I liked Pankaj Mishra’s pieces in Granta and New York Review of Books. I also followed with amusement the debate William Dalrymple and Ramachandra Guha had in Outlook India about who can authoritatively speak for the ‘real India’. And his new book, on how we (in Desh and beyond) can become modern without blowing ourselves up has received a good review from these rabid neoliberal imperialists, tempting me to add the book to my list of books to read.
But will I read the book? His attempt at selling it in this Guardian piece is very unconvincing. Referring to India and China, Mishra summarizes his article as: Both made their most impressive gains when they rejected the free market.
I’ll not talk about China, but what is his supporting evidence for this claim as far as India is concerned?
India registered its most impressive gains from 1951 to 1980, after emerging from more than two centuries of systematic colonial exploitation, during which it was, in effect, deindustrialised. Until 1980 India achieved an average annual economic growth of 3.5% - as much as most countries achieved. In this period India's much derided socialistic economy also helped create the country's industrial capacity.
According to the IMF data, in the quarter century to 2005, India’s economic growth was 5.8% per year, and only 13 countries achieved faster growth. What is Mishra talking about?
He is on safer ground when he says India was, in effect, deindustrialized by the British. But is his last sentence correct?
The Tata family opened India’s first steel mill in Jamshedpur in 1911. This is what Angus Maddison says in ‘The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective’:
Indian firms in industry, insurance and banking were given a boost from 1905 onwards by the swadeshi movement, which was a nationalist boycott of British goods in favour of Indian enterprise. During the First World War, lack of British imports strengthened the hold of Indian firms on the home markets for textiles and steel.
India in 1947 already had an industrial capacity. For good or ill, this capacity was sheltered from global competition by the ‘much derided socialistic economy’, but it is simply wrong to say that socialism created industrial capacity in India.
Now economic growth is just one measure of improvement in living standard, albeit it is highly correlated with most other measures. Still, Iraq’s economy grew strongly in 2005, so perhaps we need to look at other things. Mishra does:
In India, … facilities for healthcare and primary education have deteriorated.
Is this true? Not according to the United Nations’ Human Development Indicator. Sure there are lots of things wrong with India, but that’s not what is Mishra saying here though. What is he talking about? He goes on to say:
In any case, the hope that … billions of customers in India and China will one day enjoy the lifestyles of Europeans and Americans is an absurd and dangerous fantasy (that) condemns the global environment to early destruction, and looks set to create reservoirs of nihilistic rage and disappointment among hundreds of millions of have-nots.
This is an incredible assertion! Millions of Chinese and Indians have already attained lifestyles of Europeans and Americans in the past decade. Millions of Koreans and Taiwanese attained this in the previous couple of decades. And millions of Japanese did so in earlier decades. To be sure, it is not self evident that billions of Indians and Chinese will be able to replicate this feat, but it certainly isn’t self evident that they won’t.
And as for condemning the global environment to early destruction, two points can be made. Firstly, a cranky old man argued in similar vein nearly two centuries ago, and history hasn’t been kind to him. Technological progress has helped humanity in the past couple of centuries. Now, as Jared Diamond says, the environment can collapse even in the presence of technological progress. This brings us to the second point — in a world where 5% of humanity accounts for a quarter of its consumption, it is quite offensive to say that the aspiration of billions of Indians and Chinese will kill the planet.
Mishra is right when he notes that Europe’s transition to modernity involved unprecedented violence and suffering. He is right when he concludes that: peace in this century depends on India and China finding a less calamitous way of becoming modern.
He is talking about Desh (and beyond) accepting modernity. Unlike Gandhi or Bin Laden, he hasn’t turned his back on modernity. That’s a start. Presumably he outlines what he thinks are less calamitous ways in the book. But if his ‘sales pitch’ is so poorly constructed, do I want to read the book?
Friday, June 30, 2006
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
On joga bonita (2)
It’s so bloody unfair, that’s what fans of losing sides are likely to yell at the World Cup. Americans and Australians will tell you that their teams were forced out because of questionable penalties. Adriano’s goal against Ghana was while off side. Koreans had been denied a penalty against Switzerland, while a Swiss goal against them was from off side.
Sure some of it is just the losing fans crying foul — it’s the referee/umpire is a common refrain in any sport. But in football (that is, soccer), bad decisions have particularly large impact because football is such a low scoring game. For the same reason, football may yield results that seemingly appear contrary to the run of the play — a side playing much ‘better’ seem to lose by a single goal from the other side. And this sort of thing appears to be more common in football than in other sports.
Now, I’m not sure it is the case that the side failing to score is really playing better — it patently is not by the only criteria that affects the result — but may be I’m missing something here. Aficionados from across the Atlantic tell me that football is a game of what could have been. And higher probability of this seemingly ‘unfair’ result might be a reason why football is so popular in Europe, but not in the United States. Allow me to explain.
In a fascinating book, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser compare European and American attitude towards poverty. They note that less than a third of Americans believe that 'the poor are trapped in poverty' and 'luck determines income', nearly two in every five Europeans agree with the statements. By contrast, two-fifths of Americans believe that 'poor are lazy' while less than a quarter of Europeans believe so. The American dream has no counterpart in Europe and is it any surprise that football (that is, soccer) has not been popular in the land of Horatio Alger? It is as un-American as socialism!
It’s an interesting argument. But is it true? How would we know? For one thing, it sounds reasonable that in a low-scoring match, chance will play a bigger role. But does football produce more upsets than American sports? And this doesn’t tell us why football is not all that popular in Desh where 'rags to riches' is not a particularly dominant part of the popular culture.
Hmmm. More thinking is needed (earlier thoughts are here).
