Must end-users end up as fools?

Breakfast at terrorist-decorated Taj, with Ratan Tata and Mukesh Ambani on either side -- what triumphant symbolism to crown Hillary Clinton’s public relations tour de force in India. But did it work? It did make possible one impossibility; uniting the BJP and the Communists in a common cause. They were equally agitated, as indeed were some ruling party MPs, over the “hidden details” of the agreements the American lady finalised with our Government.

What offended them, and a lot of others, was the way America insists on American laws overriding the laws of other sovereign nations. They want our business – billions of dollars worth military equipment. But when we buy them, we must also buy the superiority of American laws which demand the right of inspection by American officials of our equipment and their deployment. Even the Indian Prime Minister’s special aircraft is subject to American inspection/approval from time to time because a US company supplied it.

The problem here is an attitude of mind. Remember the saying, “What is good for General Motors is good for the world”. Well, it now stands proved that it was not even good for General Motors which has collapsed. But the attitude of mind has not changed. What the US Congress resolves for America is binding on the world.

There is a further problem. The high-falutin attitude works only with orderly countries that have their own functioning parliamentary and legal systems. It never worked with Pakistan, for example. Massive quantities of American arms were supplied to Pakistan to strengthen its democratic forces. But most of the weaponry was used against India. America did not or could not take action under its end-user laws. Pakistan is smart enough to know that America recognises only West-ward looking terrorists. So they mounted a serious campaign against the Swat Talibans and won applause from the likes of Hillary. Which left Pakistan free to carry on merrily with east-ward looking terrorists. (V.K.Krishna Menon used to scorn Americans for assuming that their guns supplied to Pakistan could only fire in one direction).

Why is it that India appears unable to call this kind of bluff? Is it just a matter of Manmohan Singh’s avowed admiration for America? Or is there, additionally, a lingering colonial mentality in our bowing to the West as a matter of habit?

Our history since independence is studded with events that suggest such a predilection on our part. We internationalised the Kashmir issue (when there was no need to do so) because Nehru was easily influenced by the Mountbattens. Imagine China taking the Tibet issue to the UN. In 1994 in the wake of the Bhopal gas tragedy, we allowed Union Carbide boss Anderson to walk free. Indian law was rendered toothless. In 1995 after a foreign aircraft dropped arms in the remote area of Purulia, five Latvian and one British crew were finally sentenced. But all of them were given executive pardon and allowed to go home. Will the American system allow any such leniency to jailed fashion designer Anand Jon who is widely believed to have been framed by business rivals in Los Angeles?

Six decades after independence, we are still to learn how to stand up for our dignity. Imagine how dramatically equations will change if we do a few things the American way. Give our business, for example, to European suppliers of weapons and nuclear plants who do not have humiliating end-user specifications. And ensure that a departing American dignitary or two are body-searched at our airport. That’s a language that will be instantly understood.

Diffident us V/s combative them

.

By any standard, the violence against Indian students in Australia is nasty business. What lends an astonishing edge to it is the Indian Government’s routine, pedestrian, unfeeling handling of it. Indeed, non-assertiveness seems to be a characteristic of the Manmohan-Sonia leadership.

By contrast, Australia took a combative position. First, police bosses remained almost indifferent, refusing to see any racial angle in the repeated attacks on Indian students. At the political level, high-ranking leaders chose to express themselves against violence in general terms while declaring Australia as “the safest country in the world” for students.

On top of this exercise in nationalistic self-justification, the Australian Prime Minister turned provocative last week. He indirectly accused unnamed Indian politicians of seeking to inflame passions. And then he said that Australians in India had also been violently attacked. In the last decade, he said, there were 20 such cases.

Ill-advised words from an inexperienced Prime Minister. White thugs in Australia may well interpret this belligerence as a call to even up the score. (Against 20 Australians attacked in India, only a dozen Indians have so far been attacked in Australia. So another eight can “legitimately” be attacked. Then what about the interest outstanding from a decade ago?)

The strongest statement from the Indian Prime Minister is that “we are appalled” by the attacks. The External Affairs Minister wasn’t even appalled; he just asked Indian students to “concentrate on their studies”. What a noble race we are, combining the virtues of Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ, and turning the other cheek to our tormentors.

Just as Indian students are contributing massively to Australian economy today, Malaysian students were the mainstay of British revenues from education in the 1980’s. Seeing it an easy way to boost the national income, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ordered a big increase in the fees of overseas students. Malaysian families felt cheated and exploited. Their Government then announced the “Look East” policy. Imports from and industrial collaboration with Britain were cut down significantly and Japan given preferential treatment. Hit where it hurt, the famous Iron Lady lost her iron and withdrew the fees increase on Malaysian students.

