of extreme deprivation and lack of infrastructure. Technically, the baseline growth theory blithely assumes away poverty traps (for example, in the famous Inada condition of the first day of growth theory, which posits nearly infinite returns to incremental private-sector investments in capital-scarce economies such as Mali, Niger, Chad, and Somalia!).
Fourth, the implicit assumption of market economics is that if a technology is vitally needed, it will be found by market forces, perhaps augmented by (non-market) patent rights. Necessity will be the mother of invention, rather automatically. Yet economics teaches that knowledge -- both science and the technology embodying scientific and practical know how -- is not just another commodity, but a public good par excellence. It will be produced and diffused in insufficient amounts by market forces alone. Market-based technological pathways may sidestep entirely the technological needs of the poorest of the poor, and of the global commons, unless guided by public policies and action. The massive technological change, of the kind needed urgently in this century, requires a mobilization of public and private institutions and actions, new public-private partnerships (PPP), and a rich institutional environment for technological change. Massive technological innovations will require public financing at least an order of magnitude greater than today directed at technological innovations in sustainable energy, food production, water use, biodiversity conservation, and more.
My optimism is indeed that our technological prowess can be good enough to address the harrowing challenges, and that physical resource availability (energy, land, water, biodiversity) can suffice with the invention and diffusion of resource-saving technologies. I put great stock in renewable energies (especially solar power, which I believe will likely be the most important of all energy technologies by the end of this century, perhaps together with safe nuclear power), high-mileage automobiles, drought-resistant crop varieties, carbon capture and sequestration, anti-malaria bed nets and medicines, and much more.
My pessimism is that there is nothing automatic (in market terms) about the development and application of such solutions. They require a new kind of economic analysis; vastly greater public awareness and consensus; and global cooperation on a scale not yet achieved. We can end poverty with existing technologies for less than 1 percent of rich-world income, yet we think it’s much more important to argue about that proposition than to try it (despite our endless promises at the highest political levels to try it), while in the meantime around 10 million children die each year of their poverty, and vast regions of the world are inflame in their hunger, disease, and desperation.
Are the vitally needed sustainable technologies within reach? Probably at modest cost. Many are already on the horizon, a “future that is already present.” Are we making such investments? Plainly no. We have yet to master the full “value chain” of research, development, demonstration, and diffusion (RDD&D) to mobilize sustainable technologies at anything close to the necessary global scale and speed. Incidentally, a recent study by the International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, takes a similar technological perspective, and finds that around 1 percent of GNP invested per year in sustainable energy systems (mainly in close-to-market technologies) would be sufficient to cut global emissions by half by 2050 consistent with resource availabilities and continued rapid global economic growth. It’s almost exactly the same conclusion and point estimate that I give, and is consistent with similar conclusions of Sir Nicholas Stern and others as well. It just won’t happen by itself. Indeed, small tweaks to the market, such as carbon trading, are also insufficient, because those tweaks only modestly change the game along the entire RDD&D trajectory.
My point, in the end, is that our traditional debate – Should we be optimistic or pessimistic? – is not really the right framing of the question. The right issue is how to achieve the achievable sustainable development trajectory through an appropriate mix of public-sector and private-sector investment, backed up by a mix of public and private institutions at all scales. Good answers, I believe, will require a far more serious approach than our profession currently gives to these problems. We need to take very seriously indeed the role of natural resources and ecosystems in economic production (e.g. in food and energy); the pervasive and unprecedented anthropogenic forcings on natural systems; the multiple and deep failures of “private” property in crowded, stressed, and non-linear ecosystems; the existence of demographic and poverty traps which kill millions each year and which hold entire regions (e.g. the Horn of Africa and much of Central Asia) in a trap of political and social crisis; and the complexity of the processes of innovation and diffusion, which require a subtle and changing mix of public and private institutions operating locally, regionally, and globally.Source: Financial Times Comment & Analysis

Sustaining growth is the century’s big challenge

2008-10-29T14:23:00.001+05:30

By Martin Wolf

Is it possible for the vast mass of humanity to enjoy the living standards of today’s high-income countries? This is, arguably, the biggest question confronting humanity in the 21st century. It is today’s version of the doubts expressed by Thomas Malthus, two centuries ago, about the possibility of enduring rises in living standards. On the answer depends the destiny of our progeny. It will determine whether this will be a world of hope rather than despair and of peace rather than conflict.
This – not the effectiveness of its particular prescriptions – is the biggest question raised by the report of the growth commission discussed here last week. It is also the focus of a powerful new book by Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute*.
The challenge is stark. World real incomes per head could rise 4.5 times by 2050 and world population by 40 per cent. This would mean a sixfold increase in global output, concentrated in the developing world (see charts). Is such an increase feasible? The answer he gives is: yes and no – yes, because changes in incentives, technology and social and political institutions would make a benign outcome feasible; and no, because the path we are now on is unsustainable. Professor Sachs is an optimistic prophet of doom. He falls in between those environmentalists who see no solution and those free-marketeers who see no problem.
By inclination, I am far closer to the latter than the former. But it has become evident, at least to me, that the human impact on the planet on which we depend has risen to enormous proportions. We have treated the global commons as if they were free. Self-evidently, they are not.
Prof Sachs emphasises three goals: first, “the end of extreme poverty by 2025 and improved economic security within the rich countries as well”; second, “stabilisation of the world’s population at 8bn or below by 2050 through a voluntary reduction of fertility rates”; and, third, “sustainable systems of energy, land and resources use that avert the most dangerous trends of climate change, species extinction, and destruction of ecosystems”. Finally, to achieve these ends, he recommends “a new approach to global problem-solving based on co-operation among nations and the dynamism and creativity of the non-governmental sector”.
One might view the first of the above goals as that of prosperity for everybody. Population control is related to this end because the world’s poorest people are burdened by the costs of rearing its largest families. Finally, only by managing the global commons will it be possible to sustain rising living standards.
The most illuminating concept in the book is that of the “anthropocene” – the era in which human activities dominate the world. Peter Vitousek of Stanford University has documented the ways in which humanity has appropriated the bounty of the earth for its own use: human beings now exploit 50 per cent of the terrestrial photosynthetic potential; they have put up a quarter of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere; they use 60 per cent of the accessible river run-off; they are responsible for 60 per cent of the earth’s nitrogen fixation; they are responsible for a fifth of all plant invasions; over the past two millennia they have made extinct a quarter of all bird species; and they have exploited or over-exploited more than half of the world’s fisheries.
Like it or not, we humans are now in charge. So what should we do? In his response, Prof Sachs shares the optimism of most Americans: we must fix it, but, he insists, we can do so only together. In this great venture, he argues, the US must share the leadership, but it cannot dictate to the rest of humanity.
In regard to the dynamics of catch-up growth in developing countries, Prof Sachs’ views are close to those of the growth commission. More distinctive is his recommendation of an aid-supported, big-push investment strategy, aimed at lifting the world’s poorest people, predominantly Africans, out of the poverty traps into which, in his judgment, they have fallen. Prof Sachs has made notable contributions to our understanding of the obstacles to development created by geography, the environment and devastating diseases such as malaria. In the current book, he emphasises how shortages of water are contributing to poverty and conflict across the planet.
Yet I am more sceptical than Prof Sachs of the returns to the big-push strategy. In many cases, it will fail. But it has to be tried, because there is no morally tolerable or credible alternative. I agree, too, that huge efforts must be made to accelerate the fertility decline in the world’s poorest countries, albeit on a voluntary basis.
Now suppose that economic growth then spreads across the planet, as we would wish. Can it be sustainable? Prof Sachs is notably optimistic on direct resource inputs into growth. His view is that fossil fuel resources, renewable energy and availability of fresh water should be sufficient to support continued growth over the next half century. But this would almost certainly require a transition from oil-based energy technologies to ones based on coal and renewables. Energy would, almost certainly, be much more expensive than in the 1985-2000 period, but not prohibitively so.
The challenge, in Prof Sachs’ view, is rather to make growth compatible with sustaining the global commons: species survival and, above all, climate change. Yet what is perhaps most intriguing of all is the optimism he shows on the latter task. While he embraces the view that climate change is a huge threat, he also believes it can be dealt with at modest cost, provided suitable incentives are put in place: less than 1 per cent of global income.
In all, in fact, Prof Sachs believes we can achieve all the goals he has set – elimination of mass poverty, population control and environmental sustainability – for less than 2 per cent of global incomes. This is about half a year’s global growth and, as such, surely cheap at the price.
This, then, is an analysis that manages to be both pessimistic and optimistic at the same time. One might not be quite as optimistic about the cost of the solutions. But one must recognise the salience of the challenges. If economic growth halted, conflict among the world’s people would risk becoming unmanageable. If the environmental consequences proved overwhelming, the costs of growth would become unbearable. We are the masters of our planet now. The great question for the 21st century is whether we can also become masters of ourselves.
*Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (Allen Lane, 2008)
martin.wolf@ft.com
More columns at www.ft.com/wolf

Closing Circle - Peter Senge

2008-10-29T09:08:00.001+05:30

Practical application of GFifth Discipline Principle

The Fifth Discipline Book Review

2008-10-29T09:05:00.001+05:30

Must read book on developing learning organization by Peter Senge

Whose brakes failed?

2008-10-28T16:45:00.000+05:30

Ratan Tata claims that he has taken the decision to pull the Nano project out of West Bengal with great sadness. He has held one, single, person responsible for his decision — Mamata Banerjee — who “held a gun to his head and pulled the trigger”. Industry leaders have queued up behind him to predict a dire future for Bengal. “If it is difficult for the state to ensure security for someone like the Tatas,” said R. Seshasayee of Ashok Leyland, “it is easy to imagine what will happen to others.”
There is, however, another side to this story. Had you been listening closely to Tata’s press conference, you would have heard him say, “We believe compensation has been paid and that it is a fair compensation.” Paid by whom? Not by the Tatas. And that is the key to understanding why the company is so casually exiting West Bengal today. The Tatas did not pay for the land. The Rs 131 crore compensation paid to farmers and sharecroppers as of December 2006 was paid by the West Bengal government. The Tatas had taken the land from the West Bengal government on lease and the lease rent is a pittance.
In reality, therefore, the Tatas have pulled out so quickly because they had very little at stake in West Bengal. It is true that their investment in the Nano project runs to around Rs 1,500 crore. But the overwhelming proportion of this money has been spent on machinery — the hugely expensive robots that man the assembly lines, the tool and die, body and paint shops in any car plant today. The Tatas have been moving these out for some time. They will also move out generators, computers, specialised cabling and all other moveable items of office and factory equipment. Their final loss will thus be the flooring of their sheds, their investment in infrastructure, and the actual cost of erection of the plant and installation of machines. This will not be a small sum, and will be a dead loss, but one suspects that it will be much less than what West Bengal’s government has sunk into the acquisition of the land.
If the Tatas are not quite the wounded victims that Ratan Tata has made them out to be, Mamata Banerjee is not quite the villain she has been portrayed as being. If the Left and future governments, both in West Bengal and in New Delhi, learn the right lessons from Singur, she may well turn out to be India’s saviour. My eyes were opened to this possibility when I was shown Bengali TV coverage of how the land was actually acquired in 2006.
For the better part of 20 minutes, I saw sticks in policemen’s hands rising and falling with metronomic regularity to the accompaniment of sickening thwacks of wood meeting flesh. As the beating continued, the policemen leant further and further forward. It was apparent that their prey were on the ground but still being beaten. I saw men in their 60s being led away with torn and bleeding head wounds, and weeping, bruised women being supported out of the villages by social workers and Trinamool cadres. There were endless reels of footage, but I could not take any more.
Very little of this footage had appeared in the national channels. And the media had made it out that it was the Trinamool that had blocked the roads, bottled up the villagers and ‘forced’ the police to resort to ‘lathi charges’. No one bothered to ask just how the villagers’ consent had been obtained. No one asked why 400 or so of them were demanding their land back. Instead, we were deluded with ‘information’ that most of the landowners were absentees, and already had jobs in Kolkata and elsewhere. Not one commentator mentioned that with all new non-agricultural jobs being created in the unorganised sector and absolutely no form of social insurance, the little bits of land that the owners had were their ultimate and only security in life.
Are the blood and tears of the poor a necessary price of ‘development’? Was there no way of making the landholders and sharecroppers in Singur beneficiaries of ‘development’ instead of its victims? There was, but the Tatas never even considered it and took refuge in the legal plea that they were not involved in the acquisition of the land.
To see how easy it would have been to co-opt the landowners and sharecroppers, one needs to ask just one counterfactual question: what would have happened if the Tatas had decided to set aside just one quarter of 1 per cent of their annual sales revenue and distributed it as an annual royalty to the owners and sharecroppers, for the use of their land? With an annual turnover of Rs 5,000 crore (from 500,000 cars), the royalty would have amounted to Rs 125,000 per acre per year to be split between landowners and sharecroppers. To recover this added outlay, the Tatas would have had to increase the price of their car by only Rs 250.
Would Mamata Banerjee really have spurned such an offer? Would the farmers have allowed her to? A senior Trinamool member of the Rajya Sabha told me some weeks ago that if the Tatas were prepared to make such an offer, Mamata would most probably accept it. But the Tatas never made it.
Ratan Tata cannot be blamed for not trying an approach that has never been tried before in this country. But what he has proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, is that he is no Jamshed Tata.
Today it is imperative for industrialists not to draw the wrong lessons from the Nano debacle. The Tatas may be able to leapfrog to Uttarakhand, Haryana, Karnataka or Maharashtra. All those governments are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of ‘bagging such a prestigious project’. But they haven’t faced their people yet, and the poor will also be drawing their lessons from Singur.
The stark truth is that the country is on the brink of class war. Bastar is today its epicentre. The security forces are fighting a losing battle against an estimated 6,000 armed Maoists who are receiving substantial aid from the local people because the state of Chhattisgarh has lined up $7.28 billion of investment in steel plants and iron ore mines in the next five years and has given out more than 150 prospecting licences covering 400-3,000 sq km to companies wanting to mine iron ore, diamonds, gold and other non-ferrous ores.
Development consumes land, and faster development consumes it faster. Singur, and Bastar are only the beginning.
Prem Shankar Jha is the author of The Twilight of the Nation-State

Never mind the rice and wheat, Try potatoes!!

2008-10-28T16:37:00.000+05:30

To Counter Problems of Food Aid, Try Spuds By ELISABETHROSENTHAL<http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ELISABETH%20ROSENTH\AL&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ELISABETH%20ROSENTHAL&inline=nyt-per>VITORIA-GASTEIZ, Spain — With governments having trouble feeding the growingnumber of hungry poor and grain prices fluctuating wildly, food scientistsare proposing a novel solution for the global food crisis: Let them eatpotatoes.Grains like wheat and rice have long been staples of diets in most of theworld and the main currency of foodaid<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/food_aid/inde\x.html?inline=nyt-classifier>.Now, a number of scientists, nutritionists and aid specialists areincreasingly convinced that the potato should be playing a much larger roleto ensure a steady supply of food in the developing world.Poor countries could grow more potatoes, they say, to supplement or evenreplace grains that are most often shipped in from far away and are subjectto severe market gyrations.Even before a sharp price spike earlier this year, governments in countriesfromChina<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/c\hina/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>toPeru<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/pe\ru/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>toMalawi had begun urging both potato growing and eating as a way toensurefood security and build rural income.Production in China rose 50 percent from 2005 to 2007, and the governmenthas called potatoes "a way out of poverty." In Peru, where potatoes aretraditionally part of the highland diet, President AlanGarcía<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/alan_garcia/\index.html?inline=nyt-per>hasled a campaign to promote potato eating in cities. Schools, prisonsandarmy canteens are serving papapan, bread made with potatoes, helping toincrease potato consumption by 20 percent increase this year.A decade ago, the vast majority of potatoes were grown and eaten in thedeveloped world, mostly in Europe and the Americas. Today, China and India —neither big potato-eating countries in the past — rank first and third,respectively, in global potato production. In 2005, for the first time,developing countries produced a majority of the world's potatoes."Increasingly, the potato is being seen as a vital food-security crop and asubstitute for costly grain imports," said NeBambi Lutaladio, an expert onroots and tubers at the UnitedNations<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/unit\ed_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org>Foodand Agriculture Organization in Rome. "Potato consumption is expandingstrongly in developing countries, where potato is an increasingly importantsource of food, employment and income."Though the price of grains has receded in recent months from historic highs,grains are still far more expensive than they were just two years ago. TheUnited Nations agency continues to strongly encourage countries to diversifyinto potato production, Mr. Lutaladio said, adding: "The world economy hasentered a phase of wild swings. New and even more severe high price eventscould be just around the corner."And so the potato's image is shifting from that of a food fit for peasantsand pigs (and associated mostly with a devastating famine in Ireland) to aserious nutritional aid and an object of scientific study. When the UnitedNations announced last year that 2008 would be the Year of the Potato, fewtook it seriously. That was before grain prices doubled between early 2007and spring 2008, and the United Nations World FoodProgram<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/worl\d_food_program/index.html?inline=nyt-org>announcedthat it needed an extra half billion dollars to buy grain.Dr. Pamela K. Anderson, director of the International Potato Center, aglobal scientific research center in Lima, Peru, said that as recently lastyear, the most common question she fielded concerned her favorite potatorecipe. "Now the food system is so fragile that people have stoppedlaughing. People are asking, 'How can potatoes help solve the problem?' "Dr. Anderson was one of dozens of international scientists who met thismonth here in the heart of Basque country at Neiker Tecnalia, a 200-year-oldpotato research center. Their goal: to discuss advances in potato farming,like the development of pest- and drought-resistant strains that could usedin poorer countries.Potatoes are a good source of protein, starch, vitamins and nutrients likezinc and iron. As a crop, they require less energy and water to grow thanwheat, taking just three months from planting to harvest. Since they areheavy and do not transport well, they are not generally traded on worldfinancial markets, making their price less vulnerable to speculation. Theyare not generally used to producebiofuels<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/biofuels\/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,a new use for food crops that has helped drive up grain prices. When grainprices skyrocketed, potato prices remained stable.Beyond that, potato yields can be easily increased in most of the world,where they are grown inefficiently and in small numbers.Thanks to the "green revolution" of the 1970s, yields of wheat, rice andcorn jumped by more than 50 percent in a decade as fertilizers and newplanting techniques were used. Potatoes never got that kind of attention.In poor countries, potato yields are still relatively low, at just one tofive tons of potatoes per hectare (about 2 1/2 acres), less than 15 percentthe yield in the developed world.From the perspective of traditional food aid programs — which buy or receivefood from where it can be produced cheaply and efficiently and send it towhere it is needed — potatoes have limitations.Because they spoil easily and are heavy to ship, groups like the World FoodProgram avoid them. Pound for pound, they contain less protein than wheat,although, looked at another way, an acre of potatoes yields more proteinthan an acre of wheat."They are quite perishable, especially in hotter climates; they sprout androt quite quickly," said Tina van den Briel, a nutrition expert at the WorldFood Program. She said, too, that potatoes were currently a staple food invery few countries, although they were widely used in stews."Moving from rice to potatoes is a big leap for people," she said.Nonetheless, the agency has made it a priority to increase production offood for aid in the countries where it is needed, both to lessentransportation costs when fuel costs are high and to aid local economies.Potato growth and consumption have already markedly increased in Africancountries in the past five years, although potatoes were introduced to thecontinent only about 100 years ago. In Rwanda potatoes have become thesecond-most important source of calories, after cassavas. Potato productionand consumption are also expanding rapidly in Nigeria and Egypt, accordingto the Food and Agriculture Organization.One sign that potato growing is spreading: The world's largest potatoprocessing company, McCain Foods Ltd., has opened factories in China andIndia in the past two years.The yield at a number of farms inIndia<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/i\ndia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo>doubledin the past two years, to 20 tons a hectare, after McCain gavebetter seeds to small farmers who supply its new factory, said DanielCaldiz, a company executive.In Chile, where about 50 percent of production comes from small farmers,government projects to provide better seeds have increased yields by 25percent in the past decade, said Horacio Lopez, a government potato expert.In poor countries, farmers seed new potatoes using leftovers from theprevious year's crop, which are often infected with pests. Internationalagricultural companies cultivate and export germ-free "clean seed" potatoesthat are much more productive, but these are expensive.The International Potato Center is trying to help poor countries producetheir own clean seed potato lines."When you plant a potato it gives you food security," Dr. Anderson said. "Itstrengthens the local economy, instead of just sending in food."