Meanwhile, the 2nd round is concluded. With only 8 matches left, perhaps I should start picking the winner. Very well, Germany is the predicted champion as at the end of the 2nd round.
Sure some of it is just the losing fans crying foul — it’s the referee/umpire is a common refrain in any sport. But in football (that is, soccer), bad decisions have particularly large impact because football is such a low scoring game. For the same reason, football may yield results that seemingly appear contrary to the run of the play — a side playing much ‘better’ seem to lose by a single goal from the other side. And this sort of thing appears to be more common in football than in other sports.
Now, I’m not sure it is the case that the side failing to score is really playing better — it patently is not by the only criteria that affects the result — but may be I’m missing something here. Aficionados from across the Atlantic tell me that football is a game of what could have been. And higher probability of this seemingly ‘unfair’ result might be a reason why football is so popular in Europe, but not in the United States. Allow me to explain.
In a fascinating book, Harvard’s Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser compare European and American attitude towards poverty. They note that less than a third of Americans believe that 'the poor are trapped in poverty' and 'luck determines income', nearly two in every five Europeans agree with the statements. By contrast, two-fifths of Americans believe that 'poor are lazy' while less than a quarter of Europeans believe so. The American dream has no counterpart in Europe and is it any surprise that football (that is, soccer) has not been popular in the land of Horatio Alger? It is as un-American as socialism!
It’s an interesting argument. But is it true? How would we know? For one thing, it sounds reasonable that in a low-scoring match, chance will play a bigger role. But does football produce more upsets than American sports? And this doesn’t tell us why football is not all that popular in Desh where 'rags to riches' is not a particularly dominant part of the popular culture.
Hmmm. More thinking is needed (earlier thoughts are here).
Meanwhile, the 2nd round is concluded. With only 8 matches left, perhaps I should start picking the winner. Very well, Germany is the predicted champion as at the end of the 2nd round.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
i wonder....
Sare jahaan se achha, hindustan hamaara
Above all [else] in the world, is our India
- first line of the patriotic song sare jahan se achha, written by Mohammad Iqbal around 19O5.
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Germany, Germany above all,
Above all [else] in the world,
- first line of the patriotic song Das Lied der Deutschen, written by Hoffmann von Fallersleben in 1841.
Above all [else] in the world, is our India
- first line of the patriotic song sare jahan se achha, written by Mohammad Iqbal around 19O5.
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Germany, Germany above all,
Above all [else] in the world,
- first line of the patriotic song Das Lied der Deutschen, written by Hoffmann von Fallersleben in 1841.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
the heart of darkness
A link I gave earlier mentioned that the intersection of Wilhelmstraße and Vossstraße in Berlin was once the most evil corner of the world - location of the Reichschancellerz. I was there todaz. In its place stands a non-descript apartment building, with a Chinese retaurant on the main floor. Across the street used to be Dr. Goebbels's Reich Propaganda Ministry. This is now a Turkish Kebab shop.
Friday, June 23, 2006
writing poetrz in german
berlinerweisse
tastes prettz scheisse
psÖ In German, ss is substituted with the letter ß of course. I am quite pleased to be able to use it here, so perhaps, an encoreÖ
Berlinerweiße
tastes prettz scheiße
danke schön.
ppsÖ Berlinerweiße, for the uninitiated, is a weird German beer concoction. The beer is never served on its own, alwazs either red or green. Red means the addition of raspberrz szrup, and green woodruff szrup. It is not clear what exactlz woodruff is ö but it tastes verz sweet, and verz awful.
Meanwhile, the whole area near the hostel seems abandoned. There is a street of small industrial buildings, adjacent to another of lowßlzing apartment blocks. All are covered in graffiti, including the outside windows (amayinglz unbroken) of the upper apartment stories, and thus appear to be abandoned. While there is much noise here, that area looks dead and silent. Abandoned citz blocks in a sea pf prosperitz? It cannot be completelz emptz, there are some cars parked there. Are those apartments inhabited? What do the letters spreazpainted on the outside of the 4th storz windows sqell out? What are the commercial buildings , what were thez once? And what lies at the end of the block? I would venture further to investigate, but I donät have mz walther ppk at the moment. It will be interesting what dazlight reveals.
tastes prettz scheisse
psÖ In German, ss is substituted with the letter ß of course. I am quite pleased to be able to use it here, so perhaps, an encoreÖ
Berlinerweiße
tastes prettz scheiße
danke schön.
ppsÖ Berlinerweiße, for the uninitiated, is a weird German beer concoction. The beer is never served on its own, alwazs either red or green. Red means the addition of raspberrz szrup, and green woodruff szrup. It is not clear what exactlz woodruff is ö but it tastes verz sweet, and verz awful.
Meanwhile, the whole area near the hostel seems abandoned. There is a street of small industrial buildings, adjacent to another of lowßlzing apartment blocks. All are covered in graffiti, including the outside windows (amayinglz unbroken) of the upper apartment stories, and thus appear to be abandoned. While there is much noise here, that area looks dead and silent. Abandoned citz blocks in a sea pf prosperitz? It cannot be completelz emptz, there are some cars parked there. Are those apartments inhabited? What do the letters spreazpainted on the outside of the 4th storz windows sqell out? What are the commercial buildings , what were thez once? And what lies at the end of the block? I would venture further to investigate, but I donät have mz walther ppk at the moment. It will be interesting what dazlight reveals.
enter berlin
Berlin if suitably prepared for, is a city of possibilities. Every dour customs official appears a potential double agent, and any unusual looking passenger a potential assassin.
