I tell it as I see it

The Gentlemen's game

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:36:00 +0000

Cricket is often termed as a gentleman's game. Cricket is a game of patience, character and skill and no other tournament tests these virtues more than the World Cup. The world cup is the grandest cricket event of them all happening once every four years and consisting of one day cricket internationals. For the players, the world cup is an opportunity to bring glory for their countries, for the minnows, its an opportunity to prove themselves, for the fans it is an opportunity to cheer for the greats and for the sponsors it is time to leave their own mark through advertising.

But the world cup provides another type of opportunity, an opportunity to make tons of money via betting and book making. Such activities have tarnished the image of the game in the form of match fixing scandals. But the death of Bob Woolmer and the following reports of suspected foul play have brought the game to an new low. The gentleman's game has its image tarnished and the players, cricketing boards, ICC & the book makers are responsible for this "achievement".

Conspiracy theories are bound to surface in circumstances such as those surrounding Woolmer's death. They can neither be proved or disproved. However, it is not a theory but a fact that present day cricket is engulfed by corruption & red tape. It is also a fact that bets are made over cricket matches and even more heavily so, during the world cup. Currently the media is linking the Pakistan coach's "death" & the Pakistan captain's stepping down to the elimination of the Pakistan team from the World Cup and the subsequent losses faced by the book makers.

The "facts" of the case will surface over time, and pray, the responsible shall be made to pay. But the need of the hour is to think of where the game of cricket is heading, what legacy are we leaving for the Tendulkar's & Dravid's of tomorrow. When high stake World Cup matches start getting fixed what credibility remains of the game? When people start getting murdered over a loss or an elimination from a tournament, how and why shall it still be known as the gentleman's game?

The same goes for the commercialization of cricket. With money pouring in, sponsorships and easy money for the cricketing superstars, focus is shifting from the field. Players are beginning to take their superstar status for granted with their fan following immaturely treating them either as demi-God's or demolishing down their houses.

The facts, as I see it, are very clear. Something needs to be done. Players need to be made accountable. Cricketing boards need to become more vigilant. And finally we as fans of the great game, need to become mature and make our voices heard. We must make a stand, a stand to defend the legacy of the game. Else, we might as well call it a day and hit the showers.

Movie Review - Fast Food Nation

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:23:00 +0000

Fast Food Nation is a movie that deals with the American Fast Food Industry. At first, on reading the title, I figured this would be a take on the health aspect of fast food, how it leads to health problems such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases etc. That is not the case. The movie infact deals with the meat packing companies that supply meat products to the fast food industry. It is neccessary to point out here that most of American fast food is categorized as non vegetarian.

The movie's storyline revolves around 5 characters namely, a mexican illegal immigrant couple, a fast food company marketing vice president, a supervisor in a meat packing factory and a employee at the a fast food joint. It shows the gruesome production line, the cow slaughter, how illegal untrained immigrants are made to work with hazardous equipment and the unhygenic nature of the final product and how the management basically ignores it due to internal company politics or ignorance.

To be frank, I didnt quite understand what issue was the movie trying to talk about? It talked about a range of topics from cattle farming to meat hygiene, from illegal immigration to their exploitation.

My main problem with the movie is it did not make its case. Sure, the companies speed up production line to increase production at the cost of hygene, sure they exploit illegal mexican immigrants, but is that any different from what the other big companies do in the name of competition? I am not a big meat fan, or beef or fish fan for that matter, but i was unconvinced about the movie. I feel the movie relied heavily on shock value of the cows getting butchered and that is very dissapointing. Extensive research and a good script can put across the same point to the public in a better manner.

Everybody realises that animals are slaughtered commercially to feed billions worldwide daily. It was indeed neccessary to bring the subject to people's attention. But the movie didn't quite achieve what it hoped to achieve. In recent times hollywood movies have handled issues such as politics, racism, POW from afghanistan with deep insight. This movie failed to live upto my expectations.

In conclusion I would give the movie 4/10.

The great epics, fact or fiction?