A TALE OF TWO CMS - Bengalis have become adept in making the wrong choice

2008-10-17T12:03:00.000+05:30

Swapan Dasgupta (The Telegraph)

The analogy may be somewhat over-stretched but, from a distance, the Tata decision to pull out from Singur seems akin to a later-day replay of the shifting of the capital of India from Calcutta to Delhi some 97 years ago. The King-Emperor’s Durbar announcement which, incidentally, also drew flak in the Bengal Club and the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, was perceived and rationalized by Bengalis as spiteful imperial retribution for free-spiritedness. Yet, far from having a sobering effect, the relegation to the provinces merely galvanized further rebelliousness and a lot of silly bravado that led to Bengal’s progressive marginalization from the nationalist mainstream. An unintended consequence of this drift into political irrelevance and the trauma of Partition was the erosion and eventual disappearance of what may be called the Bengal Renaissance tradition.
Likewise, the large-scale labour unrest, closure of factories and flight of capital, which followed the post-1967 Left triumphalism, didn’t prompt the much-needed self-atonement in Bengalis. It merely gave a fillip to feelings of anger, self-pity and self-destruction — a perverse combination that ensured that the path of West Bengal’s downward journey was relatively uncluttered. Satyajit Ray captured the Bengali penchant for romantic rebelliousness quite vividly in his 1970 film, Pratidwandi. It told the story of a bright college drop-out who ruined his job prospects by being wilfully contrarian — insisting that the war in Vietnam was more momentous than the landing on the moon — and disrupting a job interview in protest against the inadequate facilities for the long line of short-listed candidates.
What prompted the Tatas to cut their losses and leave Singur was not merely the cussedness of one Mamata Banerjee. If the Trinamul Congress leader was the only problem, she, her Naxalite friends and other unknown patrons could have been isolated and even neutralized by police action. That the organized might of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the West Bengal government failed to protect the symbolic showpiece of the state’s recovery points to the magnitude of the problem. In the various post-mortems of the Nano fiasco, the CPI(M) has rightly been blamed for perverting the state with a culture of mindless protests and bandhs and its militant espousal of entitlements (what is quaintly called “democratic rights”) over civic obligations and responsibilities. Taking a more long-term view, however, the CPI(M) and the Left parties can at best be blamed for grafting their political culture on a pre-existing culture of nihilism. The CPI(M) certainly aggravated the problem, made it unmanageable and is on the verge of being devoured by the monster it created, but it wasn’t responsible for the original sin. The inspiration for the corruption of Bengal came from many of those whose statues replaced the imposing bronzes of colonial stalwarts in Calcutta’s Maidan. It was also bolstered and intellectually nourished by those who chose to equate the CPI(M)’s high-handedness in Nandigram last year with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.
At a time when the sleepy backwaters of yesteryear in Karnataka, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and even Uttaranchal and Orissa are contributing more and more to India’s growth engine, West Bengal’s dogged determination to be the standard-bearer of the rust belt is perplexing. Offered a choice between stagnation (leading invariably to decline) and self-improvement, the Bengalis remain in a state of utter confusion. Their pocket and a concern for the future generation demand the latter but their heart remains anchored in a pre-modern arcadia.
A momentous event like the Nano debacle must inevitably lead to convulsions in Bengali society. The Tata walk-out, after all, is more than one industrial project getting unstuck. It symbolizes modern India’s larger expression of no-confidence in West Bengal’s ability to pull its weight. Something, it is clear, has got to give way.
For over 100 years, Bengalis have become adept in making the wrong choice. The fear that the understandable mood of depression this Durga Puja may translate into something quite wild and unpalatable remains a nagging fear. Yet, there may be small signs of creeping realism. Last Sunday’s open letter in Anandabazar Patrika by the Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi, to his counterpart in Writers’ Buildings and to Mamata was departure from conventional political niceties. In penning his innermost thoughts on why Gujarat succeeded where West Bengal faltered, Modi risked being accused of gratuitous triumphalism and gloating over the discomfiture of fellow Indians. That may well be the feelings of a fringe that persists in seeing Modi as nothing more than a communal monster with Muslim blood on his hands — the rhetoric of the inflammatory videos that ensured a complete “minority” consolidation against the National Democratic Alliance in 2004, not least in West Bengal.
It is a sign of utmost reassurance that middle-class Bengalis didn’t react to Modi in the same way as they did to another Gujarati stalwart after the Congress presidency was snatched out of the hands of an ailing Subhas Chandra Bose in 1939. There was a lot that Modi said that struck at the nerve-centre of the Bengali belief system — his disavowal of the anti-business mentality, his repudiation of street protests, his faith in bipartisan consensus and his unapologetic espousal of rightwing economics. His celebration of Gujarat’s civic culture was by implication a repudiation of West Bengal’s dysfunctional democracy. Modi’s central message was courteously blunt and unapologetic — West Bengal lost Nano because of its own shortcomings; and Gujarat could step into the void because it offered a more wholesome civic culture and model of governance.
It is reassuring that Modi’s diagnosis has been greeted with a measure of reflection by Bengalis on all sides of the political divide. Modi has tacitly endorsed the sincere move by the West Bengal government to persuade Bengalis to overcome their flawed inheritance. In his own way, the Gujarat stalwart has attempted the same within his own parivar with an astonishing measure of success. With a great deal of steadfastness, Modi has challenged the prevailing consensus that socialist populism centred on big government intervention is imperative for electoral success. In positing the alternative of minimum, but targeted and efficient government, Modi has put into practice the role of the State as a dynamic facilitator. In the Gujarat model, the State has assumed second place to society. Creativity and dynamism are vested in the people; it is the job of the State to merely create a wholesome environment for its full expression. In Gujarat, state subsidies have come down dramatically, the public sector is managerially-driven and profitable and there is remarkable transparency in the transfers and postings of school-teachers. Modi hasn’t changed the system; he has worked to motivate and energize the same system that was considered a drag on development.
There are many who attribute Gujarat’s resurgence to the personality of Modi. His frenzied pace of work, his attention to detail, his impatience with power-brokers, his fanatical sense of personal integrity and his intellectual openness have built him a large fan club throughout. Barring the unforeseen, he is on course to be a future prime minister of India. Those who denounced Buddhadeb last year as “another Modi” must be ruing the bitter irony. If only the chief minister was another Modi, West Bengal would have redeemed itself. Yet, leadership is just one critical input. Modi’s success in Gujarat owes everything to Gujarati society’s desire to move ahead relentlessly. It is this motivation that has to become the new consensus in Bengal.

Ratan Tata asks Young Bengal: Jobs or lawlessness?

2008-10-17T11:40:00.000+05:30

Calcutta, Oct. 16: Ratan Tata has warned Bengal of the consequences of letting history repeat itself and asked a series of searing questions in an open letter explaining why he was compelled to withdraw the Nano project from the state.
“The people of West Bengal — particularly the younger citizens — will need to express their views and aspirations as to what they would like to see West Bengal become in the years ahead. Would they like to support the present government of Mr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to build a prosperous state with the rule of law, modern infrastructure and industrial growth, supporting a harmonious investment in the agricultural sector to give the people in the state a better life?
“Or would they like to see the state consumed by a destructive political environment of confrontation, agitation, violence and lawlessness? Do they want education and jobs in the industrial and high-tech sectors or does the future generation see their future prosperity achieved on a ‘stay-as-we-are’ basis?” Tata asked in the open letter to the “citizens of West Bengal”.
An environment of “politically motivated agitation and hostility” compelled Tata Motors to withdraw the Nano project, he added.
Tata wrote the letter in response to statements by “vested interests” that the pullout decision was “hasty and politically motivated”.
In the letter, Tata named Mamata Banerjee and referred to “confrontative actions” taken by the Trinamul Congress and supported by “vested interests and certain political parties” that disrupted work at the plant.
Tata praised the Bengal government, saying “all our interactions with the chief minister and the industries minister in particular, as also with several other officers, have been exemplary”.
Trinamul has been claiming that the Tata pullout was a game plan to malign the party. A section of the CPM had described the Tata withdrawal as “unreasonable” — a view articulated by party mouthpiece People’s Democracy.
However, Tata said “the final and painful decision to move the project out” had not been taken in haste but with “great regret after a great deal of deliberation”.
Tata reminded Bengal of the situation 30 years ago. “Agitation and violence drove away many industries around 30 years ago, and it has only been in recent times that the present government has been able to rebuild the confidence of investors to invest in the state.”
Tata added: “It is therefore ironic that, at this crucial time and moment of hope for the state, history appears to be repeating itself. Agitation, violence and terror are overtaking the state in the name of the agricultural community, to serve political goals — stalling progress and destroying the new-found confidence in the state, while doing nothing for the rural poor, other than making promises.”(The Telegraph)

How to think about the crisis

2008-10-14T15:06:00.000+05:30

Michael Perelman The Financial Crisis Goes Beyond FinanceThe crisis today in mortgage lending does not come as a surprise to me. I discussed the build up to the crisis in a book published last year, The Confiscation of American Prosperity (1). The book describes more than three decades of concerted efforts to restructure the economy to respond to the antiauthoritarian spirit of the 1960s. Most important of all, the counterrevolution to the 60s was concerned about a decline in the rate of profits. The objective was to remake the United States as a capitalist's utopia with strict market discipline for ordinary people, while showing special favors on business. Tax cuts, deregulation, and a more business-friendly legal structure became the order of the day.In this environment, the legal framework for union organization soon became unfriendly. Success showed up relatively quickly in the labor market, where capital halted the increase of wages by 1972 - the year when real hourly wages peaked. Since then wages have oscillated but never again reached that level.Profits began to recover, but on closer examination the recovery was unusual. In competitive industries, profits were not particularly high. Profits in producing goods concentrated in industries protected by intellectual property or government favoritism were better. But the big profits came in finance. Even major industrial firms, such as General Motors, Ford, or General Electric began relying on their financial divisions for much of their profits.What was happening? According to the textbook model of economic growth, new productivity translates into higher wages, which, in turn, create more demand, which spurs industry to produce newer or better products, increasing productivity. In recent decades, debt rather than income spurred demand.As profits recovered, more affluent people saw their portfolios increasing, creating what economists call the wealth effect: the increasing value of their stocks, and later of their houses, was treated as income, which generated demand. Frequently, people used their houses to borrow money to support this demand.Production of physical goods was largely neglected. I am reminded of a conversation between Samuel Johnson and James Boswell, a quarter millennium ago. Boswell observed:
"Very little business appeared to be going forward in Lichfield. I found however two strange manufactures for so inland a place, sail-cloth and streamers for ships: and I observed them making some saddle-cloths, and dressing sheep skins: but upon the whole, the busy hand of industry seemed to be quite slackened. "Surely, Sir, (said I,) you are an idle set of people.""Sir (said Johnson) "We are a City of Philosophers: we work with our Heads, and make the Boobies of Birmingham work for us with their hands."(2)Johnson, of course, was being ironic. The philosophers of the new economy were not. They breathlessly referred to a weightless economy (3). Tom Peters, the management guru, derided old-line businesses as "Lumpy-object purveyors" (4). Even Alan Greenspan is fond of rhapsodizing about how modern production techniques are making the economy lighter and lighter:
"The world of 1948 was vastly different from the world of 1996. The American economy, more then than now, was viewed as the ultimate in technology and productivity in virtually all fields of economic endeavor. The quintessential model of industrial might in those days was the array of vast, smoke-encased integrated steel mills in the Pittsburgh district and on the shores of Lake Michigan. Output was things, big physical things."Virtually unimaginable a half century ago was the extent to which concepts and ideas would substitute for physical resources and human brawn in the production of goods and services. In 1948 radios were still being powered by vacuum tubes. Today, transistors deliver far higher quality with a mere fraction of the bulk. Fiber-optics has [sic] replaced huge tonnages of copper wire, and advances in architectural and engineering design have made possible the construction of buildings with much greater floor space but significantly less physical material than the buildings erected just after World War II. Accordingly, while the weight of current economic output is probably only modestly higher than it was a half century ago, value added, adjusted for price change, has risen well over threefold".(5) Nobody seemed to sense that anything was awry. Leaders in the U.S. were content to let the modern equivalent of the boobies of Manchester produce their goods in Asian sweatshops, and then borrow the proceeds from their masters to support their consumption.The game depended upon continued growth, whether illusory or real. Deregulation helped to promote illusions of prosperity. So did the dot.com hysteria of the late 1990s. When the bubble burst, the Federal Reserve came to the rescue with low interest rates. Temporarily lacking sufficient confidence in the stock market, real estate seemed a better bet.Real estate prices soared. People could borrow more on their houses. And with rapidly rising real estate prices, people could comfortably lend money to people who could not afford the loans because, after all, real estate would always increase in value.To make the illusion even more solid, people believed that they could avoid risk. Ratings agencies told investors that paper based on this real estate was just a shade more risky than U.S. government bonds. To seal the deal, investors sold "insurance," which promised to cover losses if the investment would go sour.This insurance business was so brisk that the amount of insurance sold was many times more than the face value of the investments. After all, selling this insurance was an easy way to profit from real estate market, which had ahead to go nowhere but up.When the music stopped playing, the regulators discovered that nobody was watching the store. Far more insurance was sold than the insurers could afford to cover. The ratings agencies are putting their seal of approval on the paper to get more fees.The government just agreed to buy up bad debt to the tune of $700 billion, bailing out both crooks and incompetents. The government debt will give the neoliberals excuse to cut more programs to help needy people, while bailing out the rich.Something similar happened a few decades ago with another war, a different Bush, and the same John McCain. Many years ago, Lyndon Johnson, who would have just celebrated his hundredth birthday, found himself stuck in a war he couldn't win. He also knew that if he raised taxes to pay for the war, the public would demand an immediate halt with a fury that he could not resist. Johnson relied on borrowing, which raised interest rates.Savings and loan institutions, like the investment banks today, borrowed short and lent long. In this case, people put their savings in the banks and the banks lent out money on 30-year mortgages. To prevent gouging and make mortgages affordable, the savings and loans were prevented from paying interest rates high enough to keep depositors from exiting, which could leave them bankrupt.The Reagan administration, including daddy Bush, moved to deregulate the savings and loans. Given this newfound freedom, crooks and nincompoops (including the current President Bush's younger brother) rushed in to take advantage of profiting from other people's money. As the scope of this disaster was becoming obvious, five senators, including John McCain along with Alan Greenspan (perhaps the Godfather of the recent financial crisis), rushed in to defend one of the more egregious Savings and Loan operations run by Charles Keating. Oh, yes, a small savings-and-loan in Arkansas, which was connected with Bill Clinton (who later allowed Congress to deregulate the current financial system, led by Senator Phil Gramm, John McCain's chief economic adviser) also ran into difficulties.The savings-and-loan scam crashed leaving the government to pick up the pieces at a cost that is still debated, but which was still well over $100 billion - pocket change today.The difference today is that our politicians now promise effective regulation this time around, just as they did with Sarbanes-Oxley in the wake of crash of Enron and the rest of the dot.com boom.The Financial Side of the Financial CrisisThis crisis should be a teachable moment, but speculative excesses are a part of the DNA of capitalism. Leo Tolstoy began his epic novel, Anna Karenina, with the famous observation, "All happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way". Much the same can be said about depressions. Each depression seems unique and subject to as many interpretations as the most dysfunctional family. Hence what is unique to this crisis is the way that its build up departs from the general textbook model. Also, as I mentioned above, the other defining characteristic of this crisis is that debt rather than income spurred demand.Financial assets demand a different treatment. Capital reacts with horror when wages increase, demanding the Federal Reserve to slam on the brakes. In contrast, soaring prices of financial assets are presumed to be incontrovertible evidence of a healthy economy.The increasing value of these assets spurs people to increase consumption, often taking on debt, confident that their assets will appreciate even more. As Mark Twain observed about an earlier Gilded Age: "Beautiful credit! The foundation of modern society ... "I wasn't worth a cent two years ago, and now I owe two millions of dollars"."In 2000, when the excesses and frauds of Enron, World Com, and the dot.com boom came to light, financial markets shuddered. The Federal Reserve came to the rescue lowering interest rates, which reduced monthly mortgage payments, allowing people to buy more expensive housing.Once housing prices begin to rise, housing becomes an investment as well as the source of shelter. In addition, people, who suffered losses during the dot.com bust, saw housing is a safer investment than the stock market. Housing then transmuted into personal ATM machines, allowing people to borrow freely on the rising value of their property.Underlying this financial froth, something more ominous was occurring. Business refused to spend much for investment in productive activities. Again, the textbooks tell a different story. They teach that high profits translate into investment, which create jobs, spurring demand, and making the economy grow. Such was not the case this time around.Earlier this year, the British financial journalist, Martin Wolf, observed:
"The US itself looks almost like a giant hedge fund. The profits of financial companies jumped from below 5 per cent of total corporate profits, after tax, in 1982 to 41 per cent in 2007."(6)This estimate is probably too conservative because many nonfinancial companies increasingly depend upon finance. General Electric, and in their more prosperous years, Ford and General Motors, largely depended upon finance. Retail companies offer credit cards in effect, selling insurance on their products in the form of extended warranties.The U.S. Department of Commerce reported that in 1992 about a third of all workers employed in U.S. manufacturing industries were actually doing service-type jobs (e.g., in finance, purchasing, marketing, and administration). Updating this work, needless to say, has not been a high priority for government agencies.Corporations also spend mind-boggling quantities of money just to purchase their own stock. After all, increasing stock prices boost executives' bonuses. For years, Exxon has been spending more money for stock buybacks than capital expenditures, all the while whining that the company needs more incentives to drill for oil.What investment does occur is largely financed by depreciation allowances rather than previous profits. John Bellamy Foster offers an important measure of this reluctance to invest:
"Nine out of the ten years with the lowest net non-residential fixed investment as a percent of GDP over the last half century (up through 2006) were in the 1990s and 2000s. Between 1986 and 2006, in only one year - 2000, just before the stock market crash-did the percent of GDP represented by net private non-residential fixed investment reach the average for 1960-79 (4.2 percent). This failure to invest is clearly not due to a lack of investment-seeking surplus. One indicator of this is that corporations are now sitting on a mountain of cash - in excess of $600 billion in corporate savings that have built up at the same time that investment has been declining due to a lack of profitable outlets."(7)Finance is attractive for another reason: it employs relatively few people. The intriguingly-named FIRE sector, which includes finance, investment, and real estate, employs only about 8 percent of the private labor force. So, 8 percent of the workers generate 41 percent of the profits. Massive investments in information processing make such results possible.Of the investment that does appear, finance may represent a disproportionate share. The government does not have recent data on types of investment by industry. The data do show that investment on information processing and software is about 37 percent greater than investment in industrial equipment and manufacturing equipment. Of course, information processing is also important in manufacturing, but the data is suggestive. Where Did The Money Go and Will Jobs Also Disappear?On Monday, September 29 the stock market lost more than $1 trillion, about as much money as the Gross Domestic Product for an entire month. The next day, two thirds of the value suddenly reappeared. Yet, for the most part the tumult left most people unaffected, at least for the moment. More important, will the evaporation of all of this wealth affect ordinary people?Karl Marx's concept of fictitious capital is very useful in understanding these wild swings. I have explored this subject in more detail in an earlier book, entitled Marx's Crises Theory: Scarcity, Labor, and Finance.(8)For Marx, capitalism uses markets to distribute labor into productive activities, but it does so very imperfectly. Part of the problem is that lack of knowledge about the future causes imperfect investments. These imperfections magnify as the economy seems to prosper making people become giddy about their chances of success.Crises are capitalism's way of purging unproductive investments. In this way, crises eventually make the economy stronger, unless they become so severe that they shatter the foundation of capitalism.The crises will become more violent if the distribution of income becomes too lopsided, leaving investors flush with money, while consumers are relatively strapped. Massive amounts of money will flow into speculative ventures, creating bubbles. In effect, a market which is supposed to be a wonderful feedback system to inform capitalists about the needs of society, takes on a perverse logic of its own.Eventually, the bubble pops and there is hell to pay. The question today is how extreme this shock will be. Capitalism has shown quite a bit of resilience in the past. What is happening now could turn out to be relatively mild or could be severe.I use San Francisco as an analogy for my students. There will eventually be a serious earthquake that will do enormous damage. Nobody can predict what will happen. Even when the earth begins to tremble, the severity of the event may be in doubt.Wall Street uses a somewhat related term, leverage, to describe the ability to magnify potential profits by investing borrowed money. When the economy begins leveraging, business borrows money to invest - not necessarily in productive assets. Leveraging can continue as long as people feel confident enough to finance these investments.The government's modest limits on leverage have been systematically weakened, to the point where investment banks would be putting up as little as 3 cents, and even less, for each dollar invested. The riskiness of such practice should be obvious. A mere 3% drop in the investment would wipe out the bank's own share of the investment.The Federal Reserve also promoted increased leverage by holding interest rates low. Other regulators also paved the way for more leverage. Companies that choose the path of lower profits and lower risks are written off as stodgy and old-fashioned. Their stocks will flounder, reducing executive' bonuses. So, Wall Street investors willingly increased their leverage and risk. After all, investors prefer companies with high profits. Few are willing to take the time or have the expertise to understand the risks that might make profits appear high. In Wall Street-talk, increasing leverage works so long as investors maintain a balance between fear and greed. By fear, Wall Street means a reluctance to take on too much risk. Although Wall Street normally applauds greed, it associates excess greed with a foolhardy approach toward risk. During euphoric times when fear of risk subsides, people put money in ridiculous schemes.In his delightful book, Charles Mackay, related tales of shady operators bilking early investors a few centuries ago.
"One projector set up a company to profit from a wheel for perpetual motion. Another projector proposed "A company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is." "Next morning, at nine o'clock, this great man opened an office in Cornhill. Crowds of people beset his door, and when be shut up at three o'clock, he found that no less than one thousand shares had been subscribed for, and the deposits paid. He was thus, in five hours, the winner of 2000 pounds. He set off the same evening for the Continent. He was never heard of again."(9)
The newfound wealth during times of growing leverage can create more demand, which can increase jobs and wages. As noted previously, such has not been the case. Speculative wealth has not produced growth in wages for ordinary people or any significant growth in jobs. In fact, cutting jobs to increase profits has been a major factor in sustaining the boom. A few years ago, the business press praised this practice as financial engineering, as if it were providing a productive service.One factor that contributed to the lopsided economic growth without jobs, which characterized the recent decades, is the practice of leveraged buyouts. Private equity companies, as they are known, buy up other companies using borrowed money, often based on the assets of the target companies. The takeover artists claim that they can create managerial efficiencies, making their takeover look attractive to potential investors. In reality, they charge their targets exorbitant fees, often paid for by debt that the companies must eventually pay back. Then, to cover this burden, the companies must cut both wages and jobs, as well as looting significant value from pension plans. Private equity businesses than turn around and sell these supposedly rejuvenated, but actually hobbled companies to an unsuspecting public, which fail to see the similarity between such investments and the perpetual motion machine that Mackay described.In describing the necessity of a bailout for finance, the alarmists, who are not necessarily wrong, point to the job losses associated with the corporate restructurings that will follow bankruptcies. But these restructurings have been going on for decades. The bailout, however, is intended to facilitate a continuation of the destructive financial practices, which have also caused significant hardship to labor.Obviously, a collapse will also harm workers and other ordinary people, but in the wake of a collapse the country will stand a better chance to restore some sanity to the economy.Conclusion: Capitalism 101 (A Foundational Course)Capitalism is the most efficient system known to mankind. Central to this efficiency is the supposed ability of markets to channel capital where it is most effective. The current financial crisis might be expected to throw some doubts on this dogma, but I do not expect that to be the case.For example, in 2001, in the wake of dot.com bubble, the New York Times reported on one of the many excesses of the period:
"In the last two years, 100 million miles of optical fiber - more than enough to reach the sun - were laid around the world as companies spent $35 billion to build Internet-inspired communications networks. But after a string of corporate bankruptcies, fears are spreading that it will be many years before these grandiose systems are ever fully used."(10)
As mentioned earlier, the response was not to rethink the system, but to double down lowering interest rates to re-ignite the stock market. Investors, the government, and even ordinary people applauded the decision of Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, who appeared to be the wisest man in the universe at the time.Greenspan's manipulation of the interest rate appeared to be so beneficial, because it occurred without any direct effect on the proverbial taxpayer. Parenthetically, why is it that this taxpayer ranks so much higher in our concern relative to the workers who make everything possible?In retrospect, Greenspan's policy provided the fuel that helped to make the current crisis more threatening. Just as the solution to the dot.com crisis produced the current crisis, the present bailout, if it works at all, will create the preconditions for the next one.The purpose of the bailout is to create confidence. Back in the 19th-century, the governor of Illinois gave an excellent analysis of the way confidence worked in financial markets. He said that confidence "could only exist when the bulk of the people were under a delusion. According to their views, if the banks owed five times as much as they were able to pay and yet if the whole people could be persuaded to believe this incredible falsehood that all were able to pay, this was 'confidence'."His words may perhaps be the most succinct analysis of fictitious capital that I have read.Now class, here is the question for all the students in Capitalism 101: explain to me how is that markets are so efficient in directing capital where it is most needed. Extra credit if you can do so without any giggles.
Michael Perelman is professor of economics at California State University at Chico, and the author of fifteen books, including Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property Rights and the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity, The Perverse Economy: The Impact of Markets on People and the Environment, Railroading Economics: The Creation of the Free Market Mythology, and The Confiscation of American Prosperity: From Right-Wing Extremism and Economic Ideology to the Next Great Depression. His daily reflections on various political economic issues can be found at his blog, Unsettling Economics.
References:(1) Michael Perelman, The Confiscation of American Prosperity: From Right Wing Extremism and Economic Ideology to the Next Great Depression, Palgrave Macmillan (2007)
(2) James Boswell, Life of Johnson, 6 vols., Oxford University Press (1934-64)
(3) Diane Coyle, The Weightless World: Strategies for Managing the Digital Economy, MIT Press (1998).
(4) Tom Peters, The Circle of Innovation: You can't shrink your way to greatness, Knopf (1997).(5) Alan Greenspan, "Remarks" at the 80th Anniversary Awards Dinner of The Conference Board, New York, October 16, 1996.
(6) Martin Wolf, "Why it is so hard to keep the financial sector caged", Financial Times, February 6, 2008.
(7) John Bellamy Foster, "The Financialization of Capital and the Crisis", Monthly Review, April 2008.
(8) Michael Perelman, Marx's crises theory: Scarcity, labor, and finance, Greenwood Press (1987)
(9) Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1852)(10) Simon Romero, "Shining Future Of Fiber Optics Loses Glimmer", The New York Times, June 18, 2001.