There is an intriguing looking woman reading Brick Lane in the 22-35 pm S9 S-Bahn Train from Schonefeld Airport (the old communist airport) to Ostkreuty. Blond, thin, in her thirties, the first lines of age are on her face. Her eyes are dark, so dark that I cannot even notice the whites of her eyes. But intriguing I said. And by intriguing I donät just mean half naked, albeit that she was. But there is an element of mystery and glamour surrounding her beyond this obvious interest. There she sat, cool and distant, reading her book, now half-covered by a shawl of delicate raw silk. Her luggage consisted of a trolley bag, a guitar case, and a designer Paul Smith shopping bag. She then crossed and uncrossed her legs most scandalously.
Meanwhile, the old woman on my right alternatively eyes me and then the mystery woman, a little curious, a little suspicious. Welcome to Berlin, ladies and gentleman. You are now leaving the reality sector. Anything can happen here, and it probably will. This is Amar reporting. Over and out.
There is an intriguing looking woman reading Brick Lane in the 22-35 pm S9 S-Bahn Train from Schonefeld Airport (the old communist airport) to Ostkreuty. Blond, thin, in her thirties, the first lines of age are on her face. Her eyes are dark, so dark that I cannot even notice the whites of her eyes. But intriguing I said. And by intriguing I donät just mean half naked, albeit that she was. But there is an element of mystery and glamour surrounding her beyond this obvious interest. There she sat, cool and distant, reading her book, now half-covered by a shawl of delicate raw silk. Her luggage consisted of a trolley bag, a guitar case, and a designer Paul Smith shopping bag. She then crossed and uncrossed her legs most scandalously.
Meanwhile, the old woman on my right alternatively eyes me and then the mystery woman, a little curious, a little suspicious. Welcome to Berlin, ladies and gentleman. You are now leaving the reality sector. Anything can happen here, and it probably will. This is Amar reporting. Over and out.
Slate gets it - India.
I love that this is a billion-person democracy. That is insane. Somehow the Tibetan Buddhists of Ladakh, the IT workers of Bangalore, the downtrodden poor of Bihar, and the Bollywood stars of Mumbai all fit together under this single, ramshackle umbrella. It's astonishing and commendable that anyone would even attempt to pull this off.
Seth Stevenson, Slate
Hear Hear! Amar and Anthony offer wholehearted agreement for these sentiments [see here and here] .
Seth Stevenson, Slate
Hear Hear! Amar and Anthony offer wholehearted agreement for these sentiments [see here and here] .
Slate on Berlin's secret corners
Hitler Slept Here: The too-secret history of the Third Reich's most famous place.
Strange. My agenda for this weekend already included searching for some of these Berlin Third Reich locations, and in recent days, Anthony and I have been discussing how and why the tourist books are so frustratingly silent about every asqect of Berlin that is actually of interest and relevance to us. This article looks into an interesting matter in more detail than you would have got from us anyway.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
On joga bonita
Is Osama Bin Laden watching the World Cup? If he is, was he saddened by the thrashing Saudi Arabia got yesterday? Or does he think football is a homosexual abomination? Did the Taleban ban football? I am pretty sure there is no Tradition of the Prophet or his Companions playing football.
I was curious enough to google ‘fatwa on football’.
I found a Saudi fatwa that says it’s okay to play football in order to ‘prepare the body for when it is called to jihad’, after the game is modified slightly. Some of the prescribed changes probably will improve the game — penalty shoot outs are a terrible way to decide who wins the World Cup! Other rules are not so sensible. My favourite: Do not play in two halves. Rather, play in one half or three halves in order to completely differentiate yourselves from the heretics, the corrupted and the disobedient.
Just in case you think the Saudis are monopolizing the latest in Islamic thinking, Muqtada Al Sadr also has a fatwa against football: we find that the West and especially Israel, habeebi the Jews, did you see them playing soccer? Did you see them playing games like Arabs play? They let us keep busy with soccer and other things and they've left it. Have you heard that the Israeli team, curse them, got the World Cup?
This led me to think whether it would be better to google ‘fatwa on soccer’. Soccer or football, what is the proper term in English?
See, where I live, football means a weird game that involves an elongated object being kicked or thrown across the field by men who are then jumped upon or thrown around by other men. In fact, this is the case in most of the English speaking world — although in other Anglophone countries football means different games than what they play in my neighborhood. Even in the Old Blighty, where football means soccer, other football codes still fill stadiums. In fact, England already won a football World Cup in 2003.
Why is it that no single football code has dominated the entire Anglophone world the way football (that is, soccer) has come to dominate Europe and its former colonies? One argument is that the association football was the first to professionalize, and therefore take the full advantage of capitalism.
But if capitalism is behind football’s success in Europe, then how does one explain its failure in the United States? Years ago, I heard David Landes say that the multitude of football codes in Anglophone countries is a result of the deeply ingrained liberalism of these societies. You see, countries where a single football code came to dominate, typically by the second quarter of the last century, were also countries that flirted with establishing a strong totalitarian state based on a dominant ethnic group or ideology or religion.
Whether Landes is right or not, economics of football is an interesting subject matter in its own right. Perhaps I’ll explore it some other time. Meanwhile, England may have won a world cup, but it has not won the World Cup in four decades. Franklin Foer of The New Republic — the most read magazine in the Clinton Air Force One — asks what kind of political system is best at producing the best football teams?
He finds that: fascist countries beat communist teams; military juntas beat fascists; and social democracies beat military juntas (unfortunately, no liberal democracy has ever won the World Cup). In addition to this general finding, he notes that: European Union members are likely to do well; former communist countries do better now than they did under red flags; colonizers tend to do better than the colonized (Senegal vs France 2002 notwithstanding); oil rich countries don’t do well (Saudis were thrashed yesterday); and neo-liberal economic reform doesn’t help (Argentina hasn’t won in two decades).