Malaysia then was governed by neither Mahatma Gandhi nor Jesus Christ, but by the no-nonsense Mahathir Mohammed. He was feared by the West but admired by Malaysians whose quality of life reached international standards during the twenty years of his stewardship. Manmohan Singh is loved by the West, especially by the likes of George Bush. So they feel free to do what is in their national interest and ask us to tag along. And we do.

Even Indian business houses show more assertiveness. From Arcelor to Jaguar, world famous companies have become Indian-owned against stiff resistance. Indian entrepreneurs seldom receive the governmental backing American and Japanese companies routinely receive. In fact, companies like Essar and Reliance have faced problems in major markets like Iran because of American pressure and lack of counterveiling Indian support.

Developing an Indian presence in the Iranian oil scenario would have pointedly benefited India’s national interest. But we surrendered to American national interests even on the critical Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. America’s policy towards Iran may get friendly tomorrow. By then we will have been overtaken by China and Russia and even Europe on the Iranian oil front.

Why is our national leadership so diffident? Even as they talk of India as an emerging world power, why do they buckle under small-time Australian goons? Why do they forget that even the Christian George Bush never turned the other cheek? He gave’m hell.

.

Crime without punishment?

.

Michael Conahan & Mark Ciavarella, leave the federal courthouse in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on Thursday, Feb. 12, 2009. Prosecutors say Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan took $2.6 million in payoffs to put juvenile offenders in lockups run by PA Child Care LLC and a sister company, Western PA Child Care LLC. (Photo: www.reflector.com)


We know to our cost that democracy breeds corruption. Because it happens at all levels and at all times in India, we think this is an Indian phenomenon. But watch the scene for a few weeks and we'll see how even America, the "land of the free," is gripped by corruption.

Voluntary organisations like Countercurrents and Social Conscience may sometimes exaggerate their case. The headline of one of their articles is: "America is spelt c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n." But they make their point. The power of lobbies is so great that the entire political structure is open to manipulation. Lobbying is legally recognised and has become perhaps the biggest industry in Washington DC. It works by offering all kinds of incentives to legislators. Naturally a tradition developed whereby America was run by its giant corporations. There are also political influence groups like the Jewish lobby and the Gun lobby. Even in medical and legal fields bribery is recognised as a serious problem.

But America does not drown in this sea. It stays afloat. The reason is that very often the guilty get punished. Richard Nixon was forced to resign. George Bush has become a detested figure rivaled only by his Vice President Dick Cheney who is seen as an evil genius who masterminded the Iraq war for personal profit.

True, these men were not punished as they should have been. Nixon was granted a full pardon by Gerald Ford who succeeded him. This meant that he was never prosecuted for his criminalities. Bush and Cheney will not be brought before the International Court or the War Crimes Tribunal to be tried for the killings and tortures they ordered.

These may be seen as an exception the American system allows for their presidents. At other levels, however, punishments follow crime. One big reason is that career civil servants function independently of politicians. Upon coming to power, a party does not start transferring civil servants to suit its political agenda. US attorneys in particular are known to pursue investigations without political pressure.

Not long ago, the Mayor of Detroit (mayors and governors in the US are executives with power over the police) was sent to jail for 99 days for corruption and assault. The Governor of Illinois was impeached out of office for bribery. There was no attempt to provide escape routes for these men. Nor was there any strategem to put a Rabri Devi in office when a Lalu Prasad was found guilty.

In a sensational case last month, two judges were arrested for kickbacks. This is a uniquely American case. There are private prisons in America run by private companies for profit. The profit depends on enough people being sentenced to jail. One judge in Pennsylvania conspired to get the necessary licence for the jail
concerned. The other judge began sentencing under-age children to prison even for minor offences like making fun of a teacher. The ironically named PA Child Care prison was soon full, each inmate paying $314 per day. The judges got more than $2 million in kickbacks. Now both will get seven years in jail, lose their pensions and face prosecutions by hundreds of families whose children had their lives ruined by the criminal judgements.

Another judge in Mississippi, arrested for corruption, was produced in jail in handcuffs and leg chains.

Several judges in India have been implicated in corruption cases. One was even impeached. But all escaped punishment. America's blessing is that exemplary punishment to the corrupt keep people's faith in the system alive. Countries that allow criminals to escape destroy the very system that sustains them.

Related Story: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges
.

Bush is not Clinton; Singh is not Sen

.

George Bush for Bharat Ratna! The Congress Party's official spokesman floated this balloon publicly in Delhi, so it may well come true. It may be the Congress's idea of honouring Bush. But it will also dishonour the people of India in the eyes of the world. What's more, it will dishonour the people of the United States who have persistently declared their strong disapproval of the man. How cut off from public opinion can the Congress be.

Fortunately, G.B. himself is saying nothing, doing nothing these days. That's not the American style. Bill Clinton is still in the centre of things. Jimmy Carter even got a Nobel Prize for his global activities.