Hackers 'find black hole in atom smasher computers'

2008-09-14T15:02:00.000+05:30

LONDON (AFP) — Hackers claim they have broken into the computer system of the Large Hadron Collider, the mega-machine designed to expose secrets of the cosmos, British newspapers reported on Saturday.
A group calling itself the Greek Security Team left a rogue webpage mocking the technicians responsible for computer security at the giant atom smasher as "schoolkids", the Times and Daily Telegraph reported.
The hackers vowed they had no intention of disrupting the experiment at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) on the Swiss-French border, they just wanted to highlight the flaws in the computer system's security.
"We're pulling your pants down because we don't want to see you running around naked looking to hide yourselves when the panic comes," they wrote, according to the Daily Telegraph.
The hackers claimed to have gained access to a website open to other scientists on Wednesday as the LHC passed its first test with flying colours, the reports said.
They appear to have tried to gain access to the computer system of the Compact Muon Solenoid Experiment, one of the four detectors that will be analysing the progress of the experiment.
James Gillies, a spokesman for CERN, told the Times: "We don't know who they were but there seems to be no harm done. It appears to be people who want to make a point that CERN was hackable."
Scientists hailed the success of the start of the experiment on Wednesday in the Large Hadron Collider, the 27-kilometre (16.9-mile) circular tunnel in which parallel beams of protons will be accelerated to nearly the speed of light.
Superconducting magnets will then steer the counter-rotating beams so that strings of protons smash together in four huge laboratories, fleetingly replicating the conditions that prevailed at the "Big Bang" that created the Universe 13.7 billion years ago.

Knowing the mind of God? That's just crazy talk

2008-09-14T15:00:00.000+05:30

Stephen Cauchi
September 14, 2008
FOR physicists, the holy grail is the Theory of Everything — or, as British scientist Stephen Hawking once called it, "knowing the mind of God". On the Swiss-French border, buried dozens of metres underground, is the latest scientific attempt to know God: a 27-kilometre circular tunnel containing two pipes enclosed within superconducting magnets, supercooled by liquid helium.
Meet the Large Hadron Collider, the world's largest scientific instrument, which hummed into life this week. The collider is the biggest version yet of what is known among scientists as a particle accelerator (more colloquially an atom-smasher).
By piling beams of protons and other subatomic particles into each other, scientists hope to answer some of the big questions in physics: what is the mysterious "dark matter" that fills most of the universe, the origin of forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and the structure of matter at the tiniest sub-atomic level?
The project has also produced lawsuits around the world from individuals concerned that atom smashing could produce microscopic black holes, planet-destroying lumps of matter known as "strangelets", or vacuum bubbles capable of rebooting the universe.
It's not the first time there has been concern that mad scientists might destroy the world. But is the fear justified, or simply feeding on an unfounded stereotype perpetuated by pop culture?
Movie buff and St Kilda Film Festival director Paul Harris points out that the mad scientist has been around since the 19th century: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818), Robert Louis Stephenson's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886) and H.G. Wells' The Island of Dr Moreau (1896) among the better known. "It's an archetype that's always been there in fiction," said Harris. "The stereotype for the layperson is we don't really know what science is but it rules our life and we're a bit mistrustful of it, especially when we know there are boffins out there who meddle with nature and end up creating monsters."
Among Harris' favourite mad scientists is Rotwang, from the 1926 German classic Metropolis, whose female "machine-man" is one of cinema's most striking icons. He sees Rotwang as the classic "deluded megalomaniac who tries to create the perfect robot and who lacks the spiritual qualities and the commonsense nous to see that all you're doing is creating harm".
Many would argue the evil scientist stereotype is not without merit. Stanley Kubrick's Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) is an amalgam of several scientists, including Wernher von Braun, the inventor of the V2 rocket that pummelled Britain in World War II, and Edward Teller, who helped invent the first nuclear bombs.
In an eerie parallel to doomsday fears surrounding the Large Hadron Collider, Teller did consider the possibility that the first nuclear bomb test, at New Mexico in 1945, could ignite the Earth's entire atmosphere. That test was truly a leap into the unknown: the scientists involved placed bets on how strong the blast would be.
More recently there have been other scientific "threats" to humanity. Take the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Plaques on spacecraft that advertise the Earth's location and greeting messages beamed to the cosmos from the Arecibo radio telescope have attracted criticism from those such as scientist and author David Brin who are concerned it may alert hostile ETs to humanity's presence.
The emerging field of nanotechnology — extremely small instruments and machinery — has also attracted doomsayers, including American scientist K.Eric Drexler, author of the landmark 1986 book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Drexler warned that out-of-control "nanobots" replicating themselves could swiftly turn the entire planet into a mass of "grey goo".
But it seems the good old particle accelerator remains the main scapegoat. As noted by physicist Phil Dooley from the University of Sydney, previous colliders also copped lawsuits from those worried about the end of the world.
Dooley points out that the type of reactions in the Large Hadron Collider occur naturally all the time from cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere. "No, the world won't end," he said. "The energies the collider will create are greater than any experiment we've ever seen before — closer to the big bang than we've ever witnessed. However, the particles are very small, so it's not really a big bang, more a nano-bang — an incredible amount of energy but in a tiny area.
"Even in the extremely unlikely event that a black hole is created, it would be so small that it would be almost impossible to detect, and not at all dangerous."
But, as worldwide reaction shows, old stereotypes still hold. "For the average person there is this fear of science and they like films that look dimly at the messianic mindset of scientists who don't know when to stop … boffins who believe in pure research so will go to any lengths," says Dooley. "It's like science versus humanism or something." (theage.com)

We’ll die another day!

2008-09-14T14:58:00.000+05:30

by Paul Rowland, Wales On Sunday
It was the week the world was supposed to end. Only it didn’t – or at least it hasn’t yet. PAUL ROWLAND explains why we were right to be scared of the Large Hadron Collider – but only to a point...
So the world didn’t end then...
Not quite, no. Meaning that those of us who didn’t spend the first part of Wednesday morning frantically watching our clocks and panicking that we’d forgotten to bid farewell to some loved one were actually in the right.
So to say the Earth didn’t move would be to over-egg the pudding. You’d have struggled to detect so much as a murmur had you even been hiking across a Swiss alpine plateau directly above the vast tunnel where the Large Hadron Collider was activated – overseen by Aberdare-born project manager Dr Lyn Evans, above.
The what?
The Large Hadron Collider. Just one of a brilliant new set of jargon which most of us spent the middle part of the week bandying around as if we had any idea what it meant.
Other great examples include the Higgs Boson particle, quark-gluon plasma, and any combination of protons, neutrons and electrons.
So offices around the country were awash the sentences like: “What CERN are doing, see, is stripping all the electrons off particles so they’ve got naked protons. Then they’re super-cooling them and whacking them through the LHC at light speed, so they’ll all smash into each other, and, hopefully, then they can understand dark matter, the God particle and maybe even the quark-gluon plasma that was around at the dawn of time. It’s obvious, innit.”
Never before have so many people been so blinded with so much science. But science, of course, is terrifying. So it’s no wonder that life-changing events like giving birth, moving house or going about our lives, suddenly took second fiddle to subterranean events in central Europe.
What were we scared about?
In a word, black holes. Or, more precisely, two words. We’ve all seen plenty enough science fiction films to know that getting sucked into a black hole is never a good thing.
At best, you’ll get pulled into a distant and terrifying backwater of the universe, from which you’ll never return and be forced to live out your days surrounded by Ewoks, cyborgs and Klingons. More terrifying still – arguably – is the prospect of instant and horrific death, possibly through being torn limb from limb by a sudden and deadly drop in atmospheric pressure.
Or any other unspecified astro-death that could be meted out by this most terrifying and mysterious of phenomena.
The bottom line is, black holes are bad news when they’re both fictional and millions of light years away from Earth.
When they’re a couple of miles below a country whose most advanced defensive weapon is a multi-tooled penknife, they’re infinitely worse.
So who said we should be worried?
Well, it’s mainly all the fault of one man: retired German chemist Otto Rossler, whose spectacularly emotive image of the world’s destruction was, if nothing else, a top idea for a film.
Turning on the machine, said Herr Rossler, would summon up a devastating quasar – a huge field of energy which would draw its God-forsaken power from a series of black holes (yep, not just one of them, but loads). Deadly jets would then spring from these, creating horrifically terrible weather systems and assorted other natural disasters at the points where the Earth’s surface was punctured. Think the Day After Tomorrow, only much, much worse.
In the great man’s own magnificent words: “The weather will change completely, wiping out life, and very soon the whole planet will be eaten in a magnificent scenario – if you could watch it from the moon. A Biblical Armageddon. Even cloud and fire will form, as it says in the Bible.”
A perfectly sensible, rational and downright realistic scenario. It really is a miracle that only a small proportion of us were ultimately taken in by it.
Another, much more boring protest came from an American scientist called Walter Wagner, who filed a lawsuit in his home state of Hawaii in an attempt to stop the big gadget being switched on. While his conviction is to be admired, most of us can probably think of one or two more enjoyable things to do in a tropical island paradise.
So what were the chances of Armageddon actually happening?
In a nutshell, not that good. While simply presuming things will probably be OK is not exactly a watertight method of dodging disaster, it seems to have worked pretty well on this occasion.
In this instance, most people didn’t feel the need to go out of their way to find some detailed scientific argument to explain why the world wouldn’t end, because, well, it just wouldn’t. Surely.
Most people, with good reason, assumed that if there was any chance the entire planet would be destroyed by a science experiment, it wouldn’t be allowed. Stem cell research and genetically-modified food have had to go through all kinds of hoops and restrictions to get through to where they are now. And last time I checked, slightly enlarged tomatoes carried no risk of causing destruction on a level not seen since the advent of the Death Star.
And for those needing slightly more reassurance than can be gleaned from the “it’ll be fine, surely” school of thought, there were the words of wisdom from none other than the world’s most recognisable scientist, Professor Stephen Hawking.
“The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on,” he said. “The LHC is absolutely safe.”
And then there were the assurances from members of the team behind the experiment.
As Brian Cox, whose CV takes in both astrophysics and being the drummer in tedious ’90s pop act D:Ream, put it succinctly: “Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a t***.”
So why bother with the experiment, if it was even a little bit dangerous?
For a start, there was no acceptance from the team behind the project that it was even a little bit dangerous. So, essentially, they were onto a winner from the start.
The main aim was to isolate the Higgs boson particle, otherwise known as the God particle.
Its very existence has only been theorised. But this unimaginably tiny speck – which has never previously been isolated if it actually exists at all – appears to operate under a different set of rules to any other form of matter.
And if it were to be identified, it could give vital clues to how the universe came into being at a time when everything was so hot that it existed only in the form of the infamous quark-gluon plasma.
Success would go a long way to proving the theory that the universe exists in far more dimensions than we know about – meaning our gravity is being shared by five or six other dimensions.
And that could explain how atoms drifting in and out of dimensions caused the beginning of the universe.
What did we learn?
Nothing yet. But that’s not to say that the potential outcomes aren’t already causing arguments among the scientific community, many of whom have a lot to gain from them. Or else lose.
Prof Hawking kicked off the exchange by claiming the formation of a black hole would be great, because it would prove he’d been right all along, and then he’d win the Nobel Prize. Missing the point a little bit there, Stephen, given that awards ceremonies in Sweden might not be high on the list of priorities in the event of the world ending, but that’s by the by.
Where he overstepped the mark was in suggesting that it would be terribly funny if the Higgs Boson particle turned out not to exist. Not so, said Peter Higgs – the man who first came up with the idea. And in a commendably immature comeback, he accused his rival of being not very good at science. So there.
So are we safe now?
Not quite. The experiment will continue for several weeks, so, in theory, something bad could happen at any point. But that’s the glory of the magnitude of the situation – I can write features like this, poking fun at the doom-mongers, safe in the knowledge that if I’m wrong, there’ll be absolutely no comeback. Result.