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:49:00 +0000

Mythology, it is said, often has its roots in reality. Or, does it? Take the great epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, for instance. The tantalising question that crops up time and again is whether the events mentioned in these epics actually happened? Did the characters described in them actually exist? How much of the epics is fiction and how much history?

There is sufficient evidence available now to suggest that Krishna was indeed a historical figure, who lived about 5000 years ago. This evidence is not just literary but also archaeological, geographical as well as astronomical."

We now know more about Krishna than about any other ancient figure with the arguable exception of Rama. Even about Rama, there is significant information available to prove that he was a historical personality, claims Pushkar Bhatnagar, author of the book, Dating the era of Lord Ram.

Researchers say that the clues to the authenticity of the Ramayana and its characters have been provided by Valmiki himself. "Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana, was a contemporary of Rama. While narrating the events of the epic, he has mentioned the position of planets in the sky at several places.

Using recent planetary software, it has been possible to verify that these planetary positions actually took place precisely as specified in the Ramayana. Not just a stray event but the entire sequence of the planetary positions as described by Valmiki at various stages of Rama's life can be verified today as having taken place," he says.

This information is significant, since these configurations do not repeat for lakhs of years and cannot be manipulated or imagined so accurately, without the help of sophisticated software. The inference that one can draw is that someone was present there to witness the actual happening of these configurations, which got recorded in the story of Rama.

Similar literary evidence abounds for the existence of Krishna. This is because ancient authors have taken enormous pains to preserve accounts of Krishna's life, times and philosophy even if they did embellish some details like the presence of Radha, who was probably never a historical figure. Beginning with the Mahabharata, there are numerous works belonging to the tradition of itihaas-puraan or religious texts, which when viewed objectively, reveal several other facts about the man, which have to be sifted from later mythological additions to his personality.He emerges as a human figure a practical philosopher par excellence who moved away from the ritualistic practices of the Vedic religion of his time to the action-oriented Sankhya philosophy, embodied in his philosophy of karma yoga of the Bhagavad Gita, which till date remains his transcendent legacy. Contrary to popular imagination, which portrays him as a romantic hero, the image of Krishna that we get from ancient sources is that of an impeccable statesman. He was an austere and studious man, whose main concerns were political stability and ethical and religious reform.

There are a number of non-sectarian, secular works like Panini's grammar and the Chandogya Upanishad which mention Krishna and provide independent support for his historicity, according to Rajaram. Further clinching literary evidence is the reference to Krishna as an asura in contemporary Buddhist works like Sutrapitaka and Lalitavistara.

The very fact that Buddhists of the time who viewed Krishna's teachings of nishkama karma (detached action) as inimical to their own teachings, emphasising renunciation found it necessary to try to discredit him by referring to him as an asura shows that he was recognised as a historical figure even by them.

Geographical evidence for the epics is also abundant, says Bhatnagar. There still exist many places like Rameshwaram, Kishkindha, Kurukshetra, Hastinapura etc where the visits of Rama and Krishna are part of local folklore, he says.

If the epics are indeed true, which period of history can they be placed? In all probability, the society described in the Mahabharata corresponded to the early Harappan period, before 3000 BC, since this period was a rich one with numerous urban centres, while the society described in the Ramayana was less urbanised and more agrarian.

Most scholars today place the Mahabharata war around 3100 BC. The Mahabharata also states that Brihadbala, 32nd in descent from Rama, was killed by Arjuna's son, Abhimanyu in the war. So we may tentatively place Rama 650 to 750 years before the war," says Rajaram.

According to Bhatnagar however, a period of at least 2000 years separates the two personalities. "This is because on the basis of astronomical dating, we can now say that Rama lived during the 5th century BC, while Krishna is believed by scholars like Aryabhatta to have belonged to the 3rd century BC."

But, why is there not much archaeological evidence that points towards their existence? Because such an effort has not been made in India and systematic excavations have never been carried out, says historian Nandita Krishnan.

"Nobody believed that Homer's Iliad was a true story till Troy was discovered after extensive archaeology. Unfortunately, the sites of the Ramayana and Mahabharata have now been built over many times and it may never be possible to excavate extensively either at Ayodhya or Mathura," she adds.