Foer also has a caveat: The political reality most likely to produce a Jules Rimet trophy (sic) at any given moment in history: whatever form of government has taken up residence in Brasilia that week.
Not to be outdone, beancounters at the Goldman Sachs have cranked their model to get the following probabilities for the World Cup champion: Brazil 12.4%, England 8.6%, Spain and France 8.3% and the Netherlands 8%. Being a very successful Wall Street firm, GS hedge their bet, saying their pick for the semi-finalists are: Brazil, Germany, Italy and England.
GS folks also note that no nation with less than 30 million people have won the World Cup in recent decades. GS is big on predicting the rise of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China; they are also pretty positive about Bangladesh). But even they’re not likely to predict a Desi team to qualify, let alone win, the World Cup any time soon.
This need not have been the case. Football has a rich history in Desh. Beating a bunch of Angrez imperialist scum made for a good show in Lagaan, but Mohan Baghan’s victory over English teams in 1911 was a real milestone in Desh’s struggle for freedom. India qualified for the World Cup in 1950. And as late as the 1980s, football matches far outsold cricket in Kolkata and Dhaka.
But wait, these are Bengali cities. Is there a Landesque explanation here? Dear reader, A-A-A have been accused of Bengalophobia for this and this, so I dare not pursue this line of thought. Instead, I return to the iterative prediction. After each team has played twice, the predictions are:
Semi-final 1: Germany vs Ghana.
Semi-final 2: Netherlands vs Brazil.
I was curious enough to google ‘fatwa on football’.
I found a Saudi fatwa that says it’s okay to play football in order to ‘prepare the body for when it is called to jihad’, after the game is modified slightly. Some of the prescribed changes probably will improve the game — penalty shoot outs are a terrible way to decide who wins the World Cup! Other rules are not so sensible. My favourite: Do not play in two halves. Rather, play in one half or three halves in order to completely differentiate yourselves from the heretics, the corrupted and the disobedient.
Just in case you think the Saudis are monopolizing the latest in Islamic thinking, Muqtada Al Sadr also has a fatwa against football: we find that the West and especially Israel, habeebi the Jews, did you see them playing soccer? Did you see them playing games like Arabs play? They let us keep busy with soccer and other things and they've left it. Have you heard that the Israeli team, curse them, got the World Cup?
This led me to think whether it would be better to google ‘fatwa on soccer’. Soccer or football, what is the proper term in English?
See, where I live, football means a weird game that involves an elongated object being kicked or thrown across the field by men who are then jumped upon or thrown around by other men. In fact, this is the case in most of the English speaking world — although in other Anglophone countries football means different games than what they play in my neighborhood. Even in the Old Blighty, where football means soccer, other football codes still fill stadiums. In fact, England already won a football World Cup in 2003.
Why is it that no single football code has dominated the entire Anglophone world the way football (that is, soccer) has come to dominate Europe and its former colonies? One argument is that the association football was the first to professionalize, and therefore take the full advantage of capitalism.
But if capitalism is behind football’s success in Europe, then how does one explain its failure in the United States? Years ago, I heard David Landes say that the multitude of football codes in Anglophone countries is a result of the deeply ingrained liberalism of these societies. You see, countries where a single football code came to dominate, typically by the second quarter of the last century, were also countries that flirted with establishing a strong totalitarian state based on a dominant ethnic group or ideology or religion.
Whether Landes is right or not, economics of football is an interesting subject matter in its own right. Perhaps I’ll explore it some other time. Meanwhile, England may have won a world cup, but it has not won the World Cup in four decades. Franklin Foer of The New Republic — the most read magazine in the Clinton Air Force One — asks what kind of political system is best at producing the best football teams?
He finds that: fascist countries beat communist teams; military juntas beat fascists; and social democracies beat military juntas (unfortunately, no liberal democracy has ever won the World Cup). In addition to this general finding, he notes that: European Union members are likely to do well; former communist countries do better now than they did under red flags; colonizers tend to do better than the colonized (Senegal vs France 2002 notwithstanding); oil rich countries don’t do well (Saudis were thrashed yesterday); and neo-liberal economic reform doesn’t help (Argentina hasn’t won in two decades).
Foer also has a caveat: The political reality most likely to produce a Jules Rimet trophy (sic) at any given moment in history: whatever form of government has taken up residence in Brasilia that week.
Not to be outdone, beancounters at the Goldman Sachs have cranked their model to get the following probabilities for the World Cup champion: Brazil 12.4%, England 8.6%, Spain and France 8.3% and the Netherlands 8%. Being a very successful Wall Street firm, GS hedge their bet, saying their pick for the semi-finalists are: Brazil, Germany, Italy and England.
GS folks also note that no nation with less than 30 million people have won the World Cup in recent decades. GS is big on predicting the rise of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China; they are also pretty positive about Bangladesh). But even they’re not likely to predict a Desi team to qualify, let alone win, the World Cup any time soon.
This need not have been the case. Football has a rich history in Desh. Beating a bunch of Angrez imperialist scum made for a good show in Lagaan, but Mohan Baghan’s victory over English teams in 1911 was a real milestone in Desh’s struggle for freedom. India qualified for the World Cup in 1950. And as late as the 1980s, football matches far outsold cricket in Kolkata and Dhaka.
But wait, these are Bengali cities. Is there a Landesque explanation here? Dear reader, A-A-A have been accused of Bengalophobia for this and this, so I dare not pursue this line of thought. Instead, I return to the iterative prediction. After each team has played twice, the predictions are:
Semi-final 1: Germany vs Ghana.