Floods destroy rebel training camps in Nepal, Bihar: Report

2008-09-04T17:49:00.001+05:30

Kathmandu / Indo-Asian News Service

The devastating floods that left a trail of havoc, death and diseases in south Nepal and Bihar have also swept away the training camps of underground rebel groups and destroyed arms and ammunition, a report claimed on Thursday.

The raging Saptakosi river that destroyed tens of thousands of homes in Nepal's Sunsari district and India's Bihar state across the border has also wiped out the secret training camps of at least three Nepali armed groups and swept away the rebels' guns, ammunition and explosives, the Naya Patrika daily said.

Veteran Maoist leader from the Terai plains, Jay Krishna Goit, who broke away from the parent party accusing it of failing to address the sufferings of the Madhesi community and began an armed movement for an independent Madhes state, had his Akhil Terai Mukti Morcha's covert camps destroyed by the swirling waters, the daily said.

Its breakaway faction, the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha led by Goit's former lieutenant Jwala Singh, as well as a little-known group said to be behind a series of abductions and extortion, the Madhesi Tigers faction headed by underground rebel Prafulla Yadav, had also suffered similar losses, the report added.

Just as the Maoists had set up training camps for its guerrillas in the border areas of Nepal and India, where concealment was easy and arms easily available, the three Nepali underground organisations had their training centres in Sunsari's Shripur, Haripur and Basantapur villages as well as Araria and Supaul districts of Bihar, the report said.

The camps began to mushroom about three years ago.

Due to the floods and the destruction of the camps, the training of rebel cadres has been put on hold, the report said.

Along with the camps, the floods have also destroyed firearms, documents and a large cache of explosives.

The daily said that the former Maoist outfits had their training camps in Araria's Banelipatti while the Madhesi Tigers had their camp in Kausikapur in the same Indian district.

A senior leader of Madhesi Tigers, who gave his name only as Pratap, told the daily that the swirling waters had carried away hundreds of small, home-made bombs.

This week, Nepal's new Home Minister Bam Dev Gautam called the warring factions to talks, delivered with the warning that those who declined the call would be regarded as criminals and would be subjected to force. (NewsX)

India’s Christians: politics of violence in Orissa

2008-09-04T16:08:00.001+05:30

A wave of Hindu nationalist attacks on Christians in eastern India is rooted in local issues of caste and conversion but also part of a larger political strategy, says Jacob Ignatius.

A catastrophic flood across the northeast Indian state of Bihar has displaced tens of thousands of people and caused untold damage to the meagre property and livelihoods of some of India’s poorest citizens. The challenges of delivering aid and protecting the health of those affected by this emergency - which is spreadingto the state of Assam and across the border to Bangladesh - are immense. But alongside this natural and humanitarian disaster, another less visible crisis has been unfolding: attacks on India’s Christians in parts of the impoverished eastern state of Orissa.

On 29 August 2008, 45,000 Christian schools were closed across India to protest against the anti-Christian violence that had affected (mainly) the Kandhamal district of Orissa in the previous week. This was unprecedented in the history of independent India, for never before have Christians felt so compelled to stand publicly and unitedly against the forces of communalism in India. Moreover, the impact of this response is heightened by the fact that Christian schools - which provide education to both Christian and non-Christian children - form a significant part of India’s education system.

The unrest in the state of Orissa started on 23 August 2008 after the murder of a 90-year-old rightwing Hindu nationalist leader called Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati; four of his associates were also killed in the attack. Although the police suspected Maoist guerrillas for the murder, members of the radical Hindu group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) blamed Christians and went on the rampage - killing several people, and destroying a Christian missionary-school, house-churches and other buildings. The Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) estimates that fifty people (most of them Christians) have been killed. Thousands of Christians have fled their homes to seek shelter in the forests or government camps. The murder of the Hindu leader is clearly reprehensible, but this is a matter for the judicial authorities and - even were the culprit found to be a Christian - would not justify what effectively became an assault against an entire local Christian community.

An area of tension

The latest trauma is part of a history of Hindu-Christian clashes in Orissa over the last decade. In January 1999, the Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons were burned alive while sleeping in their jeep. Around Christmas 2007 there were Hindu-Christian clashes that have some parallels with the latest events. The main conflict then was between two communities: Kandh tribals (who are mainly, though not exclusively, Hindus) and Dalit Panas (many of whom have converted to Christianity over the years). Christian missionaries have been active in the area for many years; with the entrance of radical Hindu groups, vehemently opposed to the conversion of Hindus to Christianity and cow slaughter, the potential for communal tension has deepened.

Muslims have traditionally borne the brunt of attacks by Hindu extremist groups but since the late 1990s there has been a marked increase in the number of attacks on Christians. Between 1950 and 1998, only fifty anti-Christian attacks were recorded. In 2000, the figure shot up to 100, and then rose further to at least 200 incidents annually in 2001-05; perhaps it was no coincidence that this came after after the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power at the federal level (until their defeat by the Congress-led coalition in May 2004). In 2007, the number of attacks on Christians exceeded 1,000 for the first time.

Hindu radicals often make the allegation - in part-excuse for the actions of extremists - that Christians are forcibly or fraudulently converting Hindus to Christianity. There probably are some erring missionaries who are attracting converts by false inducements, but to imply that all do so is inaccurate and unfair (see Subhasis Mohanty, “Fire in Kalinga“, The Pioneer, 2 September 2008). Many missionaries do great charitable work, often providing a helping hand in areas deeply affected by poverty.

In several Indian states governed by the BJP, anti-conversion laws are now in place. These laws are largely intended to prevent the flow of people from Hinduism to other faiths. Many low-caste Hindus have converted to Christianity willingly to escape the rigid and repressive caste system; the Dalit Panas of Orissa are an example. In this context the anti-conversion laws - which sanction interference in a person’s right freely to choose a faith - have become a weapon used by radical Hindus to beat Christians. In areas like Orissa, the tensions that result are intermingled with disputes over land, legal status and local power (see Ravik Bhattacharya, “Down the Dark Road“, Indian Express, 31 August 2008).

Christians officially constitute only 2.3% of the Indian population. Christianity is believed to have been brought to India by St Thomas, Christ’s own apostle, to the shores of Kerala in 52 CE (common era). Much later, colonial powers such as the British, Portuguese, Dutch and French made strenuous efforts to convert the population. These were usually without success; Christianity has never grown to be a dominant religion in India and it is unlikely it ever will. Yet Hindu extremist groups like the VHP are fixated on the issue of conversions to Christianity - in part from dogmatic opposition to people leaving their religious fold, in part from insecurity about members of the lower castes trying to break free from the caste system. Hence, the majority of attacks on Christians are directed against the formerly low-caste converts such as the Dalit Panas of Orissa (see Biswamoy Pati, “In a crucified state“, Hindustan Times, 2 September 2008).

A strategy of fear

India is a deeply religious place where the boundaries of religion and politics are somewhat porous. The country is not today blessed with philanthropic politicians of the stature of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru who always strove for communal harmony. There is a disturbing tendency among some of their successors to exaggerate the religious divide between communities in order to polarise voters along religious lines and win the votes of the majority community. This can both encourage and justify attacks on members of minority faiths, many of which are orchestrated in advance and carried out with the connivance of the authorities. In their aftermath, very few people are prosecuted (see Rajeev Bhargava, “The political psychology of Hindu nationalism“, 5 November 2003).

The next Indian general election is looming - it must be held by May 2009, and could even be sooner. The BJP seems to have returned to its policy of hard-lineHindutva (Hindu nationalism) to capture votes. The ruling Congress Party professes commitment to India’s famed secularism, but it often fails to match action with rhetoric (see Rajeev Bhargava, “Words save lives: India, the BJP and the constitution“, 2 October 2002). This is disappointing because to break the cycle of communal violence more needs to be done than just issuing statements and pointing the finger of blame at the BJP. A good start would be consistently to bring the perpetrators of communal violence to justice.

Hindus are in their vast majority tolerant and peaceful - as are members of other faiths in India. It is political manipulation and fear-mongering that turns peaceful coexistence into terrible violence, as in Orissa. The political instigation of of anti-Christian sentiment by the Hindu rightwing for electoral gain is another danger to Indian democracy. In the interests of a peaceful, progressive and just India, it must be opposed.

This article is published by Jacob Ignatius, , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence.

(Australia.To)

In a crucified state

2008-09-04T16:07:00.000+05:30

Biswamoy Pati

Orissa is in the news yet again. Except that unlike in December 2007, the news of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati’s death is real. Nevertheless, very much like the last time, the VHP has gone berserk again. Political murders and killing of Christians (as ‘imagined murderers’) or vandalising churches is unacceptable to any democratic society. The violence inflicted has been meticulously planned and executed over two-three days when the Orissa government and its affiliated agencies seemed overwhelmed by what was going on.

When Mahatma Gandhi had visited coastal Orissa in 1921 he had said: “I was prepared to see skeletons in Orissa but not to the extent I did. I had seen terrible pictures but the reality was too terrible.’ (Young India, April 1921). In fact, if he had visited western Orissa or the Kandhamal region today, he would have echoed this sentiment.

We are talking about a region that has a predominantly tribal and Dalit population, with 70-75 per cent of the people living below the poverty line. In fact, western Orissa is an amazing ‘hinterland’ of contradictions. Along with acute poverty, the region also harbours mega-projects associated with the mining of bauxite needed to produce aluminium. Unfortunately, successive governments in Orissa have been extremely careful about saving their ‘marriage’ with international capital, but have ignored the serious impact of these mega-projects on people’s lives and the region’s environment.

The current BJD-BJP government has suppressed popular initiatives that have questioned the displacement of people and highlighted hazards to the environment. At the same time, it is puzzling that the government is neither interested in nor is serious about maintaining law and order in this western hinterland. And going by Saraswati’s murder and the subsequent killings, political scientists may well argue that what is being witnessed today indicates the breakdown of civil society. However, the deeper question is: has this tract ever seen civil society?

Whoever is responsible for the murder of Saraswati is definitely not interested either in tribals or Dalits. This heinous act would most certainly boost the VHP in a manner comparable to LK Advani’s rath yatra. After all, Saraswati was a major Sangh parivar functionary who had been working among poor tribals since the late 1960s. He had been associated with the schools and ashrams, working with the idea of improving the lot of the poor tribals.

This needs to be located in a context where the government has virtually abdicated its responsibility of providing basic features of civil society like education and health. In the absence of any land reforms or serious governmental interventions to improve the condition of the poor, the schools and ashrams provide meagre alternatives, along with institutions run by Christian missionaries and NGOs.

Ironically, the activities of the VHP correspond to what they accuse the Christian missionaries of doing in western Orissa. Both work to attract and convert people to their respective faiths – something that is allowed under the Indian Constitution. Moreover, both have access to resources — internal and external — to be used towards the uplift of the poor. But then how does one explain the way in which the term ‘conversion’ appears to be synonymous with Christian missionaries? This might appear to be a profound question. But this is precisely where the Sangh parivar’s hegemonic hold needs to be loosened.

This is sustained by poverty, lack of land struggles and reforms and the virtual non-existence of either civil society or the state in this area; further clothed by a finely-crafted ‘reality’ created by the VHP. One could cite two clear examples to illustrate this point: (a) that tribals are Hindus and Christian missionaries are the villains, who are spreading Christianity through inducements and converting the poor and ignorant tribals; and (b) that the VHP has the right to re-convert them to their original faith. It is indeed amazing that most of the reports on Kandhamal wrongly assume that tribals are Hindus. In fact, what the Sangh parivar has been attempting in Orissa — their post-Gujarat laboratory — is large-scale conversion of tribals to Hinduism.

This is skilfully combined with terrorising sections of Dalits – who had opted to convert to Christianity after suffering social discrimination – to reconvert to Hinduism. This ‘common sense’ makes the conversion of tribals appear as ‘re-conversion’. And this has been skilfully woven with terror directed against Dalit Christians over quite some time. More significantly, the majoritarian orientation of such conversion drives and their ancillaries – viz the ghee-burning shuddhi karan (re-conversion) rituals as seen through the electronic media — hides the real agenda.

This ‘common sense’ has enabled the VHP to make serious inroads in Orissa, even as the world debates the conflicts among Dalit (Panas) Christians and the adivasis (Kandhas) over diverse issues. The real problem in Kandhamal is related to the aggressive drives to convert tribals to Hinduism, including terror directed at Dalit Christians, who are the stumbling blocks in the path of the Sangh parivar and the VHP.

(Biswamoy Pati is the author of Identity, Hegemony, Resistance : Towards a Social History of Conversions in Orissa, 1800-2000)

(Hindustan Times)

DOWN THE DARK ROAD

2008-09-04T16:06:00.000+05:30

Ravik Bhattacharya

CASTE CONUNDRUM
THE trigger to the violence in Kandhamal may have been Saraswati’s murder but it has been stoked by a simmering resentment between the district’s two main communities: the Kondhs and the Panas. At its heart lies a tale of caste equations and a fight for land.
Though both the tribal Kondhs and the Dalit Panas converted to Christianity, the distance between the two has grown in the last decade. The Kondhs may be more in number but the Panas are more prosperous and that has now become a major cause of conflict. Matters have worsened in the last few years with the Panas demanding more rights. According to the law, the Kondhs who converted to Christianity continue to have a right to their land but the Dalit Panas who converted to Christianity, lose their SC status.
The Christian Panas have been demanding the same status and rights as the Christian Kondhs. The Panas say that since they speak the tribal language Kui, they too should get the benefits given to the tribal Kondhs. The Panas’s fight got a fresh impetus when in 2002, an amended Presidential order in Orissa declared the ‘Kuis’ to be STs. In June 2007, an NGO called the Phulbani Kui Janakalyan Sangha filed a petition in the Orissa High Court, seeking tribal status for Dalits since they speak the local tribal language, Kui. The organisation forwarded a certificate from the then minister for coal and mines, Padmanava Behere, to press for their cause.
Brahma Behera, president of the Pana Samaj, says, “The Panas speak the same language as the Kondhs and should get the same rights. The recent tension was just waiting to happen as land rights and religion are being mixed up.” On July 12, 2007, the HC asked the government to look into the matter and make the necessary corrections. The state government, however, said that speaking tribal language was not enough to give a community a tribal status. The state government’s explanation came too late for the Kondh tribals, who, opposed to the tribal status for Panas, launched a protest under an umbrella called the Zilla Kui Samanvaya Samity. The Kondhs also grudge the Panas their prosperity.
In fact, in the disgruntled Kondhs, Saraswati, the Kendriya Margdarshak of the VHP who had been working here for the past 40 years, saw an opportunity for re-conversion and he set about trying to woo them back into the Hindu fold.
And with his killing on August 23, the string of conversions, reconversions and competing for rights in Orissa’s tribal heartland snapped.
_Ravik Bhattacharya

(Indian Express)

Who’s the real Hindu?

2008-09-04T16:05:00.000+05:30

Karan Thapar , Hindustan Times

Does the VHP have the right to speak for you or I? Do they reflect our views? Do we endorse their behaviour? They call themselves the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, but who says they represent all of us? This Sunday morning, I want to draw a clear line of distinction between them and everyone else. My hunch is many of you will agree.

Let me start with the question of conversion — an issue that greatly exercises the VHP. I imagine there are hundreds of millions of Hindus who are peaceful, tolerant, devoted to their faith, but above all, happy to live alongside Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Jews. If any one of us were to change our faith how does it affect the next man or woman? And even if that happens with inducements, it can only prove that the forsaken faith had a tenuous and shallow hold. So why do the VHP and its unruly storm troopers, the Bajrang Dal, froth at the mouth if you, I or our neighbours convert? What is it to do with them?

Let me put it bluntly, even crudely. If I want to sell my soul — and trade in my present gods for a new lot — why shouldn’t I? Even if the act diminishes me in your eyes, it’s my right to do so. So if thousands or even millions of Dalits, who have been despised and ostracised for generations, choose to become Christian, Buddhist or Muslim, either to escape the discrimination of their Hindu faith or because some other has lured them with food and cash, it’s their right.

Arguably you may believe you should ask them to reconsider, although I would call that interference, but you certainly have no duty or right to stop them. In fact, I doubt if you are morally correct in even seeking to place obstacles in their way. The so-called Freedom of Religion Acts, which aim to do just that, are, in fact, tantamount to obstruction of conversion laws and therefore, at the very least, questionable.

However, what’s even worse is how the VHP responds to this matter. Periodically they resort to violence including outright murder. What happened to Graham Staines in Orissa was not unique. Last week it happened again. Apart from the utter and contemptible criminality of such behaviour, is this how we Hindus wish to behave? Is this how we want our faith defended? Is this how we want to be seen? I have no doubt the answer is no. An unequivocal, unchanging and ever-lasting NO!

The only problem is it can’t be heard. And it needs to be. I therefore believe the time has come for the silent majority of Hindus — both those who ardently practice their faith as well as those who were born into it but may not be overtly religious or devout — to speak out. We cannot accept the desecration of churches, the burning to death of innocent caretakers of orphanages, the storming of Christian and Muslim hamlets even if these acts are allegedly done in defence of our faith. Indeed, they do not defend but shame Hinduism. That’s my central point.

I’m sorry but when I read that the VHP has ransacked and killed I’m not just embarrassed, I feel ashamed. Never of being hindu but of what some Hindus do in our shared faith’s name.

This is why its incumbent on Naveen Patnaik, Orissa’s Chief Minister, to take tough, unremitting action against the VHP and its junior wing, the Bajrang Dal. This is a test not just of his governance, but of his character. And I know and accept this could affect his political survival. But when it’s a struggle between your commitment to your principles and your political convenience is there room for choice? For ordinary politicians, possibly, but for the Naveen I know, very definitely not.

So let me end by saying: I’m waiting, Naveen. In fact, I want to say I’m not alone. There are hundreds of millions of Hindus, like you and me, waiting silently — but increasingly impatiently. Please act for all of us.