Lack of archaeological evidence is no excuse for denying the existence of history, sums up Bhatnagar. "If the buildings of that time over 7000 years ago do not exist today, can we just infer that civilisations and personalities of that time also did not exist?"

300, The Battle Of Thermopylae

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:16:00 +0000

There is an ongoing buzz about the movie 300 based on the battle of thermopylae. Heres a historical background about the actual battle.

In the Battle of Thermopylae of 480 BC, an alliance of Greek city-states fought the invading Persian army at the pass of Thermopylae in central Greece. Vastly outnumbered, the Greeks held back the enemy in one of the most famous last stands of history. A small force led by King Leonidas of Sparta blocked the only road through which the massive army of Xerxes I could pass. After three days of battle a local resident named Ephialtes betrayed the Greeks, revealing a mountain path that led behind the Greek lines. Dismissing the rest of the army, King Leonidas stayed behind with 300 Spartans and 700 Thespian volunteers. Knowing it meant their own deaths, they held their position and secured the retreat of the other Greek forces. The Persians succeeded in taking the pass but sustained heavy losses, extremely disproportionate to those of the Greeks. The fierce resistance of the Spartan-led army offered Athens the invaluable time to prepare for a naval battle that would come to determine the outcome of the war.[1] The subsequent Greek victory in the Battle of Salamis left much of the Persian navy destroyed. Xerxes was forced to flee to Asia and left his army in Greece under Mardonius, who was to meet the Greeks in battle for one last time. The Spartans and other Greek allies assembled at full strength and decisively defeated the Persians in the Battle of Plataea, putting an end to the Greco-Persian War and with that, Persian expansion into Europe.

Thus King Leonidas took charge of his personal fighting unit, the 300 Spartans, and headed to Thermopylae. Leonidas was idolised by his men. He was convinced that he was going to certain death, and that his forces were not adequate for a victory. He selected only men who had fathered sons that were old enough to take over the family responsibilities.

What happened next is a remarkable testament of discipline, both mental and physical, courage, strategic planning and organisation. The Phocians and Locrians along with the spartan contingent decided to defend Thermopylae against the invading Persian army and send for more help. The persian army was vast in number and Xerxes mocked the size of the resistance.

Xerxes sent in the Medes who had been only recently conquered by the Persians perhaps, as Diodorus Siculus suggested,[14] because he wanted them to bear the brunt of the fighting.What followed was a total dominance by the spartan army. The Persians, armed with arrows and short spears, could not break through the long spears of the Greek phalanx, nor were their lightly armoured men a match for the superior armour, weaponry and discipline of the Greek hoplites.The king eventually withdrew the Medes. Having taken the measure of the enemy he threw the best troops he had into a second assault: the Immortals, an elite corps of 10,000 men. But Being able to approach the Greek line only in such numbers as the space allowed, the Immortals succeeded no better than the Medes. Xerxes had to withdraw them as well.

It was not until the spartans were betrayed by a greek traitor Ephialtes that Xerxes found a way around Thermopylae behind the spartan lines.When Leonidas learned of the persian advance, he called a council at dawn. During the council some Greeks argued for withdrawal in the face of the overwhelming Persian advance, while others pledged to stay. After the council, many of the Greek forces did choose to withdraw. Herodotus believed that Leonidas blessed their departure with an order, but he also offered the alternate point of view: that those retreating forces departed without orders. The Spartans had pledged themselves to fight to the death, while the Thebans were held as hostage against their will. However, a contingent of about 700 Thespians, led by general Demophilus, the son of Diadromes, refused to leave with the other Greeks, but cast their lot with the Spartans.The move can also be seen as a calculated strategy to delay the advance of the Persians and cover the retreat of the Greek army.

The Greeks met the persian army in the wider part of the pass, in an attempt to slaughter as many as they could. They fought with spears until every spear was shattered and then switched to xiphoi (short swords). In this struggle Herodotus tells us that two brothers of Xerxes fell, Abrocomes and Hyperanthes. Leonidas also died in the assault. This marked the end of the battle of thermoplylae.

