WALKING WITH THE PEOPLE

Politics of Perception

2021-01-06T15:56:00.000+05:30

Worrisome Pictures for BJP after Less Turnout in Suvendu Adhikari's Rallies in last 2 Days. Even the "Mega Rally" In Kanthi was not upto the mark according to many. Is the Wind Blowing in opposite direction?

If we look at the enthusiasm of people around Bimal Gurung, same perception is seen. BG's every move is telecast live creating a halo effect, that BG is the real leader of the hills. BG's statements are self contradictory, I don't know how masses are digesting his dubious statements.

Can people accept his argument yhat in 2021 he will support TMC and in 2024 will support whoever supports PPS?

BG also says Mamata Banerjee will initiate the process of PPS. Mind it BG has never said PPS means Gorkhaland. Even though in his Rally we can hear the Gorkhaland slogans. That's the trick.

Perception is being created that Mamata Banerjee is for Gorkhaland and has promised it to BG. Are people buying this narrative? The party (BJP) who has the power and numbers in the parliament to grant what Gorkhas aspire, did not buzz a bit, and Bimal Gurung was a part and parcel of that party. Can we believe what BG is talking and promising now?

The other projected perception is BG defeated TMC / Binoy Tamang in 2019 lok sabha election. Was it BG or the anger of people towards Mamata Banerjee that gave victory to BJP in 2019? It's the anger of people against TMC govt that gave victory to BJP.

Now is the time that false perceptions should be demolished whichever be the party. Voters should be informed and not misinformed.

Palas flower

2012-04-01T11:37:00.001+05:30

Palas flower, a photo by jytmkh on Flickr.

What a joy to see the Bloomed Palas, I am awakened once again that I am to bloom for thee

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