Semi-final 2: Netherlands vs Brazil.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Lahore - 1863
Lahore - 2004
I was in Lahore in 2004, when I took the colour photo. It's taken from Lahore Fort, and looks out towards the beautiful Badshahi Mosque, built by Aurangzeb. The smaller building to the right is a Sikh Gurudwara, constructed by Ranjit Singh, who in the late 18th century established the first sikh empire with Lahore as its capital.
Subsequently, I was surprised to come across the other photo on the British Library website. While not taken from identical angles, they are from a substantially similar one, and it is interesting to contrast the 19th century vista with the 21st century one. Not much has changed, indeed as with the minarets, some embellishments seem to have been made since.
This reminds me of an exhibition I saw in Paris in September last year. It involved the work of [I think] two artists who had gone to India around the mid-19th century, painting an assortment of palaces, temples, cities, ruins, sceneries etc. A French photographer had followed in their footsteps, seeking out the same places they had drawn, and taking photographs of them as they were now. It was magical, and I will not spoil it by talking about it - you should see it instead. I will try and get some of those details and photos and paintings for you/me/us to enjoy and admire.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
An investigation into the origins of a popular slogan (2)
Hinduism is meant to have 330 million deities. This means that until the 20th century, there were as many gods and goddesses as their worshippers in what is now India. Democratic India has kept the tradition alive by building the cult of the Gandhi family. Amar traced the origin of a particularly ghastly slogan by the 1970s Congress party to the Nazi Germany. But the absolutism inherent in identifying an individual with the state and the people of course goes back much further.
‘L'État? C'est moi’ — France’s King Louis XIV is meant to have said in the 17th century. This Sun King’s descendents, and all that is ancien, were overthrown by a revolution at the end of the 18th century. That revolution, like so many others over the past couple of centuries, resulted in the rise of a strongman who used populist slogans and selective reforms to install a counterrevolutionary regime.
When asked what he thought of the French revolution, Zhou En Lai is meant to have said that it’s too early to tell. Writing nearly a century earlier, Karl Marx dubbed the phenomenon of revolutions ending in counterrevolutionary dictatorships as Bonapartism (not after the Corsican general, but his descendant).
Acolytes of the Gandhi family are probably not indulging in Bonapartism. After all, people do freely vote for and against the Gandhi family run Congress. And to the extent that the Gandhi name has a brand value, it is perfectly rational for the Congress party to run on it. After all, if not for the name recognition factor of his opponent in the 2000 election, would we be discussing Al Gore’s 2008 ambitions?
Yes, there is a fine distinction between elected politicians capitalizing on their family names and the incumbent identifying him or herself with the state. Former, if successful, is clever politics. Latter is one step away from authoritarianism.
Indian democracy has survived such forays into authoritarian rule. The other two successor states to the British Raj have not. Pakistan’s founding father is supposed to have quipped that he and his typewriter created that country. Mr Jinnah’s successors all the way to General Musharraf have behaved as if their personal wellbeing is the same as that of the country. Indira’s contemporary in Bangladesh went one step further instituting a one-party state. After he was massacred with his family in August 1975, some insolent people added the words ‘all end in one night’ next to the slogan ‘one leader for one people’.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, said Marx. Let's hope that the politics of 1970s are not repeated.
‘L'État? C'est moi’ — France’s King Louis XIV is meant to have said in the 17th century. This Sun King’s descendents, and all that is ancien, were overthrown by a revolution at the end of the 18th century. That revolution, like so many others over the past couple of centuries, resulted in the rise of a strongman who used populist slogans and selective reforms to install a counterrevolutionary regime.
When asked what he thought of the French revolution, Zhou En Lai is meant to have said that it’s too early to tell. Writing nearly a century earlier, Karl Marx dubbed the phenomenon of revolutions ending in counterrevolutionary dictatorships as Bonapartism (not after the Corsican general, but his descendant).
Acolytes of the Gandhi family are probably not indulging in Bonapartism. After all, people do freely vote for and against the Gandhi family run Congress. And to the extent that the Gandhi name has a brand value, it is perfectly rational for the Congress party to run on it. After all, if not for the name recognition factor of his opponent in the 2000 election, would we be discussing Al Gore’s 2008 ambitions?
Yes, there is a fine distinction between elected politicians capitalizing on their family names and the incumbent identifying him or herself with the state. Former, if successful, is clever politics. Latter is one step away from authoritarianism.
Indian democracy has survived such forays into authoritarian rule. The other two successor states to the British Raj have not. Pakistan’s founding father is supposed to have quipped that he and his typewriter created that country. Mr Jinnah’s successors all the way to General Musharraf have behaved as if their personal wellbeing is the same as that of the country. Indira’s contemporary in Bangladesh went one step further instituting a one-party state. After he was massacred with his family in August 1975, some insolent people added the words ‘all end in one night’ next to the slogan ‘one leader for one people’.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce, said Marx. Let's hope that the politics of 1970s are not repeated.
A-A talk train trips
Amar: Thinking of taking a trip across Russia.
Anthony: The Trans-Siberian?
Amar: Yeah.
Anthony: Ever wondered why they haven't written any murder mystery on board the Trans-Siberian?
Amar: It's a bloody long journey man.
Anthony: More time to kill a lot of people then.
Amar: Who are you gonna kill? Why would any famous or glamorous people travel to Valdivostok? What is Vladivostok's claim to fame, a bloody long railline to Moscow!
Anthony: True. But just to be in the safe side, leave the train if you see a well-dressed Belgian with a meticulous moustache.
Anthony: The Trans-Siberian?
Amar: Yeah.