The simultaneous naval Battle of Artemisium was a stalemate, whereupon the Athenian navy retreated. The Persians were now in control of the Aegean Sea and all of peninsular Greece as far south as Attica. The Spartans prepared to defend the Isthmus of Corinth and the Peloponnese, while Xerxes sacked an evacuated city of Athens, whose inhabitants had already fled to Salamis Island. In September the Greeks defeated the Persians at the naval Battle of Salamis, which led to the rapid retreat of Xerxes. The remaining Persian army, left under the charge of Mardonius, was defeated in the Battle of Plataea by a combined Greek army again led by the Spartans, under the regent Pausanias.

Inflation - behind the jargon

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:15:00 +0000

These days we read about the rising inflationary concerns. Editorials are written, Television primetime is dedicated to it, even the government has to address it by making statements regarding what it is doing to curb it. So let me discuss the inflation phenomenon, what it is, how it impacts us, a brief historical aspect and what is going on currently.

The word “inflation” refers to a general rise in prices measured against a standard level of purchasing power. It is measured by comparing the price of the same good at two different points of time. For example, the wholesale price index consists of 435 commodities data on price level. It is the only general index capturing price movements in a comprehensive way. It is an indicator of movement in prices of commodities in all trade and transactions. It is also the price index which is available on a weekly basis with the shortest possible time lag only two weeks. It is due to these attributes that it is widely used in business and industry circles and in Government, and is generally taken as an indicator of the rate of inflation in the economy. It is imperative that the index is put on as sound a footing as possible.

Inflation arises out demand supply mismatch, it is as simple as that. When the demand of a particular good outweighs the supply, or vice versa, the pricing of the good adjusts to restore balance between the two. The former leads to inflation while the latter leads to deflation. Inflation is considered healthy for the economy if it is kept in reasonable bounds. The reason for this is that it is difficult to renegotiate some prices, and particularly wages, downwards. So with generally increasing prices it is easier for relative prices to adjust. Inflation is also viewed as a hidden risk pressure that provides an incentive for those with savings to invest them as money left idle will eventually have its value eroded over time. With a person earning a handsome return on his investment, he can keep at par or even beat the rising goods prices.

However, unmoderated inflation can cause mayhem in the economy. For example, people on fixed incomes are the worst effected since their incomes are not adjusted upwards and hence do not account for the change in cost of living. Hence their standards of living go down. Also, inflation can lead to a demand for wage hikes. In such a scenario, a strike can lead to further tightening on the supply side leading to an increase in the inflationary pressure. It is a fact that with industries such as petroleum and essentials such as wheat, sugarcane and pulses, event the slightest supply side constraints can have a deep impact on inflation.

Coming to ways of moderating inflation, this is done mainly by setting the lowest interest rate in an economy - the discount rate at which banks can borrow from the central bank. We must keep in mind that inflation is a demand supply mismatch. Increasing interest rates encourages people to save rather than spend. At the same time liquidity available for the corporate sector is sucked out as the rate of interest at which they borrow money is increased. The subsequent unemployment and the decline of production prevent price increases. Changing interest rates is however a short term measure. In the long run, inflation can be controlled only by removing supply side bottlenecks, preventing hoarding and increasing productivity.

In the Indian context, the inflation had reached an alarming peak over the last few days. Inflation for the previous week was at 6.63%. However as per latest data released by the RBI on 02.03.07, the rate of inflation has dropped to 6.05% after touching a two year peak of 6.73% on week ended Feb 3. Now that the inflationary pressure is easing, it is interesting to note the measures taken that brought about this swift response. The economic survey had the following to report and recommend about the inflation on the 28.02.07 "The pressure of prices will persist during the year because of short supply of essentials, and firm international prices.On the other hand, demand is being fed by high growth, the surge in reserve money because of foreign inflows, the rise in money supply and the huge increase in credit. The impact of duty cuts and the Reserve bank's policies will be felt in the days to come. But unless supply of essentials is increased, inflation will not be fully tamed." The survey called for increase in domestic production of staples like rice, wheat, cooking oils and pulses through better technology. It says, in the short run, there will be a gap between the remunerative price paid to farmers and fair price to consumers but these should not translate into increased food subsidy. Clearly supply side was unable to satisfy the demand created by increasing liquidity in the market.