Christians of Orissa Attacked

2008-08-30T18:06:00.001+05:30

In the name of God - Orissa Anti Christian violence 3 of 3

2008-08-30T18:05:00.001+05:30

In the name of God - Orissa Anti Christian violence 1 of 3

2008-08-30T18:03:00.001+05:30

Orissa: Hindu Terrorism on Christians in India

2008-08-30T18:02:00.001+05:30

Orissa Communal Violence

2008-08-30T18:00:00.001+05:30

Orisssa Communal Violence by Instablog

BJP & police don’t buy Maoist angle

2008-08-28T16:32:00.001+05:30

Rajaram Satapathy TNN
Bhubaneswar: Five days after the gruesome murder of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati and four of his associates, police are still clueless about the killers. The state government still maintains that Saturday’s attack on Jalespeta Ashram in Kandhmal district was the handiwork of Maoists, but BJP — the ruling coalition partner — refuses to buy its own government’s version. Neither do the police. BJP and other saffron organizations have thrown the blame on “Christian militants” who, according to them, were intolerant to the Swamiji’s “relentless battle against conversion and his years of effort to educate poor tribals”. DIG R P Koche, who has been put in charge of Kandhamal district after the district SP’s suspension in the wake of the killing, said some people have been detained for the incident, but that the “arrest process is yet to begin”. He re-fused to say how many suspects have been detained so far. Sources say even the police are baffled over the manner in which the attack was made on the Swamiji and the weapons used. The postmortem report says the Swamiji was riddled with bullets from AK-47 assault rifles and 9 mm pistols. “The attack group had more than 40 people, all young. They had about four AK-47s, and some carried countrymade guns,” said a senior officer. “It was not a spurof-the-moment hit. They came fully prepared.” The government seized on the AK-47 bullets to point a finger at Maoists. Besides, Kandhamal has been emerging as another hotbed of the Naxalites, who are using the dense forests and hilly, uninviting terrain to hold training camps and recruit locals. Even in the Nayagarh attack in February, in which truckloads of arms from police were looted and 15 people were murdered, the Maoists had used Kandhamal as their base before launching the offensive, sources say. But the police brass is not willing to believe the government’s theory on the Maoist angle. “Any killing by Maoists is decided by its 39-member central committee and they normally issue statements, taking the high moral ground. In case of Swamiji, the Maoists have so far not owned responsibility. More so, Laxmanananda Saraswati was not a class enemy for them — a terminology they often use against oppressors and exploiters. The Swamiji spent his entire life fighting against conversion,” a senior officer said. He said Maoists normally do not antagonize local people and couldn’t be so naive as to kill the propoor Swamiji. “We believe some of their newly recruited people may have done the killing,” he added. (TNN)

Kandhmal a tinderbox

2008-08-28T16:28:00.000+05:30

Sandeep Mishra TNN
Bhubaneswar: Caught in the vortex of conversion and reconversion, Kandhmal’s agony is manifold. Like most other tribal-dominated districts, this southern Orissa district, too, grapples with poverty, deprivation, illiteracy and malnutrition. But what is most disturbing is the increasing ethnic and communal schism that has turned it into a tinderbox. Political one-upmanship and entry of Maoists have only made matters worse. Simmering since long, Kandhmal experiencing communal conflagrations — like in the present instance or last December — isn’t surprising at all. In fact, communal violence was waiting to happen. And at the genesis of this lies the divide between the tribal Kandhs and Panas (an SC community). What was more a competition for economic resources between the two communities over a century ago, has with time assumed religious dimensions due to Christian missionaries and Sangh Parivar outfits. Over the years, a many Panas have embraced Christianity, while a significant mass of Kandhs entered the Hindu fold. And taking advantage of the religious polarization, missionaries and the Sangh Parivar have in the last few decades been playing the politics of proselytisation. While Kandhmal (formerly Phulbani district) has been split along ethnic lines for decades, the problem took a turn for the worse in the early 1990s. “The ST central list was amended with enlistment of three more groups: Kui, Kuvi, Kuee. A lot of Panas also speak Kui language and they, too, started demanding ST status. This was a calculated demand as ST status would entail government benefits even for those Panas who had embraced Christianity,” a researcher says. Expectedly, this wasn’t acceptable to the Kandhs, who feared the Panas would corner the benefits. Matters turned ugly when delimitation of constituencies changed Kandhmal Lok Sabha seat’s reserved status from SC to ST, and the Panas resumed their demand for tribal tag. “An aggressive drive for illegal conversion by Christian missionaries is the root cause of the tension in Kandhmal,” said VHP state general secretary G P Rath. The president of All India Christian Council (Orissa chapter), P R Paricha, says: “The Sangh Parivar is making baseless allegations. Preaching is done in tune with the Constitution. Nobody can deny that the missionary has done a lot of good in Kandhmal.” ‘Call out army’ Mumbai: Cardinal Oswald Gracias, the archbishop of Mumbai, has appealed to the Centre to deploy the army in the jungles of Orissa, where hundreds of Christians have taken refuge after being allegedly terrorised by activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. “It is a shocking and shameful situation,” the cardinal told TOI on Wednesday. “The state government and the police have failed to build confidence among the minorities.” TNN

Statement by World Vision India on the situation in Orissa and Comments made by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Spokesperson on ‘Face the Nation’ on 26 Au

2008-08-28T13:13:00.001+05:30

Statement by World Vision India on the situation in Orissa and Comments made by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Spokesperson on ‘Face the Nation’ on 26 August, 2008 at 10 pm on CNN-IBN
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, Wednesday, August 27, 2008 -- (Business Wire India)We are deeply shocked by the murder of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswathi and others. We strongly condemn this dastardly act of taking life and law into ones own hands and the violence surrounding this. Violence of any kind is never justifiable and only serves to protract the suffering and misery of common people. World Vision India and its staff have been falsely accused of being party to these the incidents and the following statement is being issued by World Vision India to state the facts of our position;-- The allegations by Mr. Ram Madhav, spokesperson for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who appeared on ‘Face the Nation’ on CNN-IBN at 10 pm on 26 August, 2008 are totally false and baseless. World Vision or their staffs is not a party to or participants in the recent violence in Kandhamal district. -- Here are the facts of the situation;- Two of our staff from the Daringbadi programme were apprehended by a mob on the night of the 23rd August, 2008 when they were on their way to Bhubaneshwar attempting to get out of the area in fear for their lives, as there were rumours of impending violence as in December 2007. - The police who were patrolling in the area rescued them. In due course, the police verified their identity and purposes with due diligence, before they let them go. -- The above situation has been deliberately twisted and rumours are being spread that these people were apprehended while escaping the scene of the murder. This has been reported in some media and Mr. Ram Madhav made this allegation without a shred of evidence or proof. It is a lie.World Vision India has been serving the poor in India over the last five decades through relief and development programmes in close cooperation with communities, the government and other NGOs. In Orissa, World Vision has been working in seven districts. As relief and development agency World Vision works closely with several non-governmental organisations, other aid agencies, global institutions and specialised agencies of the United Nations. Our aid workers work closely with the government, NGOs and the community on education, economic development and health. Wherever, World Vision has been involved we have taken special effort to build local capacities for peace building and communal harmony. World Vision does not engage in proselytising or using aid and development to tamper with people’s faith. World Vision policy expressly prohibits this. World Vision serves all people regardless of religion, caste, race, ethnicity or gender. We call for everyone concerned, especially the elected leaders of our country and leaders of civil society to come together and seek peace and restore normalcy as quickly as possible. Divisive rumouring does not contribute to healing our land and is not in the best interest of the poor of our country.
For press backgrounder on World Vision India click here
Media contact details
Jayanth Vincent,World Vision India,+91 98400-64165,jayanth_vincent@wvi.org

Church Helps Flood Victims In Bihar

2008-08-27T16:08:00.000+05:30

MUZAFFARPUR, India (UCAN) -- Several Catholic Church centers and parishes have been affected by unexpected floods in the eastern Indian state of Bihar.
Father Maria Selvam, director of Muzaffarpur diocese's Social Service Centre, says the floods that started Aug. 20 have affected around 1 million people in the state's northern region. Bettiah, Muzaffarpur and Purnea dioceses cover the region. Father Selvam told UCA News on Aug. 25 that a breach on Aug. 28 in a dam on the Kosi River in Nepal triggered the floods, which he said have "trapped" seven parishes and half a dozen mission centers of the diocese. "Still our priests and nuns are striving hard to help people with whatever they have, despite being in trouble themselves," the diocesan priest added. Among the affected are some 60 leprosy patients of Sneha Dham (abode of compassion), a hospital in Muraliganj, a village in Madhepura district, 1,200 kilometers east of New Delhi. The Missionaries of Charity Brothers, founded by Blessed Teresa of Kolkata, manage the 26-year-old facility. When Brother Ignatius, head of the local brothers' community, spoke with UCA News on Aug. 24, he said the hospital was under 2.5 meters of water. The flooding had forced some 100 villagers to seek shelter there. The Religious said they stitched plastic bags together to make a canopy on their roof to shelter the leprosy patients. He explained the hospital was able to feed the people, since it usually stores provisions for a month. But it could not renew its daily supply of perishable items such as milk and vegetables. "Even fuel wood was procured from the market. The floods have blocked all movements of people and goods," Brother Ignatius said. But he added that the leaders of Muzaffarpur diocese, which covers the area, had assured help. Father Joseph Moses, pastor of Sakhua parish, who is engaged in relief work, told UCA News on Aug. 25 that they are using boats to bring beaten rice, corn and other items to the affected villagers. "Army helicopters sometimes drop food packets," he reported, but he did not think these were enough for the flood victims. According to Father Aby Abraham, pastor of the diocese's Saharsha parish, half a dozen Church hostels for tribal children are among the worst-affected sites. The youngsters "have taken shelter on rooftops as their schools and hostels are marooned," the Indian Missionary Society priest told UCA News. "They can't cook and so have been starving for days." Father Abraham said local villagers brought food packets for the children. "It is a common scenario that flood victims loot government relief materials. But in our case the flood victims, though hungry themselves, provided us boats and men to ferry food articles to the hostel children," he added. The priest revealed that some villagers told him they would have looted the food packets if they were not meant for the hostel children. The priest and children offered Sunday Mass on Aug. 24 for the villagers, he added. Father Alex Kurissummootil, pastor of Khagaria, another parish of Muzaffarpur diocese, told UCA News that Church people as well as the government became "complacent" after the region was spared the usual July floods. However, the breach in the 60-year-old Kosi dam caused an unexpected and devastating manmade calamity. The priest said the river has taken a new course after the flooding, affecting hundreds of villages. "Their inhabitants are in panic since they have never faced flood vagaries," he explained. "Church relief teams and government official now advise the people to move out to safer places." Father Valerian Deepak Tauro, secretary to the Muzaffarpur bishop, told UCA News the diocese has asked for national and international aid agencies to help meet the needs related to the "unprecedented floods."

Ethnic Cleansing By RSS of Christians - LATEST

2008-08-27T15:22:00.001+05:30

Hindu Fundamentalists and Orissa Violence

Ethnic Cleansing By RSS of Christians - LATEST

2008-08-27T15:20:00.001+05:30

Hindu fundamentalists and Orissa Violence

INDIA: DEATHS MOUNT AS VIOLENCE SPREADS IN ORISSA

2008-08-27T12:38:00.001+05:30

Rampaging Hindu extremists kill four more Christians today.
NEW DELHI, August 26 (Compass Direct News) – At least 18 people are confirmed dead in 92 incidents of violence against Christians since suspected Maoists murdered Hindu leader Swamiji Laxmanananda Saraswati and four others on Saturday (Aug. 23) in Orissa state.
With Hindu extremists inciting hatred by heated accusations that Christians killed Saraswati, the national newspaper Hindu reported today that nine people had been killed in Orissa violence, and a Compass source near the state capital of Bhubaneswar confirmed an additional nine people slain.
The death count by the Hindu included four people killed in the Barakhama area. News agencies had earlier confirmed three dead in Raikia and two others, including a woman, killed in Bargarh, where a missionary-run orphanage was set on fire yesterday. The figure of 92 incidents thus far comes from the Global Council of Indian Christians.
Additionally, the Compass source said that Hindu extremists today killed pastor Samuel Naik of the Bakingia Seventh-Day Adventist Church at Kandhamal, and Jacob Digal and Gopan Naik of Damba village were slain this morning. Also killed today was Golok Naik of Pidinanju village (under Mondakia police station), and yesterday pastor Mukunda Bardhan from Mukundapur, Gajapati was burned to death.
Three other people whose names have not yet been verified, said the source, were killed in Katingia village of G. Udaygiri, along with a pastor belonging to Operation Mobilization from the same area. In Badimunda, about 12 kilometers (seven miles) from G. Udaygiri, nearly 25 Christian homes were burned down.
There were many reports of Christians being pulled from their homes and killed or beaten, with many homes of Christians torched in Baliguda. According to reports by the Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI), the East India office of Compassion International in Bhubaneswar was ransacked.
Saraswati and four others were killed by suspected Maoists in the swami’s ashram, or religious center, in the Jalespata area of Kandhamal district’s Tumudiband Block in Orissa state. A warning letter found at the Saraswati religious center and use of expensive arms suggested Maoists were behind the attack.
In a state with a strong Maoist presence, police reportedly said they have evidence to link the communist rebels to the murders of Saraswati and his four associates. One police theory is that Maoists would attack Hindu leaders in a misguided effort to gain support among area tribal people, many of whom have converted to Christianity.
On Sunday (Aug. 24) the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a partner in the state’s ruling coalition, and the Hindu extremist Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council or VHP) called for 12-hour a shut-down in which inflammatory speeches were made accusing Christians of killing Saraswati.
Authorities in Denial
Orissa Police Chief Gopal Chandra Nanda downplayed the violence, telling Reuters that incidents were only “sporadic” and that “some prayer houses have been attacked and vehicles have been burnt.”
Likewise, local authorities and media have painted the shutdown as “peaceful,” denying that organized attacks took place. The state is ruled by a coalition of the BJP and the Biju Janata Dal party.
At the same time, Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) extremists have continued to incite hatred against Christians and criticized the local government. VHP Secretary General Pravin Tagodia accused the state government of Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik of acting like a “eunuch” and demanded his apology for the killing of Saraswati and his companions.
“Christians murdered Swamiji, but the government is lying and giving it a Maoist color,” Tagodia said. “Naveen as an individual and police, in particular, are responsible for this attack orchestrated by the church on Hindu dharma.’’
At the same time, a senior leader from Christian relief and development organization World Vision told Compass that a news report about the arrest of their staff members in connection with Saraswati’s killing was false. The police had merely kept two of their employees for protection, he said.
“No complaint had been lodged against them,” he said. “The employees have safely reached their homes.”
Widespread Violence
Sources from Kandhamal district said hundreds of Christians along with their families have fled to the nearby forests to save their lives in the rainy climate and are without shelter, food and clothing.
“Three adults and one child were reportedly killed in fresh violence in Barakhama, Kandhamal,” EFI News reported.
At least 14 Christians have been killed in Kandhamal, according to the news agency: Hacked to death by a rampaging mob of Hindu extremists were two Christians in Mutungia village, one in Petaponga village, one in Borimunda village, three in Katinga village, three in Tianga village, three in Adikuppa village and one in Bakingia village.
According to reports received from Kalahandi district, many incidents of violence and house burning have taken place even though it is more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) from the place where Saraswati was killed.
Christian sources said pastor Sikandar Singh of the Pentecostal Mission was beaten and his house was burned in Bhawanipatna. In Kharihar, three Christian shops were looted and burned. Pastor Alok Das was beaten at Kharihar, as was pastor I.M. Senapati. In Aampani, pastor David Diamond Pahar was beaten by more than 200 people. They chased him away from Aampani, and he is hiding in nearby villages.
Pastor Pravin Ship and two other area pastor identified only as Pradhan and Barik were beaten and chased away with their families. In Naktikani, an angry mob surrounded the village to attack Christians. The government sent forces to try to control the mob but without success.
Christian Pleas
A delegation of Christian leaders in New Delhi met with Home Minister Shivraj Patil to brief him of the situation and to register their concern. Patil assured the Christian delegation, including the Rev. Dr. Richard Howell, general secretary of EFI, and Father Babu Joseph, spokesperson of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India of the central government’s support in curbing violence against Christians in the state.
Another delegation led by Orissa state Christian leaders met Gov. Rameshwar Thakur with the same objectives. The Rt. Rev. Samson Das and attorney Bibhu Dutta Das were also among those who met with the Orissa governor today.
In Kolkata, the All-India Minority Forum today condemned the attack on churches in Orissa and demanded the resignation of Chief Minister Patnaik for his “failure” to protect religious minorities in his state.
“We condemn in unequivocal terms the incident of burning alive people who belong to the Christian community by Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists, and armed attacks on churches in Orissa,” Forum President Idris Ali said.
‘Kill Christians’
The violence has spread even though church leaders across the country condemned the Hindu priest’s killing and appealed for peace.
The VHP and its allies had called for a 12-hour shutdown to protest the killing of the swami, and Christian leaders expected Hindu mobs would use it to mobilize strikes at the Christian community.
“But what has taken place has even surpassed what we expected,” said one pastor who wished to remain anonymous.
Hindu extremists paraded the body of Saraswati throughout nearby villages, whipping up anger and mobilizing crowds against Christians, in uncontested defiance of a Kandhamal district administration prohibition against the gathering of four or more people. Among the slogans shouted was, “Kill Christians and destroy their institutions.”
In spite of an Orissa state-imposed curfew, crowds violated restrictions and proceeded to attack Christian communities throughout the state. Compass has received reports that the violence has spread to the districts of Gajapati, Phulbani, Nuaparha, Kalahandi, Rayagada and Koraput.
The Orissa Legislative Assembly was disturbed for the second consecutive day at the various calls for the resignation of Chief Minister Patnaik.
Christians make up 2.4 percent of Orissa’s population, or 897,861 of the total 3.7 million people.
END

Blind faith? Fragile peace blown to bits in Orissa

2008-08-27T12:31:00.000+05:30

CNN-IBN
Religion has split Orissa and the divide is murderous. Several people have been killed in communal clashes in Kandhamal district after the murder of a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader on Saturday.
The VHP called for a statewide shutdown in the state on Monday during which churches, prayer houses and vehicles were attacked in many places.
The communal tension began after Swami Laxmananand Saraswati, a member of VHP’s central advisory committee, and four others were murdered by suspected Naxals in Kandhamal district.
Police and paramilitary forces are on guard in towns of Kandhamal district. Section 144, which prohibits the assembly of four or more people, has been clamped across Kandhamal.
Saraswati was leading a campaign against cow slaughter and religious conversion in the communally sensitive district. Rightwing Hindu groups allege that Christians killed Saraswati because he opposed conversion. Christian organisations reject such allegations.
In one of the worst attacks, a Christian woman died and a priest was severely burnt when a mob set fire to an orphanage run by Christian missionaries in Bargarh district on Monday.
The incident again brought shame to the state. Nine years ago, Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two young sons were burnt alive by a Hindu mob in Keonjhar district.
What has caused the communal divide in Orissa? Is religion to blame or politics? Are conversions pitting Hindus against Christians? CNN-IBN’s Sagarika Ghose asked this on Face The Nation.
The guests on the show were: RSS spokesperson Ram Madhav, Reverend Dr Richard Howell, general secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India, and Professor Manoranjan Mohanty, of the Council for Social Development.
Madhav was infuriated at allegations that Hindu groups were targeting missionaries and Christians in Orissa. “The situation is quite different. Hindus are at the receiving end. A highly respected saint was killed. There is enough evidence to prove the complicity of Christian organisations in the murder,” he claimed.
Howell rejected the Madhav’s allegation and claimed conversion has become an excuse to attack Christians and malign them. “The VHP gets the maximum amount of money India than Christians. Christians have used money to serve and empower the poor and marginalized. Not a single case has been proved till date in the courts of forced conversion (by Christian groups),” he said.
The issue is not religion but poverty, said Professor Mohanty. “Kandhamal is one of the poorest regions in the country. Seventy per cent people here are below the poverty line; 51 per cent are tribals and 16 per cent are Dalits,” he said.
It is a situation of poverty and landlessness, both among Hindus and Christians. Orissa has become the experiment ground of globalisation, economic reforms, mega projects and Hindutva politics.”
Hindu groups are not to blame for the violence and the state is in turmoil because of Christian missionaries, alleged Madhav. “Every conversion in Orissa has to be registered with the local police or magistrate but no such thing happens. Where is the chance for Hindutva politics when missionaries are going about aggressively and alluring people,” he said.
The Sangh Parivar doesn’t hate conversions as much as it does Christians, alleged Howell. “An ideology of hatred has been propagated by some sections of the Sangh Parivar. They don’t hate Christian service; it is the very identity of being a Christian that is hated. There are just 2.4 per cent Christians in India and we too have contributed to the growth of the country.”
Christians are not hated, insisted Madhav. “Every religion is respected in this country but Christians criticise and attack Hindu religion. It this attitude of Christians which is leading to tension in this country,” he alleged.
The communal divide in Orissa’s tribal districts is the result of poverty and “competitive politics”, said Mohanty. “The shrinking rights of tribals over forests and land and the coming of mega projects is the economic issue there. They are all poor there and poverty is being diverted to communalism. It is competitive politics,” he said.
Madhav called such an analysis wrong. “There is a clear cut division between Hindus and Christians and it is because of their (missionaries) wrongdoing and Congress leaders. A holy person is killed and the very next day the Congress tables a no-confidence motion against the state government—what does it suggest? The Congress is a part of a larger political conspiracy,” he alleged.
Howell announced Christian institutions in the country would close on August 29 to protest against the attacks in Orissa. “I hope the civil society wakes up before it’s too late,” he said.
Madhav said Christian groups were free to shut their schools and institutions but they must also shut “proselytization” activity.
“Do not make this a Christian versus Hindu issue. We must go into the sources of violence,” said Mohanty.
Check the video cli8ps here: http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/72250/.html
Related links:
Patil tour of Kandhamal expected, district restive
Orissa’s Kandhamal district continues to be tense
Orissa clashes premeditated: Minority