Anthony: Ever wondered why they haven't written any murder mystery on board the Trans-Siberian?
Amar: It's a bloody long journey man.
Anthony: More time to kill a lot of people then.
Amar: Who are you gonna kill? Why would any famous or glamorous people travel to Valdivostok? What is Vladivostok's claim to fame, a bloody long railline to Moscow!
Anthony: True. But just to be in the safe side, leave the train if you see a well-dressed Belgian with a meticulous moustache.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Congress and its sources of inspiration: an investigation into the origins of a popular slogan
The Indian National Congress has always been enamoured with the cult of the Gandhis. At its sycophantic best, a popular party slogan in the 197Os declared 'India is Indira, and Indira is India'. Indira was of course the Prime Minister of India for most of that decade, and de facto supremo of the Congress Party.Credit is generally given for this linguistic manipulation to Mr DK Barooah, the Congress president of the time. But Amar Akbar Anthony have the pleasure of revealing to you the true source of Mr Barooah's inspired and catchy phrase, exposing both the act of his plagiarism and his source for it.
We turn back the clock to another nation and another decade, where also the cult of the leader ruled supreme. In 1934, a high-ranking European politician made a speech in praise of his country's beloved leader. In his speech, he declared:
Adolf Hitler is Germany and Germany is Adolf Hitler. He who takes an oath to Hitler takes an oath to Germany!
Deputy-Fuhrer Rudolf Hess and his colleagues from the German National Socialist or Nazi Party, were in fact so pleased with this eloquence, that they made the phrase one of the regular slogans of the Nazi party and its followers. Rudolf Hess would use the "Adolf Hitler is Germany and Germany is Adolf Hitler" formula often at the beginning of his speeches, and indeed he is seen doing so in the 1935 propoganda documentary, Triumph of the Will.
ps: Have a look at the Congress website. The only Congress Leaders mentioned are Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, and Rahul Gandhi. Some things don't change: India is no longer Indira, but the Gandhis continue to mean Congress, and Congress continues to mean the Gandhis.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Death in Guantanomo
Three men held as prisoners without trial by the US government in Guantanomo Bay have commited suicide. The BBC website reports the following:
I would have thought serving officers of the US military, when discussing the suicides of people under their charge, would not wish to sound like the crazed lunatic from Dr. Strangelove. But then again, in the film, the guy who finally causes the end of the world was a 'simple-minded, ape-like, thick-accented Texan cowboy' with a ten gallon hat and who pronounces nuclear as "nookular". Eerie coincidence that.
Rear Adm Harris said he did not believe the men had killed themselves out of despair.
"They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said.
"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."
I would have thought serving officers of the US military, when discussing the suicides of people under their charge, would not wish to sound like the crazed lunatic from Dr. Strangelove. But then again, in the film, the guy who finally causes the end of the world was a 'simple-minded, ape-like, thick-accented Texan cowboy' with a ten gallon hat and who pronounces nuclear as "nookular". Eerie coincidence that.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Conservative rock songs
Back in late 2002 or early 2003, with the invasion of Iraq imminent, South Park ran an episode where the town folks were divided among the rock music people and the country music people. The former were liberal anti war progressive gay loving cheese eating surrender monkeys. The latter represented the conservative patriotic moral values redneck burger eating warmongers. In the South Park world, conservatives did not rock and roll, and country lovers supported the war. Of course in the real world there is a Texan country band that opposes the war. And now it turns out that conservatives too listen to rock music. National Review has recently compiled a list of top 50 conservative rock songs. Here are the top 10.
1. Won’t Get Fooled Again — The Who
Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. And what can be more conservative?
2. Taxman — The Beatles
George Harrison tells you: Now my advice for those who die / Declare the pennies on your eyes.
3. Sympathy for the Devil — The Rolling Stones
The Devil inspired Pontius Pilate, that coup in St Petersburg and the Blitzkrieg, and he will tell you that: Every cop is a criminal / And all the sinners saints.
4. Sweet Home Alabama — Lynyrd Skynyrd
Big wheels keep on turning, and those Neil Young hating Southern men keep voting for GOP.
5. Wouldn’t It Be Nice — The Beach Boys
We could be married / And then we’d be happy
6. Gloria — U2
Well we know that Bono is Christian.
7. Revolution — The Beatles
This is the version where if you talk about destruction, John Lennon wants to be counted out.
8. Bodies — The Sex Pistols
It’s not an animal / It’s an abortion
9. Don’t Tread on Me — Metallica
So be it / Threaten no more / To secure peace is to prepare for war, or as Thomas Jefferson said, ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance’.
10. 20th Century Man — The Kinks
I was born in a welfare state / Ruled by bureaucracy / Controlled by civil servants / And people dressed in grey / Got no privacy got no liberty / ’Cause the 20th-century people / Took it all away from me
The full list is here. The only one to make to an A-A-A list is Sympathy for the Devil, not the least because of its reference to Bombay.
Hat tip: Marginal Revolution.
1. Won’t Get Fooled Again — The Who
Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. And what can be more conservative?
2. Taxman — The Beatles
George Harrison tells you: Now my advice for those who die / Declare the pennies on your eyes.
3. Sympathy for the Devil — The Rolling Stones
The Devil inspired Pontius Pilate, that coup in St Petersburg and the Blitzkrieg, and he will tell you that: Every cop is a criminal / And all the sinners saints.
4. Sweet Home Alabama — Lynyrd Skynyrd
Big wheels keep on turning, and those Neil Young hating Southern men keep voting for GOP.
5. Wouldn’t It Be Nice — The Beach Boys
We could be married / And then we’d be happy
6. Gloria — U2
Well we know that Bono is Christian.