Two main steps were taken to redress these issues. Firstly the Cash Reserve Ratio(CRR) was increased by 25 basis points in two steps. This lead to an immediate curbing of liquidity in the market as the amount of funds available for the banks became less. In lieu of decreasing liquidity the rate of interest on loans went up. Secondly the finance minister, in order to provide a long term permanant solution, took several steps in the annual budget to promote agricultural growth and set a target of 4% for it. Several schemes were proposed and money allocated for spending over the agriculture sector. These steps, if properly implemented, should remove supply side problems that cause our economy to overheat during high growth periods. Already the CRR hike has tempered down the inflation rate to 6.05% according to latest figures.

I hope the above discussion has been insightful.

When Will Bush Grow Up

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:06:00 +0000

It is a timeless saying that the biggest fool is a person(s) who keeps making the same mistake again and again without realizing the error of his actions and makes no effort whatsoever to correct it. This best describes the actions of the Bush administration which despite being comprised of learned and educated, is forgetting such a fundamental principle which is taught in Kindergarten, at a time when it is the most important for it to reflect on its past fiascos.

The mismanagement of the middle-east power politics by the United States and its allies has resulted in a crisis that has already led to civilian and military deaths and destruction of property. Arrogantly, the same administration is now lobbying for a war with Iran even though support for sending additional troops to Iraq is fading away.

The United States attacked Afghanistan starting October 1 2001, post the 9/11 tragedy. Its aim was to wage a war on terror, oust the Taliban and find al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The war began less than a month after the WTC tragedy which goes about to show the military planning that went into the war during the buildup stage. Despite the retreat of the Taliban and the establishment of an Islamic, democratic, pro American government, the region is far from peaceful. Seven years later Afghanistan is plagued by suicide attacks, clashes between US troops, Afghanistan army and the Taliban and civilian deaths.There also seems to be no sign of Osama Bin Laden or any information regarding his fate. Also according to recent reports, the Taliban is planning resurgence with 10000 strong combat ready forces. It reports to have 2000 suicide bombers ready with another 3000 in training camps.

Not much different is the story of Iraq and the Gulf war II. What began as a search for WMD's and providing regional Energy security has now escalated into an imminent civil war. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, at the moment there are 5 wars taking place in Iraq. "...Sunni's against Shiites, Sunni's and Shiites against the US occupiers, al-qaida against the US, Shiite theocratic thugs against ordinary Shiites and the Arab autocrats against any kind of democratic Shiite led Iraq...". The civilian population is caught in the midst. In the united press international reported survey, 90% of Iraqi's feel the situation of the country was better before the US-Led invasion than it is today felt that they are in a worst state now than they were in the pre American Invasion. Also nearly half favored an immediate withdrawal where as 20% favored phased withdrawal. Despite this being the Iraqi sentiment, Bush and Co. are lobbying in the congress for additional troops for Iraq, contrary to what the Iraqi's want.

There is another recent development on the North Korean front in which negotiations, not war, have succeeded in averting a nuclear face off between the US, Japan & North Korea. Pyongyang has promised to shut down the Yongbyon reactor within 60 days in exchange for 50,000 tons of fuel oil. Though it has taken over 3 years to reach an agreement, this initial breakthrough could lead to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the reduction of tensions in northeast Asia. Nevertheless, in view of North Korea's track record, further talks would be handled carefully by the six nations.

The three examples above demonstrate that war does not provide energy security. It only accomplishes in destabilizing a region, upsetting the political balance and derailing the process of societal growth and human development. Regional stability is fundamental to energy security. This is because investment is directly related to risk and a region which is politically unstable will be a risky investment for any oil companies. Persistent open minded negotiations achieve what war fails to achieve. Such negotiations and regional cooperation is the key to providing a continuous and secure energy supply.