STATEMENT CONDEMNING THE KILLINGS AND VIOLENCE IN ORISSA

2008-08-26T14:42:00.000+05:30

Prashant . A Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace Post Box No. 4050, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009, Gujarat, IndiaTel. : +91 (079) 66522333, 2745 5913 . Fax : +91 (079) 2748 9018Mobile : 9824034536 . e-mail : sjprashant@gmail. com . www.humanrightsindi a.inSTATEMENT CONDEMNING THE KILLINGS AND VIOLENCE IN ORISSAWe condemn the killing of Swami Saraswati and four of his associates during the attack on the VHP Ashram in the Kandhamal District of Orissa on Saturday 23rd August 2008.We sympathize with the bereaved members of the families who have lost their loved ones.We call upon the Orissa and the Central Governments to do all in their power to bring to book immediately, those responsible for this dastardly act; that anti-social elements do not take law and order into their own hands and above all, to ensure that peace and calm prevail in the area, and in other parts of Orissa.Violence, for whatever the provocation, is non-acceptable, and will definitely not help achieve the goals for which these acts are committed. We therefore call upon all those responsible for these acts and to eschew violence immediately.No violence can be justified, for whatever the reason. However, for the last several months, the Government of Orissa has allowed some fascist and fundamentalist forces to terrorize the poor, the marginalized and the minorities of the State. These forces have carried on their virulent propaganda and their violent acts with apparent immunity.There has been a total abdication of responsibility by the Government of Orissa and the concerned authorities, like the police. They should now also be held totally responsible for these deaths and for allowing the situation to go out of control.Sufficient warning has been given to the Orissa Government, of the deteriorating situation, as early as in September 2006, with the publication of "Communalism in Orissa" - the Report of the Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights - headed by Justice K. K. Usha (Retd.) former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court. It may still not be too late to ensure that the Constitutional Rights and Freedoms of the people of Orissa are not merely guaranteed by also protected by the State.Fr. Cedric Prakash sjDirector25th August 2008

Fresh violence on Tuesday claims three lives in Orissa, toll rises to five

2008-08-26T14:36:00.001+05:30

Kandhamal ( Orissa) : In a fresh violence in the wake of the killing of VHP leader Swami Laxamananda Saraswati, three persons have been killed on Tuesday in communally-sensitive Kandhamal district in Southern Orissa. "We have information about death of three persons in Raikia area. The details are being collected," Revenue Divisional Commissioner of Southern Division Satyabrata Sahu said. "The situation in Kandhamal district is very tense but under control," he further added. According to the police sources the three persons have died of asphyxiation after their houses were torched midnight on Monday. With the fresh deaths reported from Raikia, the toll in violence triggered by the killing of the Laxmanananda Saraswati and four others on Saturday night rose to five. Two persons, one each in Kandhamal and Bargarh were burnt to death on Monday during the 12-hour state-wide bandh. Meanwhile Indefinite curfew was imposed in almost all parts of the tribal-dominated Kandhamal district including Phulbani, Tumudibandh, Baliguda, Udaygiri, Nuagaon and Tikabali as a precautionary measure and to bring the situation under control. Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel were deployed in several sensitive areas of the district while schools, colleges and educational institutions remained closed. A large number of houses and churches were torched by irate mob in several areas including Nuagaon, Raikia, Udaygiri, Phiringia and Baliguda, sources in police department said. (odishatoday)

Two person burned to death, dozen of church torched as violence spreads in Orissa

2008-08-26T14:34:00.001+05:30

Bhubaneswar (Orissa): Two people burned to death, dozen of church torched as violence spreads in Orissa Continuing their protest against the gruesome killng of Swami Laxmananda Saraswati, the agitating people have killed two persons including a woman on Monday. The woman was burnt to death when few unidentified persons torched an orphanage run by a minority organisation at Phutpali in Bargarh district, official sources said. Twenty children, who were at the orphanage, managed to escape, but a pastor suffered serious burn injuries in the attack, the sources said. Another person, identified as Rasananda Pradhan, was burnt to death when his house was set ablaze at Rupa village in Kandhamal district where the VHP leader was gunned down along with four others on Saturday night. According to reports reaching here, more than dozens of Churches have been torched by the protesters. Churches were reportedly attacked in Khurda, Bargarh, Sundergarh, Sambalpur, Koraput, Boudh, Mayurbhanj, Jagatsinghpur and Kandhamal districts as also in the State Capital, police sources said, adding 40 houses were set ablaze in Phulbani town. As the body of Saraswati reached Chakapada in Kandhamal district for the last rites, nine shops and two vehicles were torched at Raikia while two jeeps were burnt by miscreants at Udaygiri. (Odishatoday)

VHP band brings normal life to standstill in Orissa

2008-08-26T14:32:00.000+05:30

Bhubaneswar ( Orissa) :A 12-hour bandh sponsored by Vishwa Hindu Parisad ( VHP) on Monady brought normal life to a standstill in the state. The bandh has called to protest against the killing of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati. Hundreds of VHP activists and bandh supporters have started blocking all National Highways going through the State since morning bringing vehicular traffic to a halt. Smilarly the train services have also been badly affected due to the bandh as angry VHP workers squatting on rail tracks in many places in Orissa. Acording to the Railway sources neither passenger nor goods trains were allowed to move from stations. Shops and business establishments remained closed across the state while many transport services were cancelled in support of the bandh. Initial reports said the strike was total in interior districts and most of the major roads wore deserted look. Thousands of protesters staged demonstrations and burnt tyres in several villages, towns and on national highways. Almost all shops and petrol pumps remained closed. On account of today’s bandh Orissa Govt on Sunday ordered to close down all schools and colleges in the State. Even as curfew had been imposed in three towns in Kandhamal, reports of violence coming in from the district since morning. Seurity forces have been put on high alert to avoid any untoward incident during the bandh. (odishatoday)

Faith will stay strong despite violence: bishops

2008-08-26T14:31:00.001+05:30

BUBANESHWAR (ICNS): Bishops in Orissa say Hindu nationalism is the root cause of the spreading violence against Christians in the state, but faith will not be uprooted form its soil.
Several Church institutions and Church personnel suffered in the attacks and arson that continues for the past two days after Hindu leader Laxmananda Saraswati and four others were shot dead by some Maoist rebels. Hindu groups, who blamed Christians behind the killings, began attacking Christians. Fanatics were fomenting communal strife for their own goals, Christian leaders say.Archbishop Raphael Cheenath of Cuttack-Bubaneshwar described the situation of Catholics as “tragic.” But the Church and its faith will not be removed from the state. "The Church," he said, "will be the light for generations to come in Orissa." He said radical Hindus are targeting churches, social and pastoral centers, parishes and convents. For example, Father Thomas, director of our pastoral centre, “is hiding in the forest," according to the archbishop. "From there, tears in his eyes and sorrow in his heart, he saw it go up in smoke. Just before the attack he phoned me and I told him: 'Pray and be vigilant.' But when he saw mobs of people coming towards the centre he had to flee for his life. The pastoral centre had cost more than 15 million rupees." "We feel totally abandoned,” the archbishop said narrating that the government authorities sent three policemen on Monday to guard the nuns' convent and the bishop's residence. “But they don't even have a stick to protect us from the fury of the mob." According to him the attacks are rooted in the radical ideology that wants to make India a Hindu nation. The radical slogan is: one nation, one culture, one religion for India.
The radical philosophy wants to “eliminate the Cross, but its roots are too deep” that the “cancer of radicalism” will not be successful. “The Church will be the light for many generations to come," he said. More than 94 per cent of Orissa’s people are Hindu. Christians are only 2.4 per cent, with some conversions among Tribals, who have been socially suppressed for centuries. (theindiancatholic)

Woman killed in Orissa orphanage

2008-08-26T09:07:00.001+05:30

Police in the Indian state of Orissa say suspected Hindu extremists have set fire to an orphanage run by Christian missionaries, burning a woman to death.
The mob reportedly ordered people out of building before setting it alight.
But the woman - a cook at the orphanage - was thrown into the burning building when she tried to stop them from attacking the children.
Local Hindus went on the rampage after the killing on Saturday of one of their leaders.
His supporters suspect Christians were responsible, but the police believe he was killed by Maoist rebels.
The religious leader, Swami Laxamanananda Saraswati, was at the centre of controversy late last year.
Hindus accused Christians of attacking him and police were called in to restore order in the ensuing violence.
Hindu extremists have targeted Christians in Orissa before. Nine years ago an Australian missionary and his two sons were burnt alive by a mob that set their car on fire. (BBC)_

Orissa violence: Cracks in BJP-BJD alliance

2008-08-26T09:00:00.000+05:30

The Times of India
BHUBANESWAR: Pressure is mounting within the BJP to reconsider its support to the Naveen Patnaik government in the aftermath of the slaying of senior VHP leader Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati and four of his supporters. The split came to the fore on Monday when some legislators of the saffron party blamed the administration for the killings and said they wouldn't allow the Assembly to function till the culprits were arrested. Sources said hardliners in the party, backed by some leaders in the RSS and VHP, were insisting on snapping ties with the BJD. "Some fear that the party's base was getting eroded by remaining in power. Considering that the elections are a few months away, they feel the party should strengthen itself by resurrecting the Hindutva agenda," a source said. Many in the party, however, disagree with this view and don't want to bring their 10-year-old alliance with Naveen's party to an end. They believe BJP benefits more by having a coalition with BJD as the regional party's support was crucial to win Lok Sabha seats. A paralytic patient died as Sangh Parivar members defied curfew in communally-sensitive Kandhmal district of Orissa and damaged seven churches and prayer halls and torched vehicles, police said. Two police posts in Nuagaon and Pasara areas of the district were also attacked. A mob set ablaze 28 houses in Roopa village of Kandhmal. Apart from Kandhmal, which has been on the boil since gunmen shot dead Swami Laxmanananda on Saturday, attacks on churches and prayer halls were also reported from Bargarh, Jajpur, Koraput, Rayagada, Boudh, Gajapati, Sambalpur and Deogarh. Sangh Parivar members went berserk in Bhubaneswar and attacked the local Doordarshan Kendra, Xavier Institute of Management, Loyala School and a church in Satya Nagar area. The swami was in the forefront of a Hindu movement that had demanded that converts to Christianity be brought back to the Hindu fold. The area had, as a result, become a tinderbox of communal tensions. Road and rail communication was hit by the violence and people mostly hunkered in the safety of their homes. VHP secretary general Pravin Togadia visited Chakapada in Kandhmal where the last rites of Swami Laxmanananda were performed. Togadia accused the Naveen Patnaik government of acting like an "eunuch" and demanded the CM apologize for the killings. "Christians murdered Swamiji, but government is lying and giving it a Maoist colour. Naveen as an individual and police, in particular, are responsible for this attack orchestrated by the Church on Hindu dharma," he alleged. Church leaders condemned Saturday's killing of the Hindu priest and appealed for peace.
Earlier, rampaging mobs seeking revenge for the killing of Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati and four of his disciples burned churches and Christian prayers halls on Monday in several parts of Orissa in an orgy of violence that left at least two people, including a woman who worked in a church, charred to death. A Christian priest and a nun were also assaulted in Nuagana area of Kandhmal district. "We have rescued the priest and the nun. We will send them for medical examination," DIG (southern range) R P Koche said. VHP-sponsored bandh supporters attacked and ransacked a church-run orphanage at Phutpali, about 85km from Bargarh, and set fire to two rooms. The 22-year-old woman, initially described by witnesses as a nun but later as an employee, was burned to death and a priest sustained burn injuries. Police said the woman was identified as Rajani Majhi, a resident of Nuapada village in Bargarh district. The priest (60) was admitted to hospital. DIG (western range) Y B Khurania said, "Rajani Majhi, a student of Padampur Women's College, used to take care of the children at the orphanage. There are 22 kids at the orphanage and they are all safe." "She was a local employee of the orphanage attached to the church," said Babu Joseph, spokesman for the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India. Violence was reported from across the state as mobs also attacked Christian homes, schools and police posts during the dawn-to-dusk bandh.

Orissa: violence and destruction against Christians accused of killing radical Hindu leader

2008-08-26T08:58:00.002+05:30

Churches, chapels, a social centre and a pastoral centre as well as vans belonging to nuns have been destroyed. A new wave of violence has followed the assassination of Swami Laxanananda, the man behind the war against Christians that left three people dead and saw 13 churches burnt last December in Orissa. Bubaneshwar (AsiaNews) – Shouting “Kill Christians and destroy their institutions,” thousands of Hindus from the militant Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) stormed the Pastoral Centre of the diocese of Cuttack-Bhubaneshwar, laying it waste. The same fate was visited upon a social centre in K. Nuagam, a church and parish residence in Kandhamal, and a chapel in Sundergarh. A van owned by the Sisters of Mother Teresa was attacked as it made its way to Bhavanipatni whilst another that belonged to the Daughters of the most Precious Blood was burnt in Udayagir.
The district of Kandhamal in the diocese of Cuttack-Bubaneshwar (Orissa) is at the centre of this violence, the same one that in the recent past witnessed anti-Christian violence that left three people dead and saw 13 churches torched.
The new wave of destruction began yesterday morning and is still going on after Hindu leaders harangued crowds against the Christian community, urging them to destroy, accusing Christians of being behind the assassination of Hindu fundamentalist leader Swami Laxanananda Saraspati and five of his followers.
Laxanananda, who was behind last December’s anti-Christian violence, was killed between 9 and 10 pm last Saturday (23 August) in his ashram, in the district of Kandhamal. About 20 armed gunmen entered the place during yoga session and shot indiscriminately at those present, throwing grenades.
A few days before the Swami had been threatened by a Maoist group that wanted him out of the area, accusing him of fomenting ethno-religious conflict. His response was to call for a protest against Muslims in Jammu-Kashmir. However, radical Hindus took advantage of the situation in order to blame Christians.
Laxanananda’s organisation is well known for its opposition to Christian social activism in favour of Tribals and outcasts and for its accusations against bishops, priests and nuns for allegedly proselytising.
Tensions are running high throughout the diocese. Police forces have been deployed in several sensitive areas, albeit with little success. This morning in fact the bishop’s residence was attacked by stone throwers and news has just come in that another, recently built church was destroyed.
In the meantime the VHP has called for a day of strike, blocking roads and transportation throughout the state of Orissa. (NC)

Nun burned to death in Orissa, violence spreads

2008-08-26T08:55:00.000+05:30

BHUBANESWAR (ICNS): A Catholic nun was burned to death and priest was hospitalized with serious injuries as violence spread against Christians in Orissa, where Hindu groups accuse Christians of killing an aged spiritual leader.
Fanatic Hindu groups have attacked a convent and orphanage in Sambalpur diocese and killed the nun and attacked a priest, said Father Gyan Prakash Kujur, Jesuit mission in charge of Orissa. The priest told the Indian Catholic that a mob surrounded the convent and threw explosives in to the house. They then set the orphanage on fire with the nun and a visiting priest locked inside. He said the nun, whose name he could not verify, died of burns.Police reportedly hospitalized the priest with severe burn injuries. Mob also attacked Bhulbani parish church, breaking its gate, windows panes and doors. The sameway fanatics mobs also attacked Baliguda church and convent, Father Kujur said adding that more details are waited. The violence against Christians began after a Hindu religious leader Laxmanananda Saraswati was killed Saturday's night along with his four associates by suspected communist rebels in Kandhamal district. Hindu leaders say Christian groups are behind the attack in the district, which witnessed fierce Hindu violence on Christians last December. The spreading violence is seen as retaliation against the killing. Orissa witnessed Hindu-Christian violence last December. Swami Laxmanananda has been spearheading a campaign against Christian missioners in the state for decades. He also led a re-conversion movement, which aimed to bring back Hindus who joined Christianity. A Maoist group named, the People’s Liberation Revolutionary Group, has claimed responsibility for killing Saraswati . Its leader, identified as Azad, called up a newspaper office and said they killed the Swami because he mixed “religion with politics.” But rejecting that claim, BJP state leader Suresh Pujari said Saraswati waskilled by Christians. "Swamiji was opposed to religious conversion taking place in various parts of Orissa. Those opposed to Swamiji's anti-conversion activities killed him," he said. (The Indian Catholic)

Christians Condemn Violence, Killing of VHP Leader; Hope Peace will be Maintained in Orissa

2008-08-25T13:08:00.000+05:30

Contact: Mr. Madhu Chandra, Regional Secretary, All India Christian Council (aicc), 98-681-84939, aiccdelhi@gmail.com

New Delhi, August 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- The All India Christian Council is deeply concerned at the attack on an ashram near Tumudibandh in Kandhamal District of Orissa last night in which the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Lakshmanananda Saraswati and four of his associates were killed.

This is the latest in a series of attacks over recent months by political extremists, often called Naxalites or Maoist guerillas, which have left dozens of policemen and others dead in several districts of Orissa.

Dr. Sam Paul, aicc National Secretary of Public Affairs, said, "The Christian community in India abhors violence, condemns all acts of terrorism, and opposes groups of people taking the law into their own hands. We have had major differences with Mr. Saraswati, the deceased VHP leader. It was the hate campaigns of the Sangh Parivar which led to untold misery for Christians -- including the unprecedented violence last Christmas in Orissa. But we wish peace to everyone and urge everyone to follow the rule of law."

According to media reports, the attack killed four people in addition to Saraswati. The attack involved shooting and hand grenade explosions. Saraswati was reportedly warned by the Maoists a few days prior to the incident to leave the area. (See CNN-IBN, "Naxals attack ashram, kill 5 key VHP leaders in Orissa", Aug. 24, 2008,)

Dr. John Dayal, aicc Secretary General, said, "We are concerned at reports of communal violence in the last few hours against innocent Christians in nearby districts. We've heard that at least one prayer hall in Sudergarh was burnt, the van of some Catholic nuns was destroyed, and the sisters were injured. We urgently appeal to the Chief Minister, the Governor of Orissa, and the Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Shivraj Patil to take whatever steps are required to maintain peace and harmony in all areas of Orissa, to prevent further attacks on Christians, and to arrest those responsible for the deaths of Saraswati and his associates."

Dr. P.R. Parichha, aicc Orissa state president, said, "The situation in the district was slowly returning to normal. People were engaged in rebuilding houses and settling down after a horrifying experience over Christmas 2007. Now we are afraid that the death of Saraswati will further destabilise the situation in the communally-sensitive Kandhamal district. The aicc will continue to work for peace in Orissa, one of the most undeveloped states in the country."