7. Revolution — The Beatles
This is the version where if you talk about destruction, John Lennon wants to be counted out.
8. Bodies — The Sex Pistols
It’s not an animal / It’s an abortion
9. Don’t Tread on Me — Metallica
So be it / Threaten no more / To secure peace is to prepare for war, or as Thomas Jefferson said, ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilance’.
10. 20th Century Man — The Kinks
I was born in a welfare state / Ruled by bureaucracy / Controlled by civil servants / And people dressed in grey / Got no privacy got no liberty / ’Cause the 20th-century people / Took it all away from me
The full list is here. The only one to make to an A-A-A list is Sympathy for the Devil, not the least because of its reference to Bombay.
Hat tip: Marginal Revolution.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
On romantic tragedies
Amar and Akbar watched a romantic tragedy the other night. I watched it a week or so before my brothers, and when they asked me for my opinion, I did say that when all is said and done, Fanaa is a romantic tragedy. Now dear reader, don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against romantic tragedies. I just think they are rather hard to do. And I’m not the only one. No less a person than the Bard thought so. Allow me to explain.
William Shakespeare wrote 37 plays. Romeo and Juliet was the 28th, so one can assume that he was a quite experienced storyteller when he penned the story that ends with a pair of star-cross’d lovers taking their lives.
Now how does this taking life business happen?
Friar Lawrence helps Juliet by providing a sleeping draught that will make everyone think she's dead. Romeo is then supposed to come to her tomb and take her away. When the wedding party arrives to greet Juliet next day they think she is dead. The Friar sends a colleague to warn Romeo to come to the Capulet's family monument, but the message doesn't get through. Instead, upon hearing that Juliet is dead, Romeo returns to Verona and takes poison and dies just as Juliet awakes from her drugged sleep. She learns what has happened from Friar Lawrence and stabs herself.
Romeo and Juliet, the first romantic tragedy the Bard penned, was a big hit. Upon finding the successful formula of the taking of multiple lives in confusing circumstances, he ended four of his remaining nine plays in similar manner.
In the rotten state of Denmark, Hamlet duels with Laertes where Claudius plots for Hamlet to die either on a poisoned rapier, or from poisoned wine. The plans go wrong, and basically everyone dies.
Okay, Hamlet is not a romantic tragedy you say. Hmmm, maybe, but Othello surely is. And how does the Moore of Venice meet his end? He accuses Desdemona of infidelity, and after a brief argument, smothers her (obviously someone named Ataullah — Othello in English — has Quranic licence (4:34) to smack their bitch up). Desdemona dies but says Othello is innocent. Eventually it is revealed that Iago is the villain, and Othello commits suicide.
Antony and Cleopetra is another romantic tragedy where Shakespeare used the multiple death formula. Here, Cleopatra goes to her tomb and sends a message to Antony that she is dead. Antony is devastated and decides to kill himself. But wait, he botches the suicide and wounds himself without dying. His followers take him to Cleopatra's tomb, where he dies in her arms. Of course Cleopatra wasn’t dead, but now that Antony is dead, what can she but to kill herself?
You see dear reader, romantic tragedies are not easy to do. They are actually so hard that upon finding a successful formula, even Shakespeare chose to stick to it rather than try something new.
William Shakespeare wrote 37 plays. Romeo and Juliet was the 28th, so one can assume that he was a quite experienced storyteller when he penned the story that ends with a pair of star-cross’d lovers taking their lives.
Now how does this taking life business happen?
Friar Lawrence helps Juliet by providing a sleeping draught that will make everyone think she's dead. Romeo is then supposed to come to her tomb and take her away. When the wedding party arrives to greet Juliet next day they think she is dead. The Friar sends a colleague to warn Romeo to come to the Capulet's family monument, but the message doesn't get through. Instead, upon hearing that Juliet is dead, Romeo returns to Verona and takes poison and dies just as Juliet awakes from her drugged sleep. She learns what has happened from Friar Lawrence and stabs herself.
Romeo and Juliet, the first romantic tragedy the Bard penned, was a big hit. Upon finding the successful formula of the taking of multiple lives in confusing circumstances, he ended four of his remaining nine plays in similar manner.
In the rotten state of Denmark, Hamlet duels with Laertes where Claudius plots for Hamlet to die either on a poisoned rapier, or from poisoned wine. The plans go wrong, and basically everyone dies.
Okay, Hamlet is not a romantic tragedy you say. Hmmm, maybe, but Othello surely is. And how does the Moore of Venice meet his end? He accuses Desdemona of infidelity, and after a brief argument, smothers her (obviously someone named Ataullah — Othello in English — has Quranic licence (4:34) to smack their bitch up). Desdemona dies but says Othello is innocent. Eventually it is revealed that Iago is the villain, and Othello commits suicide.
Antony and Cleopetra is another romantic tragedy where Shakespeare used the multiple death formula. Here, Cleopatra goes to her tomb and sends a message to Antony that she is dead. Antony is devastated and decides to kill himself. But wait, he botches the suicide and wounds himself without dying. His followers take him to Cleopatra's tomb, where he dies in her arms. Of course Cleopatra wasn’t dead, but now that Antony is dead, what can she but to kill herself?
You see dear reader, romantic tragedies are not easy to do. They are actually so hard that upon finding a successful formula, even Shakespeare chose to stick to it rather than try something new.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
amar and akbar go to the movies
Although Anthony had warned me against it - at the end of the day, it's a romance, he said - Akbar was quite keen that we go watch Fanaa. It's about the whole desi film watching experience, he said, rather than watching this specific film. The atmosphere, the mohaul, the crowd of desi families, uncles and aunties and more importantly their attractive sexy daughters, newly married couples of which the female might be worth admiring, cute desi girls on a night out with their other also cute girlfriends... yes, there were a variety of reasons, Akbar mused, why this film might be worth investigating. So off we went to the cinema.