But the White House does not want to learn from its mistakes. It wants to take its arsenal of black hawks and F 19's to Iran. It wants to destabilize the region further, it wants another Afghanistan and Iraq on its hands. It is indeed unfortunate that such fools exist, especially when they are gambling with the lives of people, their livelihood and their economies. It is time for Bush to grow up, to give up his bully ways before he has the blood of another hundred thousand on his hands. But the way things have gone in the past, this seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

War, what is it good for?

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:10:00 +0000

I would like to comment on the recent Israeli attack on Palestine and Hezbollah controlled Lebanon and the corresponding stand taken by the rest of the world.

US and Israel are allies and both have been in the recent past involved in armed conflicts. For the former it was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and for the latter it has been the military action taken in response to the abduction of its soldiers.

I see a reflection of hypocrisy in the response of the international community to these recent events.

The US began its war on terror after the tragic events of 9/11 that brought terrorism to American soil. It began with the Afghanistan campaign and the establishment of a government there. However, after Afghanistan, the focus shifted to Iraq. The Americans invaded Iraq in the name of "weapons of mass destruction", "a direct threat to the US", "aiding and abetting terrorism" and "human rights violation". Now, in the post invasion scenario, terrorism is just as active as before with American soldiers being the targets of resistance attacks. Human rights are still being with instances of sexual abuse by American soldiers and also innocent civilians being killed in the line of fire between the Americans and the local resistance.

It is key to note that as a prologue to this invasion, there was more than a year of political build up, starting with the UN weapons inspectors to Mr. Bush's visits abroad to convince allies and was concluded with a promise to raise the standards of living of the Iraqi's. Also, before the invasion, Iraq had never in any way posed as a direct threat to the US raising several questions as to the necessity of the invasion. Post gulf war II, I donÂt think it would be wrong to say that Mr. Bush has not lived up to his words pertaining to the post war rehabilitation of Iraq.

Coming to the more recent Israeli operations, in this case the Israeli were directly provoked into a conflict by the Palestinian militia and the Hezbollah. The consequence has been pretty much the same as in the case of the Iraq with Israel responding in kind. Air strikes, armed conflicts and the civilians ending up being the ultimate victims. In Israel's case the international community has been highly critical asking the country to stop its military action and announce a ceasefire in the name of preventing a humanitarian disaster.

My question is " Has Iraq not become a humanitarian disaster of the same proportion as Beirut may become ?" Couldn't the international community foresee the outcome of an invasion of Iraq despite having the recent precedent of Afghanistan before them to scrutinize and evaluate? Why wasn't America stopped then and why is Israel being asked to back down now when it is fighting for the security of its people which is directly under threat?

I must clarify at this point that I am in no way condoning or opposing Israel's actions in the middle east. I am merely pointing out a fallacy in the double standards of the international community when it comes to the stand taken by them in response to global human tragedies.

The fact, as I see it, is simple, the world hasn't learned much from WWII. The policy of appeasement and the diplomatic mistakes made by the European powers, such as England and France, then pertaining to Germany and their policy of appeasement are being repeated again after half a century. It is truly unfortunate that the value of life varies from region to region and people in high places can, at times, entirely override life's worth, by their own political games. The bottom-line is in case of Iraq is that it was all about the hunger of oil and everything else said was to blanket this fact. For various political and economic reasons, it had become necessary for the US to invade Iraq so as to divert attention of the American public from much needed economic reforms, to secure oil reserves for the American oil companies, to gain dominance in the oil rich middle east, etc. And the world sat back and watched Iraq being "liberated" saying to themselves that humanity is fighting for such a noble cause.

And now that Israel is directly being threatened by its neighbors and it is striking back at them, then it is being urged to stop in the name of humanity!! For them, it is a question of survival more than greed for any natural resource, with its aggressive neighbors hell bent on its destruction.

I feel war in any form, on any scale, between anybody is a human tragedy. Be it war on terror, jihad or open warfare, it must be condoned and discouraged. It must be recognized that human life is as valuable on the equator as on the poles. War can only cause destruction and can never lead to a positive outcome for mankind. The international community, especially the developed nations, must understand this and accept this and in the future act more responsibly.