The All India Christian Council, birthed in 1998, exists to protect and serve the Christian community, minorities, and the oppressed castes. The aicc is a coalition of thousands of Indian denominations, organizations, and lay leaders. (Earned media)

India minus K-word

2008-08-21T20:17:00.001+05:30

Jug Suraiya
Is it time the K-word got out of India, and India out of the K-word? Even as Pakistanis in Pakistan celebrated the departure of their erstwhile dictator, Pervez Musharraf, ‘Pakistanis’ in Kashmir agitated for the long overdue exit of an equally, if not more, oppressive dictator: India. The Amarnath dispute and the alleged ‘economic blockade’ have sparked an unprecedented pro-Pakistani sentiment in the Valley, shown by the open display of the crescent flag and the massive anti-India rallies in Srinagar and Pampore. Separatism is no longer driven by fear of militant guns; today separatism is spearheaded by a far more serious threat: that of the popular will. It would be facile to dismiss this groundswell of protest, which cuts across generational lines, as yet another ISI-sponsored stratagem. Kashmir, or at least Kashmir valley, is no longer a ventriloquist’s dummy speaking for its Pakistani masters; Kashmir seems to be speaking for itself. And what it is saying is unequivocal: India must let go of it. Is it really, finally, time for India to relinquish Kashmir, and vice versa? Or, as Arundhati Roy has put it, for Kashmir to gain azadi from India, and for India to gain azadi from Kashmir? Any suggestion that Kashmir should, if it so wants, be allowed to secede from the Indian Union is immediately deemed to be treasonable, and its proponents to be agents of Pakistan’s ISI, who wish to hive off not just Kashmir but to fragment and balkanise India by fomenting insurrection across the country. It is also argued that Kashmir’s secession would diminish India not just geographically but, much worse, it would diminish and fatally wound the very idea of India as a pluralist polity and a multicultural society. More than the possession of any part of its territory, the idea of India is the life-essence of the republic. India can survive without Kashmir,if it has to;it can’t survive without the idea of India, central to which is the right of democratic dissent and the free association of people. Is the idea of India big enough to accommodate the obverse right: the free disassociation of people, non-violent secession from the republic? Secessionist attempts — from Punjab to the north-east, and in some 180 Naxal ‘liberated zones’ (described by the prime minister as the ‘biggest national threat’) — have been and continue to be combatted by force of arms and, equally importantly, force of political persuasion. But all these anti-state manifestations were, or are, based on violence, which the state can legitimately oppose with necessary counter-violence. What Kashmir is reportedly witnessing today is fundamentally different: a cry for freedom backed not by guns but by the power of dissent — one of the foundation stones of the idea of India. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, self-proclaimed leader of the separatist movement, is no M K Gandhi. But what if he and his followers were to adopt the strategies of noncooperation and satyagraha which were used to gain independence, and were the prenatal influences which shaped the idea of India? Could the Indian state use physical force against such a peaceful mass movement — if in fact it did arise, as some say it now has — and still retain its moral idea of itself ? It could — and inevitably will — be argued that drawing a parallel between Gandhi’s ‘Quit India’ movement and contemporary Kashmir’s ‘Quit, India’ upsurge is untenable and unconscionable: the British were an alien occupying force; Kashmir is an integral, constitutionally legitimised part of India. But after more than 60 years of concerted effort — military deployment, repeated elections, the giving of subsidies — India has been unable effectively to counter the demand for azadi. Has the time then come to re-look and rethink the Kashmir issue? By letting Kashmir go peacefully would the idea of India be subverted? Or would it be enlarged and further endorsed? That is the real import of the so-called Kashmir question: it has become the question of the idea of India, and what that idea means to us. (The Times Of India)

Musharraf resigns (Photos from NewYork Times)

2008-08-18T18:40:00.001+05:30

All photos from NewYork times

Timeline: Musharraf's Rule

2008-08-18T18:33:00.002+05:30

Oct. 13, 1999:
Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the chief of the Pakistani army, ousts Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless coup after Mr. Sharif attempts to dismiss him.
Pakistan Army Seizes Power Hours After Prime Minister Dismisses His Military Chief
"Analysis: A Soldier's Soldier, Not a Political General"
Pakistan Ruler Seen as 'Secular-Minded' Muslim
June 20, 2001
Following the pattern of three of Pakistan's military rulers over the last 50 years, Gen. Musharraf appoints himself president and formal head of state.
Autumn 2001
After Sept. 11, 2001, Gen. Musharraf becomes one of Washington's most crucial allies in the campaign against terror, allowing the U.S. to work with Pakistani intelligence to arrest senior al Qaeda operatives inside Pakistan and granting permission to strike at al Qaeda targets in his nation's lawless tribal areas.
Pakistani Defends Joining With the U.S.
Musharraf, the Indispensable Ally, Grows More Confident
Pakistani Leader Seeks 'Gestures' for Backing U.S
Jan. 12, 2002
In a speech, Gen. Musharraf pledges that his country will not be used as a base for terrorism of any kind and announces a broad ban on militant groups accused of fomenting violence in Indian-held Kashmir, as well as at home.
Related Article
Text of the Speech
Apr. 5, 2002
Asserting that "I am not power hungry," President Pervez Musharraf announces that he will hold a referendum that would allow him to stay in power after Pakistan elects a new civilian Parliament.
Related Article
Aug. 22, 2002
Gen. Musharraf unilaterally redraws Pakistan's Constitution, imposing 29 amendments that expand his control of the country.
Related Article
Dec. 25, 2003
Gen. Musharraf escapes an assassination attempt, the second in 11 days, when two suicide bombers plow their vehicles into his motorcade and detonate car bombs in Rawalpindi.
Related Article
Mar. 2007
Facing elections in a few months time, Mr. Musharraf fires the Chief Justice, Mohammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, apparently out of fear that the judiciary might undermine his re-election. A tidal wave of support for Mr. Chaudhry from lawyers across the country turns into a vibrant anti-Musharraf campaign.
Suspension of Jurist Unleashes Furor Against Musharraf
Pakistan’s Suspended Justice Tells of Facing Down Musharraf
Musharraf Loses Fight Over Suspension of Judge
Nov. 3, 2007
General Musharraf declares a state of emergency in what appears to be an effort to reassert his fading power in the face of growing opposition from the country’s Supreme Court, political parties and hard-line Islamists.
Related Article
Nov. 29, 2007
A day after resigning as army chief, Gen. Musharraf is sworn in as a civilian president, leaving him with vastly reduced powers.
Related Article
Dec. 27, 2007
Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani opposition leader and twice-serving prime minister, is assassinated.
Related Article
Times Topics: Benazir Bhutto
Timeline
Obituary
Feb. 18, 2008
Pakistanis deal a crushing defeat to President Musharraf in parliamentary elections, in what government and opposition politicians said is a firm rejection of his policies since 2001 and those of his close ally, the United States. Mr. Musharraf's party is routed, and a new government is formed by his enemies — Mr. Sharif and Ms. Bhutto's widower, Ali Asif Zardari.
Related Article
Slide Show
Times Topics: Pakistan Elections
Aug. 18, 2008
Under pressure over impending impeachment charges, President Musharraf announces he would resign
Source: NewYork Times

President Musharraf of Pakistan Resigns

2008-08-18T18:31:00.001+05:30

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Under pressure over impending impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced he would resign Monday, ending nearly nine years as one of the United States’ most important allies in the campaign against terrorism.
Speaking on television from his presidential office here at 1 p.m., Mr. Musharraf, dressed in a gray suit and tie, said that after consulting with his aides, “I have decided to resign today.” He said he was putting national interest above “personal bravado.”
“Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose,” he said, adding that he was not prepared to put the office of the presidency through the impeachment process.
Mr. Musharraf said the governing coalition, which has pushed for impeachment, had tried to “turn lies into truths.”
“They don’t realize they can succeed against me but the country will undergo irreparable damage.”
In an emotional ending to a speech lasting more than an hour, Mr. Musharraf raised his clenched fists to chest height, and said, “Long live Pakistan!”
His resignation came after 10 days of intense political maneuvering in Pakistan, and cleared the way for the four-month-old coalition government to choose a new president by a vote of the Parliament and provincial assemblies. But there were intense concerns in Washington that Mr. Musharraf’s departure would open a new era of instability in the nuclear-armed country of 165 million people, as the fragile coalition jockeys for his share of power.
Mr. Musharraf, 65, will stay in Pakistan in the immediate future, a request he had insisted on, according to Nasir Ali Khan, a senior member of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, a partner in the coalition. The coalition, led by Asif Ali Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, and Nawaz Sharif, the chairman of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, were scheduled to meet here in the capital Monday afternoon to discuss the way forward, Mr. Khan said.
There were few indications of who the next president would be. According to the Constitution, a new president must be chosen within 30 days. American officials have said that Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister who was assassinated in December, would like the post. But Mr. Sharif, who maintains a barely civil relationship with Mr. Zardari, is strongly opposed to the elevation of Mr. Zardari.
Mr. Musharraf has been under strong pressure in the past few days, as the coalition said it had completed a charge sheet to take to Parliament for his impeachment. The charges were centered on “gross violations” of the Constitution, according to the minister of information, Sherry Rehman.
The rhetoric from the coalition mounted over the weekend, but the leading politicians wavered on an exact date for bringing the charges, thus leaving a window for Mr. Musharraf to leave.
In his speech, Mr. Musharraf tore into the coalition for what he called their failed economic policies. He said Pakistan’s critical economic situation — a declining currency, capital flight, soaring inflation — was their responsibility. In contrast, he said, his policies had brought prosperity out of near economic collapse when he took charge in 1999.
He then gave a laundry list of his achievements, ranging from expanded road networks to a national art gallery in the capital. Although Pakistan’s literacy rate hovers around 50 percent, and is much lower among women, he took credit for new schools.
The army, the most powerful institution in Pakistan, stayed publicly above the fray in the past 10 days. But in remaining studiously neutral and declining to come to Mr. Musharraf’s rescue, the new leader of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvaz Kayani, tipped the scales against the president, politicians said.
Mr. Musharraf grabbed power in a bloodless coup in October 1999, ousting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the man who had picked Mr. Musharraf as army chief. For eight years, he ruled as head of the army and president, positions that gave him almost unfettered power and allowed the Bush administration to rely on Mr. Musharraf in the campaign on terrorism.
Lou Fintor, the spokesman at the United States Embassy in Islamabad, declined to comment on the announced resignation.
Across the border in Afghanistan, government officials expressed satisfaction that Mr. Musharraf was leaving. The relationship between the neighboring countries has long been tense, with Afghan officials blaming increasing violence there on Pakistan’s failure to crack down on militants in the border region.
An Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman, Zemeri Bashary, said on Monday that Mr. Musharraf had been an ally of the United States “in words only, not by actions” and argued that his rule had not been good for Afghanistan, The Associated Press reported. Also, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Sultan Ahmed Baheen, said Afghanistan hoped the resignation would strengthen democracy in both countries, the A.P. said.
As Mr. Musharraf began to lose popularity last year, Washington tried to forge a power-sharing relationship between him and Ms. Bhutto, who had been in exile since the late 1990s and returned to Pakistan last fall. She was assassinated Dec. 27.
The Musharraf government accused the Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud of her murder. By then Mr. Sharif had also returned from exile to run in elections. The Pakistan Peoples Party of Ms. Bhutto, under the stewardship of her husband, Mr. Zardari, and the Pakistan Muslim League-N, under Mr. Sharif, swept into power in elections in February.
Mr. Musharraf leaves office as the Taliban insurgency in the tribal areas has taken on renewed vigor in the past week, prompting civilians to leave their homes there, and pitting the paramilitary Frontier Corps, directed by the army, directly against the insurgents. (The Newyork Times)

Mass Cosatu strike grips South Africa

2008-08-06T19:54:00.000+05:30

against rising living costs on Wednesday, paralysing transport services and immobilising businesses. The Congress of South African Trade Unions's (Cosatu) countrywide strike against rocketing electricity prices affected a range of services and businesses, including buses, trains, taxis, schools, mining companies, shops and factories."It is looking excellent," said Cosatu spokesperson Patrick Craven. "Johannesburg looks like a Sunday."Tens of thousands of protesters had gathered for marches in Pretoria, Durban, Cape Town, Ladysmith, Klerksdorp, Polokwane and Witbank. Police had been deployed in all these areas to keep the peace.Gold mining operations were affected substantially, with AngloGold Ashanti saying no shafts were operating while Harmony and Gold Fields said its operations were limited.The strike has damaged South Africa's image, Efficient Group economist Dawie Roodt said. "You can't put a rand value on what it has done to our image. I believe the strike is the second story on the BBC today."He said that the strike hit both the mines and the vehicle industry. "There's a difference between a strike in manufacturing and a strike in services -- with manufacturing, the impact will always be more severe," he said.The strike's consequences will probably be more severe than he anticipated, Roodt said. However, he pointed out that South Africa has become used to strikes and that the mines know how to handle labour actions. "They have emergency plans."He said the only good thing that could be said for the one-day stoppage is that it provided an "emotional release", adding: "People are suffering with the high food, fuel and electricity prices -- being able to strike allows them to release their frustrations."
MisunderstandingHowever, Russell Lamberti, economic strategist at the Econometrix consultancy, said the one-day strike was unlikely to have a significant effect on the economy"Producers will gain back what is lost today. When production levels return to normal, they will work extra hard to make it up for the rest of the month. Only after a one-week or two-week strike, you will see a significant impact."Lamberti said the strike showed a misunderstanding of economic issues within the unions. "The unions are striking against something they can't control. Food and fuel prices are determined by global markets and not by policy. It's not a conspiracy against the poor."He added: "The only appropriate national policy in the long term is to encourage and incentivise people to produce more food and boost the agricultural economy. The global demand for food is growing, especially with the industrialisation of China and India, so make sure that you produce more food and be able to export it." According to Lamberti, there is no really effective short-term national-level solution to higher food prices. "If you put a price cap on bread for example, you mess with the supply chain. You will eventually face shortages of basic goods and commodities, as were seen in communist countries.""Now that the global economy is becoming so interconnected, countries are learning that they don't have as much policy autonomy as they thought. As a country you can choose to isolate yourself to create more policy autonomy, but then you miss out on the benefits and opportunities of free trade and rapidly growing foreign markets, as well as the benefits of strong global economic growth."He said there is no easy way to deal with inflation. The government's interest-rate policy has been appropriate, given the severe inflation pressures -- albeit somewhat painful. "If you don't respond with higher interest rates, you face potential runaway inflation that hurts the poor even more in the long run." He said the average Cosatu member "doesn't really care that much about global economic dynamics"."Many Cosatu members feel marginalised and believe that government should provide the solutions to their grievances. This, possibly, has something to do with an apartheid mindset where it was the state that played such a dominant role in denying many their economic opportunities."Strike may hinder coal productionMeanwhile, the Chamber of Mines warned that the strike would hinder coal production and ultimately affect electricity supply by Eskom.Deputy communications adviser Jabu Maphalala said the protest against the rise in electricity prices was counter-productive."A strike will impact on mining production, including coal production," he said. "Earlier in the year, when there was an electricity crisis, part of the problem Eskom had was the depletion of coal stockpiles, which formed part of the discussions between labour, Eskom, the government and the mining industry."But the strike today [Wednesday] by the people will affect the production of coal-mining companies, which ultimately has an impact on Eskom's success in generating electricity," said Maphalala.De Beers says effect 'minimal'Diamond miner De Beers said that the impact of the strike on its diamond production was "minimal". According to spokesperson Tom Tweedy, "Diamond production on the five mines De Beers operates in South Africa continued with there being minimal impact from today's stayaway."The protest was a protected industrial action in terms of section 77 of the Labour Relations Act and was therefore respected by De Beers, he added. Participation in the industrial action varied from mine to mine, department to department and shift to shift in the various mines.Based on an average across the mines, 25% of employees in the bargaining unit (being 2 612 employees of the 4 198 De Beers Consolidated Mines employees in South Africa) did not attend work on Wednesday."As one might expect to be the practice of the company and the union, the rights of employees have been upheld and we are pleased to say we have not received any report of intimidation on any of our mines," Tweedy added.De Beers operates mines in the Northern Cape, Free State and Limpopo province. The five mines are Namaqualand, Kimberley, Finsch, Voorspoed and Venetia Mine. Ministers 'should resign'Cabinet ministers who did nothing to prevent the current electricity crisis should be forced to resign if workers lost their jobs as a result, Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi said in Cape Town.Addressing more than 3 000 demonstrators who had marched to Parliament in protest against the power crisis and the rising cost of living, Vavi said it was unfair to expect workers to pay for mistakes committed by others."Should a single worker lose a job, the ministers will have to go. They are making us pay for mistakes committed by other fellows," he said.The fact that the government had allowed Eskom to hike electricity prices by 27% demonstrated that it did not have the interest of the poor at heart, Vavi said. Workers have much to celebrate over the fact that a majority of serving Cabinet ministers will not be coming back after the expiry of their term next year. "The government ministers have proven their inefficiency beyond reasonable doubt."The crowd gathered at Keizergracht Street from early morning, before embarking on a 600m march to Parliament. Singing liberation struggle songs and chanting anti-government slogans, the marchers responded with excitement when Vavi bid farewell to President Thabo Mbeki, saying the workers would not miss him. Crowd swells in DurbanBy midday, a protest march had swelled to about 4 000 people in Durban. As they marched slowly along Pixley ka Seme Street carrying placards and posters, helicopters circled and police posted themselves at intersections along the route.Along the way, marchers sang songs about African National Congress president Jacob Zuma.The crowd carried placards reading: "Down with high fuel prices".Meanwhile, the South African Clothing and Textile Workers' Union (Sactwu) by midday reported that 93% of its members had not gone to work.Andre Kriel, the union's deputy general secretary, said: "In KwaZulu-Natal, dozens of large factories including Lilanie Clothing (with more than 1 200 workers), Allwear (1 200 workers), Playtex (970 workers) and Profortune (700 workers) reported full participation of workers in the protest action."He said the union was proud that it managed the shutdown of the industry "in a manner that is sensitive to the needs off its customers".Gauteng actionIn Johannesburg, metro police dispersed 2 000 protesters who were burning tyres on the Honeydew stretch of Beyers Naude Drive.Spokesperson Wayne Minnaar said police addressed the crowd who had gathered in support of the Cosatu strike and asked them to disperse. The crowd complied and police removed the burning tyres. "We are going to monitor the situation the whole day because these protesters might return," Minnaar said. Earlier on Wednesday the protesters danced and sung in the road, blocking Beyers Naude Drive as far as Peter Road in Honeydew, said Minnaar."Beyers Naude has since been opened and the traffic is flowing freely," he said.In Pretoria, a Cosatu delegation delivered a memorandum of grievances to the Department of Minerals and Energy shortly before 1pm and said that electricity tax should not be borne by the poor. The memorandum -- which was received by departmental spokesperson Bheki Khumalo -- called on the government to invest in power generation and the launch of an energy-efficiency campaign.Khumalo gave his apologies to the protesters on behalf of the Minister of Minerals and Energy, Buyelwa Sonjica, who was not available. He said Sonjica was in the Democratic Republic of Congo to discuss electricity issues between the two countries. The protesters, wearing red T-shirts and some holding sticks, then continued peacefully down Visagie Street towards the Union Buildings while a police helicopter circled overhead. Bus and train services in Gauteng came to a complete halt in the morning. "There are no trains running in Gauteng, obviously due to no staff," said national Metrorail spokesperson Sibusiso Ngomane."We will review the situation at 2pm and we might be able to run some trains in the afternoon subject to staff availability," he added.Metrorail was running services on a "very limited scale" in the rest of the country."There are no buses running," Johannesburg City spokesperson Nthatisi Modingoane said. "Normally we try to make sure that we have a skeleton staff in the morning, but today the drivers did not show up."Effects felt countrywideListed retailer Foschini was hit by the strike, spokesperson Doug Murray confirmed on Wednesday. "We're still trying to establish how many branches have been closed," Murray said. "The closures are mainly in the Johannesburg CBD, Pretoria and Durban."Stores in the Edcon Group were also affected, said a spokesperson who did not wish to be named.Foschini stores include @home, American Swiss, Markham and Totalsports, while Edcon stores include Edgars, Jet and CNA. (Mail and Guardian Online)