I was still concerned - romance is not a topic I deal with very well, and that too when it is set in delhi - rang de basanti left me as tormented as i was enthralled. But I steeled myself mentally and physically - which is to say I bought a few miniature bottles of red wine and smuggled them into the cinema, said my bismillah al-rahman al-rahim - akbar is teaching me how to act muslim - and prepared myself for the worst.
The worst never came. Sure there is nothing more execrable than watching other people in love, having succesful relationships, being happy and so on, but Anthony had not mentioned they would be conducting their romance in delightful verse! Where we thought we would be nauseated, we were absolutely charmed. For you see....[more to follow...publishing what is before is simqly a commitment device to force myself to continue}
I was still concerned - romance is not a topic I deal with very well, and that too when it is set in delhi - rang de basanti left me as tormented as i was enthralled. But I steeled myself mentally and physically - which is to say I bought a few miniature bottles of red wine and smuggled them into the cinema, said my bismillah al-rahman al-rahim - akbar is teaching me how to act muslim - and prepared myself for the worst.
The worst never came. Sure there is nothing more execrable than watching other people in love, having succesful relationships, being happy and so on, but Anthony had not mentioned they would be conducting their romance in delightful verse! Where we thought we would be nauseated, we were absolutely charmed. For you see....[more to follow...publishing what is before is simqly a commitment device to force myself to continue}
On the code (2)
Due to the universally tepid review — IMDB gives it only 6.5 for example — we have decided to wait for the DVD release of The Da Vinci Code. That means that the original plan of following up the review of the book with one of the movie is now on hold indefinitely.
Then I thought I would compare the way devout Christians reacted to the movie/book that says their religion is a lie with the way devout Muslims react to any less-than-glorifying portrait of their prophet. For example, no one seems to be burning the effigy of Tom Hanks, and no one has put a bounty on Dan Brown. This point can be stressed with a lot more polemics. But when all is said and done, what is new in saying that there are many, many illiberal forces in the Muslim world? But I think it is still an important observation to make — there are many, many illiberal forces in the Muslim world.
But then this got me thinking. What do these illiberal forces have to say about this book? After all, claiming that Jesus lived a family life and grew old contradicts Islam. Here is what The Quran says (4:157-8):
And because of their saying (in boast), ‘We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not.
But Allah raised him up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is omnipotent, omniscient.
Clearly Dan Brown and Tom Hanks and Ron Howard have committed grave blasphemies. So where is the fire and brimstone Jihadi reaction? Anyway, I googled ‘Muslim protest Da Vinci Code’. It seems that there were protests in that deep heartland of Muslim world — Azerbaijan. Hmmm, perhaps this is a sign that the illiberal tendencies in the Muslim world are waning. Maybe, but I don’t think a heterodox book on Muhammad is going to find many publishers.
Oh, there were lot of protests in Desh. In Pakistan, the Islam-pasand parties marched on the streets. And in India, Muslims joined Christians against the movie. Maybe Desi Muslims are more religious than their non-Desi co-religionists. Or maybe this was just another manifestation of Amar-Akbar-Anthony style Desi fraternity.
And speaking of Desi fraternity, the Indian Minister of Information — an aside, do any other liberal democracy have this Orwellian official? — took it upon himself to see whether Indian Christians needed to be protected from this heresy, and I understand the movie is banned in half a dozen Indian states (details here and here). So it seems that the great secular tradition that begun with the banning of The Satanic Verses (India was the first country to do so) continues. Long live the Secular Democratic Republic of India.
Then I thought I would compare the way devout Christians reacted to the movie/book that says their religion is a lie with the way devout Muslims react to any less-than-glorifying portrait of their prophet. For example, no one seems to be burning the effigy of Tom Hanks, and no one has put a bounty on Dan Brown. This point can be stressed with a lot more polemics. But when all is said and done, what is new in saying that there are many, many illiberal forces in the Muslim world? But I think it is still an important observation to make — there are many, many illiberal forces in the Muslim world.
But then this got me thinking. What do these illiberal forces have to say about this book? After all, claiming that Jesus lived a family life and grew old contradicts Islam. Here is what The Quran says (4:157-8):
And because of their saying (in boast), ‘We killed Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not.
But Allah raised him up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is omnipotent, omniscient.
Clearly Dan Brown and Tom Hanks and Ron Howard have committed grave blasphemies. So where is the fire and brimstone Jihadi reaction? Anyway, I googled ‘Muslim protest Da Vinci Code’. It seems that there were protests in that deep heartland of Muslim world — Azerbaijan. Hmmm, perhaps this is a sign that the illiberal tendencies in the Muslim world are waning. Maybe, but I don’t think a heterodox book on Muhammad is going to find many publishers.
Oh, there were lot of protests in Desh. In Pakistan, the Islam-pasand parties marched on the streets. And in India, Muslims joined Christians against the movie. Maybe Desi Muslims are more religious than their non-Desi co-religionists. Or maybe this was just another manifestation of Amar-Akbar-Anthony style Desi fraternity.
And speaking of Desi fraternity, the Indian Minister of Information — an aside, do any other liberal democracy have this Orwellian official? — took it upon himself to see whether Indian Christians needed to be protected from this heresy, and I understand the movie is banned in half a dozen Indian states (details here and here). So it seems that the great secular tradition that begun with the banning of The Satanic Verses (India was the first country to do so) continues. Long live the Secular Democratic Republic of India.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