Oil and the world

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:33:00 +0000

Oil is the modern world's most needed resource. It is a resource created by nature over several millenia and one that will be most probably be squandered away by humanity in less than a century. It is a resource that has dictated modern international diplomacy and politics, a resource now on the verge of extinction. I think it is time to look back at the way we have manifested this resource, how political games have been played and wars been fought under the cover of a philanthropic cause.

Oil has been, till now, the driving force behind our industries. It has fulfilled human energy needs for several decades. In fact, several economic models measure a country's growth and economy by the amount of oil it consumes. From automobiles to kitchen gas to industrial usage, it wouldnt be wrong to say that oil as a source of energy has some influence on all our lives. So I cant understand why doesnt anybody today ask the question "What after Oil ?" Is it such a difficult global scenario to analyse or is it simply that we want to be like an ostrich, wishing the problem would simply go away.

Instead of planning for a future for the coming generations, we have focussed our attention on gaining maximum control of the resource and passing the problem to the have not's. The problem is not mine or yours, but is something that will effect everybody, the whole mankind. This is an eventuality no one can deny and the solution can only be reached together.

Consider this, the proposed American budget for the Iraq war was $70-80 billion, but so far has cost $290 billion with Mr Bush always keen on asking the congress for additional funds. $290 billion, thats almost equivalent to the entire value of Microsoft. Had even a fraction of the above funds been diverted to research regarding improving efficiency of energy generation, improvements in harnessing alternate sources of energy and funding fusion research programmes, the solution to our energy problems would have been with us and there for our future generations.

Instead, let us see how the problem has actually been handled. It has been clear from events of the past few decades, that the foresight of the American leaders foretold the coming shortage and eventual exctinction of oil. It is indeed commendable that while the entire world was involved in developing their economies, solving regional disputes, maybe even a war or two, the largest global economy was cleverly, posing as a philanthropist, securing oil rights in the middle east through their oil companies through diplomatic and military means. US has always backed Israel, the regional superpower in the Gulf. Besides there were the Gulf Wars to gain dominance in Iraq and a direct strong hold in the region. Also through NATO, America has always enjoyed an upper hand in the region with its military bases and troops. The American Oil companies are extremely dominant in the middle east and american military presence there ensures safety of american investment in Saudi Arabia. And all this has been achieved after several decades of calculated political maneuvering and capitalising on every oppurtunity that comes their way.

What troubles me though is the fact, that where ever the quest for oil has taken the US, there has been nothing but suffering and bloodshed for both the americans and the natives. The defenders of the world have not been true to their self appointed job. And the American people have been blatantly ignorant of their leader's lies and the media has been superficial, even biased at times in their coverage of these historic conflicts. Instead of acting as a responsible superpower, the country has ended up creating a mess. The war on Iraq has crossed over its allocated budget, with no repreive in sight. War on terror is a total disaster, with resentment to american presence in the region gaining momentum and american troops being targeted everywhere. Also the so called, elected governments established by the americans are weak and unstable. People are paying with their lives so American capitalists can reap the fruit.

Meanwhile, the American economy is in a terrible state, with the inflation and the trade deficit touching new heights. With rising interest rates, mortgage and home finance, which has been the american golden goose, is now heading for a decline. The government has failed to create jobs in the economy with multinationals outsourcing to upcoming countries like China and India to increase their profit margins. Clearly the americans have not taken into consideration the consequences of globalisation and the increasing interdependence of the American and upcoming economies as consumer and producer. Hence, eventually the solution lies only in cooperation and mutual co existance and that will eventually be the key to the survival of our civilisation.

However, in the current scenario, I see no end to this senseless quest fuelled by arrogance and lack of respect for human life. What is going to be the outcome of this whole chrade. Once this resource is finished, once the wars over controlling oil have been fought, once several million lives have been lost, we will be back where we were at the turn of the 19th. But by then it would be too late and it would all be over. What then??

Welcome to my blog

noreply@blogger.com (Oojwal Manglik) — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:29:00 +0000

Hi visitor,

Thanks for visiting my blog. I have created this blog to post my views on global events pertaining to politics, buisness, economy and humanity.

Thanks a ton

Oojwal Manglik