CHRONOLOGY-Mauritania gripped by another coup

2008-08-06T19:51:00.000+05:30

Aug 6 (Reuters) - Presidential guardsmen seized Mauritanian President Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdallahi in a coup on Wednesday after he sacked several top army officers, the president's daughter said.Here is a chronology of events in the largely desert Mauritania since independence:November 1960 - Mauritania becomes independent from France as the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, with Moktar Ould Daddah as president.1964 - Daddah proclaims a one-party state and the next year all parties merge to form the Parti du Peuple Mauritanienne.1966 & 1971 - Daddah is re-elected as president.1975 - Mauritania is declared an Islamic Socialist Republic.July 1978 - Daddah is deposed in a bloodless coup by Moustapha Ould Mohamed Salek who assumed absolute power as president in March 1979.December 1984 - After a number of coup attempts, Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya seizes power and proclaims himself president. Almost two years later, Taya imposes sharia law.January 1992 - Taya is elected president with nearly 63 percent of the vote under a 1991 constitution permitting multiple political parties, but opposition candidates denounce the victory as fraudulent.-- Taya is re-elected in 1997 and 2003 after another coup attempt in June that year.August 2005 - The army seizes power to end Taya's regime, and says it plans to rule for up to two years.November 2005 - 17-member junta pledges to hold presidential elections in March 2007.June 2006 - In a referendum meant to end decades of coup attempts, voters overwhelmingly back constitutional changes ensuring no president can serve for more than a decade.March 2007 - Former minister Sidi Mohamed Ould Cheikh Abdallahi wins a presidential run-off poll with 52.85 percent of the vote defeating his rival, opposition figure Ahmed Ould Daddah. Abdallahi was sworn in on April 19.July 2008 - Abdallahi asks Prime Minister Yahya Ahmed El Waghef to form a new cabinet after the prime minister and his government resign following criticism over the government's response to soaring food prices.August 2008 - Presidential guardsmen seize Abdallahi in a coup after he sacked several top army officers.Sources: Reuters/Europa:

President detained in Mauritania coup

2008-08-06T19:49:00.000+05:30

NOUAKCHOTT (AFP) — Troops overthrew Mauritania's president in a military coup on Wednesday after he tried to sack senior army officers accused of being behind a political crisis destabilising the country.
President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi was arrested as troops rolled through the capital Nouakchott and took over the presidential palace and the prime minister's office.
They chased staff from the headquarters of state radio and television, though there was no sign of fighting in the city.
A statement read on public radio said the coup was led by the head of the presidential guard, General Ould Abdel Aziz, who had been sacked earlier in the morning.
The coup leaders formed a Military State Council and immediately annulled the army appointments made by the president, according to an information ministry statement broadcast on the radio.
"The president has just been arrested by a commando, who came to fetch him, arrested him here and took him away," the president's daughter, Amal Mint Cheikh Abdallahi, told Radio France International from the presidential palace in Nouakchott.
"This is a real coup d'etat," she said.
Abdallahi said armed men had occupied the presidency and that she was being prevented from leaving the building, but that she had not heard shots fired.
The president's whereabouts were unknown, while Prime Minister Yahya Ould Ahmed Waghf was taken to an army barracks near the presidency, security sources said.
A spokesman for the ousted president told AFP that the coup was in response to a presidential decree several high ranking army leaders including General Abdel Aziz.
The president "issued a decree naming several new officers as the head of the presidential guard, the head of the armed forces and the head of the national guard.
"These officers, three generals, refused to accept the presidential decree and are rebelling against the constitutional order," the spokesman Abdoulaye Mahmadou Ba said.
The capital of the nation of 3.1 million people was reported to be calm, with little evidence of the turmoil, witnesses said.
The coup came less than six months after Abdallahi came to power in elections hailed as a model of democracy for Africa, following a three-year transition after a bloodless coup in August 2005.
Mauritania has been facing a political crisis and on Monday 48 MPs walked out on the ruling party less than two weeks after a vote of no confidence in the government prompted a cabinet reshuffle.
Renegade lawmakers criticised Abdallahi's exercise of "personal power", adding that he had "disappointed the hopes of Mauritanians," a spokesman for the group said on Monday.
A decree read out on national radio early Wednesday replaced General Ould Cheikh Mohamed Ahmed as chief of the army, as well as sacking Abdel Aziz as head of the presidential guard.
Both generals were members of the transition council which ushered in the elections which Abdallahi won in 2007.
Political observers in Nouakchott said the two generals were accused of being behind the mass walkout of ruling party MPs on Monday.
The breakaway MPs said they will form a new party to seek a change of direction in the country, which imports more than 70 percent of its food and has been hard hit by the global food crisis.
The Mauritanian president last month threatened to dissolve parliament after MPs filed a motion of no confidence in his new government, which then resigned.
A spokesman for the MPs who walked out said the president was "reaping the fruits of his bad decisions".
"By his decision to oust the generals he attacked the army had on, who reacted by deposing him and in some measure he is reaping the fruits of his bad decisions," deputy Sidi Mohamed Ould Maham told AFP.
The largely desertified country has a history of coups since its independence from France in 1960.
Mauritania was shaken between December 2007 and February 2008 by three attacks by extremists linked to Al-Qaeda which left seven people dead including four French tourists.
The attacks caused the organisers of the 2008 Dakar rally to cancel the race, which usually crosses the Mauritanian deserts. (AFP)

Paris Hilton Gets Even With McCain, Releases ‘Ad’ of Her Own

2008-08-06T19:46:00.001+05:30

Socialite Paris Hilton is getting even with John McCain, after he used her image last week in an ad mocking Barack Obama as an international celebrity.
Hilton released a Web video of her own Tuesday saying her inclusion in McCain’s ad must mean she’s running for president.
“So thanks for the endorsement, white-haired dude,” Hilton says in the ad, while sitting outside in a skimpy, leopard-print bikini. “And I want America to know that I’m, like, totally ready to lead.”
The tongue-in-cheek video is laced with age-based insults. Hilton may not be known for her trenchant wit, but the two-minute spot is a satirical blend — part “Daily Show,” part “Legally Blonde.”
In it, Hilton lays out her point-by-point energy proposal, after reading an article on where to get the best tan. She muses about painting the White House pink, and then signs out with a semi-traditional campaign disclaimer.
“I’m Paris Hilton, and I approve this message — because I think it’s totally hot.”
The Web video was posted on the site Funny or Die, after Hilton’s representative and her mother both criticized McCain’s campaign for using her image in his ad.
After getting a chuckle from the video, McCain’s campaign released a statement.
“It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - -including both alternatives and drilling. In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama,” spokesman Tucker Bounds said. (Fox News)
Click here to see the full Paris Hilton ad.

Citizen-Turned-Monarch Becoming Politician?

2008-08-06T19:34:00.000+05:30

Gyanendra Shah had all of a sudden become the king after the bloody massacre in the Narayanhity Royal Palace in 2001 in which his elder brother and the then king Birendra Shah and all his family members were killed mysteriously.
The king who was a veteran businessman could not be as successful in politics as he was in business. Therefore, he was swept away by people’s power with the declaration of Nepal as a republican country by over throwing the 240 years monarchy.
Curiosities prevail everywhere about next steps of the former king. Though he has not cleared his plan for future, the dethroned monarch , in the statement that he read during the press conference has clearly stated –“ I would like to live in my own motherland and contribute in whatever way possible to the greater good of the country and peace in this land.”
However, he is not clear about whether he will actively be involved in party politics or not.
Property Disputes
Despite all the rumors about former king Gyanendra’s possibilities to go to India for shelter , he has been staying in the Nagarjun palace which had been used to by himself at the time of his reign and that has been nationalized as national heritage recently by Nepal government.
The royal office as well as the former king’s palace has been evacuated and the government has decided to turn the palace into a national Museum. However , the mother of Gyanendra, Ratna Shah and his grandmother have been provided the Mahendra Manjil , section of Narayanhity for shelter for a time being.
Gyanendra was the billionaire owner of Surya Nepal, Soltee and some other hereditary and personal property. However the government has provided him a house to live in. Though he has been staying in the house managed by the government, he has expressed his wish to have rights to maintain private property according to the law.
One of the major political parties Communist Party Of Nepal ( Maoist) has claimed that Gyanendra has owned billions of dollars worth property in the foreign countries which Gyanendra has openly refused in his statements. However the CPN (Maoist) has declared that the new government will investigate and find the facts out about his property.
Royal Massacre Probe
Former king has denied the blame leveled at him for the royal palace massacre by CPN (Maoist). But the senior Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai has informed that the event will be probed again by the newly formed government. Dr. Bhattarai had firstly publicly accused Gyanendra Shah of being involved in the royal massacre 2001. And now Dr. Bhattarai and his party has declared that the dethroned king would help probing the incident.
The probe committee formed just after the royal massacre had given clean cheat to the then king Gyanendra, however, Dr. Bhattarai has said that king Gyanendra had been involved in the incident in co-operation with CIA , so the incident must be probed again by the new government which is going to form in the leading of CPN (Maoist).
Monarch to Politician?
The source closer to Gyanendra has revealed that though there are rumors about Gyanendra to come to active politics he is unlikely to be involved in party politics. Ex-monarch in his press statement has made commitment that he would not leave the country, but would rather work for the promotion of nationalism, peace and prosperity. His commitment to live within the country and contribute in whatever way possible to the greater good of the country and peace has hinted that he might come to active politics.
The president of CPN (Maoist) Puspa Kamal Dahal Prachanda has expressed his views that the dethroned king will have right to open political party and involved in the politics as other citizens.
A close political adviser and the home minister of Gyanendra’s government after the Political coop in 2002 has stated that the ex-king is unlikely to open a new party and be involved in party politics. He has even strongly suggested the dethroned king not to be involved in party politics. Thapa is still of the opinion that monarchy should be restored.
If the ex-king joins party politics it will be difficult to restore monarchy. Therefore he suggests ex-king not to join party politics.If ex-king does so the principle of monarchy will be dismissed. He still shows the importance of monarchy and has expressed his commitment to restore monarchy. But he strongly denies ex-king’s involvement in party politics.
Restoration of Monarchy ?
In the meeting with the chairman of CPN (Maoist) Puspa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, the former king’s messenger Kamal Thapa had said that the country would have a terrible consequence if it was declared republic. Now also, he tries to prove the relevance of his previous opinion . He says – “There are indications for restoration of monarchy in Nepal.”
In this context of his close people advising him not to be involved in active politics, the ex-king is unlikely to take part in politics. However, he is likely to help those groups who are struggling for restoration of monarchy.
According to the monarchists, ex-king will not form away new political groups or parties, rather he will continue to support the earlier political parties which are pro-monarchist. These parties have still been trying to convince that a favorable condition to restore monarchy can be created.
From the close sources of ex-king Gyanendra it has been known that he wants to continue his previous business maintaining his identity as a former king rather than as an active politician.
[By Kishor Panthi, the author may be reached via email at kishorpanthi@gmail.com.]

Pope's visit to Australia (Pictures from various sources)

2008-07-19T19:12:00.002+05:30

Hundreds in Australia protest papal visit

2008-07-19T19:02:00.000+05:30

SYDNEY, Australia — Australian protesters denounced Saturday what they called Pope Benedict XVI's antiquated and discriminatory views, holding a contest for a slogan that would most annoy Roman Catholics and chanting: "The pope is wrong, put a condom on!"
The burlesque, boisterous protest by about 300 demonstrators in central Sydney was in sharp contrast to the solemn papal Mass held earlier at a nearby cathedral, and came as tens of thousands of Catholics marched through the city on a World Youth Day pilgrimage.
Inflated condoms floated like balloons above the crowd of demonstrators - some dressed as nuns and others as priests - as they listened to speeches by activists in support of sex education and safe sex practices at Taylor Square.
"It's good that people protest against the pope's homophobia and misogyny," Alex Bainbridge of the Socialist Alliance told the crowd. "We don't want a war against sex, we want a war against sexually transmitted infections. We're here for the people who could be saved if they had adequate sex education and access to condoms."
Police on horseback and on foot patrolled, but there were no signs of trouble.
The demonstrators also held a "most annoying T-shirt" competition, which was judged by the crowd who picked a crude reference to Mary, Christ's mother, as the winner.
The protest drew attention before it was even held after state government officials passed regulations earlier this month that banned anyone from causing "annoyance or inconvenience" to participants in the Catholic festival.
Offenders faced fines of up to US$5,300.
Activists from the NoToPope coalition argued that the regulations infringed on their free speech rights and challenged them in the federal court and won, clearing the way for Saturday's protest.
The controversy about the regulations led to dozens of T-shirts popping up for sale with slogans aiming to challenge authorities to use the regulations.
Tens of thousands of World Youth Day pilgrims marched on Saturday through Sydney, where the landmark harbour bridge and other key roadways were closed to accommodate them on a trek to a horse race track in the city where they will camp out for the night.
Benedict was due to join them on Saturday evening for a couple of hours, then return to the track on Sunday morning to lead a Mass before an estimated crowd of some 250,000. (The Canadian Press)

Pope's Australia visit overshadowed by abuse case

2008-07-19T19:00:00.000+05:30

Allegations that a priest sex scandal was covered up and a row about civil liberties threaten to blight six-day Sydney festival
By Kathy Marks in Sydney

Pope Benedict XVI flies into Australia today for the longest trip yet of his three-year papacy, to be greeted by a row about civil liberties and a sexual abuse scandal embroiling the country's highest-ranked Roman Catholic cleric.
The Pope will preside over World Youth Day, a six-day festival of peace, love and Christianity, culminating in an open-air Mass next Sunday at Sydney's main horse-racing track, which is expected to attract up to half a million people.
World Youth Day has drawn an estimated 200,000 people to the city from around the world. But the Pope's arrival has been preceded by a furore over new laws that give police the power to arrest anyone who "annoys" visiting pilgrims. Offenders could be fined A$5,500 (£2,680).
Critics believe the laws – passed by the New South Wales government – are aimed at clamping down on protesters, who plan to hand out condoms during a pilgrims' procession through Sydney's eastern suburbs on Saturday.
One group, the NoToPope Coalition, claims it will be illegal to wear T-shirts with anti-Catholic slogans. They held an "annoying fashion parade" outside the state parliament last week, donning T-shirts with messages such as "Pope Go Homo".
Australia's most senior Catholic cleric, Cardinal George Pell, meanwhile, has spent the past week fending off accusations that he covered up the case of a young man indecently assaulted in 1982 by a priest, Father Terence Goodall.
Cardinal Pell told Anthony Jones in 2003 that a church inquiry had not upheld his allegations, although, in fact, the opposite was true. He also told Mr Jones that there had been no other complaints against Goodall and that, according to the priest, the encounter had been consensual.
On the same day, however, he wrote to another man assaulted by Goodall as an 11-year-old altar boy, informing him that his allegations had been substantiated.
An ABC television programme, Lateline, then produced telephone recordings of a conversation in which the priest admitted to Mr Jones that he knew the latter had not consented.
Cardinal Pell – who himself was forced to stand aside temporarily in 2002 following allegations, later dismissed, that he had molested a 12-year-old boy – agreed that his letter to Mr Jones had been "badly worded and a mistake". But he denied misleading him or trying to suppress the incident. Last Thursday he bowed to pressure and referred the case to an independent review panel.
The Pope – who said yesterday he would apologise in Australia for abuse by Catholic clergy, as he did while visiting the US in April – will spend the first three days of his trip at a retreat on the outskirts of Sydney, run by the ultra-conservative Catholic group Opus Dei. On Thursday, after travelling by boat across Sydney Harbour, he will receive an official welcome, and then greet crowds.
World Youth Day was the idea of the Pope's predecessor, John Paul II, who believed it would revitalise Catholic youth. The Sydney event will include more than 150 outdoor concerts, and tens of thousands of people are expected to walk across the Harbour Bridge.
The biggest problem the Pope will face is indifference. Although Catholics are the largest religious group in Australia, only a small proportion practise their faith in what is one of the world's most secular countries. (The Independent)

Large crowds watch Stations of the Cross

2008-07-19T08:07:00.002+05:30

The last day of the life of Jesus Christ has been re-enacted in front of large crowds in central Sydney as part of World Youth Day.
About 80 performers took part in the re-enactment of the Stations of the Cross.
Billions of people from around the world were expected to tune into to watch the performance, and thousands of pilgrims lined Sydney's streets to see each station.
The first station was at St Mary's Cathedral, where actors performed the Last Supper, and Pope Benedict said a prayer.
"Make us generous and insightful as we try to walk in your footsteps," he said.
The ritual continued at the Opera House, where the actor playing Jesus, 27-year-old Alfio Stuto, received the crown of thorns, before carrying the cross underneath the Harbour Bridge.
Finally, on the edge of the harbour at Barangaroo, he was raised onto the cross and the Bible's description of the moment was read aloud.
"And bowing his head, he gave up his spirit," the reader said.
The performance ended when the body of Jesus was brought down from the Cross and carried through the crowd.
The Stations of the Cross dates back to the early days of the Christian Church, when pilgrims visited Jerusalem to carry out a similar ritual.
Pope Benedict is expected to meet with a group of disadvantaged youths later this evening. (ABC news)

Text of Pope's apology for sexual abuse in Australia

2008-07-19T08:00:00.000+05:30

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Here is the text of Pope Benedict's apology for sexual abuse of minors by clergy in Australia. The pope read the comments in a section of a sermon of a Mass in Sydney's St Mary's Cathedral on Saturday:
"Dear friends, may this celebration, in the presence of the Successor of Peter, be a moment of rededication and renewal for the whole Church in Australia!
"Here I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy and religious in this country. Indeed, I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured and I assure them that as their pastor I too share in their suffering.
"These misdeeds, which constitute so grave a betrayal of trust, deserve unequivocal condemnation. They have caused great pain and have damaged the Church's witness. I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil. Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice. It is an urgent priority to promote a safer and more wholesome environment, especially for young people.
"In these days marked by the celebration of World Youth Day, we are reminded of how precious a treasure has been entrusted to us in our young people, and how great a part of the Church's mission in this country has been dedicated to their education and care.
"As the Church in Australia continues, in the spirit of the Gospel, to address effectively this serious pastoral challenge, I join you in praying that this time of purification will bring about healing, reconciliation and ever greater fidelity to the moral demands of the Gospel."

Pope in Australia (Pictures from BBC)

2008-07-19T07:58:00.002+05:30

All Photos taken from BBC

Pope sorry for priests' sex abuse

2008-07-19T07:54:00.000+05:30

Pope Benedict XVI has told Australians he is deeply sorry for the sexual abuse of children by some Catholic priests.
Speaking at a gathering of bishops during his visit to Australia, the Pope spoke of the "shame we have all felt" and called for abusers to face justice.
He said the deeds of abusive clergymen were a great betrayal of trust, which damaged the Catholic Church.
A campaign group has criticised the speech, saying the Pope should have met some victims to apologise in person.
'Misdeeds'
"I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured," the Pope said, speaking at a cathedral in Sydney.
"These misdeeds, which constitute so grave a betrayal of trust, deserve unequivocal condemnation," he said.
"Those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice."
But the main support group for victims of church-related sexual abuse, Broken Rites, called the apology shallow.
The group, which says there have been 107 convictions against Catholic clergymen on sex charges in Australia, had wanted the Pope to meet some of the victims in person.
The BBC's Nick Bryant, in Sydney, says victims have complained that the Church in Australia has tried to stall compensation claims and cover up certain cases.
The Pope is visiting Australia to mark World Youth Day, which is drawing Catholics from around the world to the country. (BBC)

Celebrating the Plympic torch will not Gloss Over the situation in Tibet

2008-06-23T20:20:00.005+05:30

GORKHALAND MOVEMENT: PEOPLE'S OPINION

2008-06-13T09:36:00.001+05:30

Kolkata TV organized a live telecast from Chourastha on the opinion of hill people