What ex-Presidents usually do is write their memoirs. Clinton wrote a rather indifferent one, but got 10 to 12 million dollars for his effort. Then he hit the highly paying speech circuit. For one of those "leadership summits" in Delhi he was paid $150,000 by an Indian publishing group. Ronald Reagan made $2 million from a single speaking tour of Japan.

In America there are professional agents who arrange these book and speech deals. They have assessed that there is no demand for Bush in these fields. Remember, on retirement his most memorable statement was that when he looked into the mirror the next morning, he was going to like what he saw. Who wants to hear or read such self-justifying drivel? (Except Congress patriots in Delhi.)

Not that Bush is going to be hard up. He is a wealthy man anyway. George Washington was wealthy enough to decline his annual salary of $25,000 (600,000 in today's terms). John Kennedy donated all his remuneration to charities.

But being able to earn well after retirement is nowadays a matter of prestige. Bush can still make a few millions through what is called private equity consultancy. This is a system by which crony capitalists pay politicians sumptuously for opening doors and providing connections. Henry Kissinger is still making good money through this route.

Indian politicians are denied any of these recognised means of making money. That may be why kickbacks have become their preferred route. That may also be why none of them retires. The only Prime Minister after Nehru who tried to become an author was P.V.Narasimha Rao. But he made no great impact with his "Insider" tales. The likes of Morarji Desai wrote empty memoirs which people did not even become aware of.

This may be linked to the generally uneducated status of our politicians. Even in the Nehru family, Jawaharlal was an exception. From Motilal to Indira to Rajiv to Sanjay, nobody finished a university course and nobody was intellectually inclined. Narasimha Rao was a scholar. But the politician in him crippled the intellectual in him.

Manmohan Singh, highly educated and highly intellectual, has the capacity to write a few books that would be valuable historically. But he won't. The politician in him has grown so much that he wouldn't dream of rocking any boat, let alone Soniaji's. Our only hopes lie with the Amartya Sens who are free of political dependence and therefore give us some food for our souls.

When patriotism is negotiable

.

Rolls-Royces and Rolexes sell well in India and private jets and yachts are becoming common. Yet the country is teeming with slumdogs.

One reason for our lack of real progress is that our policy makers enjoy the good life. It’s not just corruption. The Chinese establishment is profoundly corrupt. But when it comes to China versus the world, even the corrupt Chinese official cannot be bought.

In our country some of the seniormost ministers in Jawaharlal Nehru’s Cabinet were implicated with the American spy agency, CIA. Top-rung IAS mandarins have been known to serve the interests of other countries in return for a post-retirement job in the World Bank.

Even in routine everyday matters our lives are at risk because the patriotism of our rulers is sometimes negotiable. Drugs that are banned in the West are openly sold in India. Toxic electronic waste from Western countries is regularly transported to Asian countries for disposal. A shipload of municipal waste from New York City was recently dumped in Kochi. New medicines that cannot be tested on American citizens because of strictly enforced regulations are tried out on Indian citizens because regulations here are either absent or ignored.

There was a report not long ago that India was planning to lift its ban on asbestos mining. Now, asbestos is a Category One cancer agent. There is no known safety net against it. Once inhaled, the fibres lodge permamently in lung tissues and cannot be removed. Naturally 40 countries have banned the use of asbestos.

Some of these countries are selfish. Canada for example bans asbestos use domestically but exports it to India where there is no ban on usage. Now we know why so many buildings come up in our country with asbestos roofing that directly exposes those under it to cancer. The danger will become more widespread if the ban on asbestos mining is also lifted.

Monsanto, notorious for producing dubious GE (genetically engineered) seeds, has been physically expelled from most European countries. In India it flourishes through a subsidiary, Mahyco. They began with Bt.cotton which, despite all the claims by the company, caused widespread disruptions in many parts of the country.

Now they have turned to staples like rice and brinjal. If these go GE, they will grow only with the special seeds the company produces. A company with a monopoly on these seeds will have India at its mercy.

Field testing of Bt. Brinjal is done sometimes secretly, sometimes in defiance of such regulations as exist. Agriculture ministers in West Bengal and Karnataka were not informed when critical field trials of GE were conducted in their states. Following government-funded research studies, several European countries banned GE food. But an agricultural scientist in Karnataka where Bt. Brinjal is being tested said he was not aware of the ban. Isn’t it his business to be aware? The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Government of India said Europe’s action “is being studied”. If the study is still going on, how did Mehyco receive approval for seed production?

Even in America, the home of Monsanto, there are strict regulations that force companies to state clearly that a product is genetically engineered. In India, we are denied even the basic right to know whether we are eating nature’s brinjal, or brinjal with strains of pesticide that go into our blood stream. Human lives are valuable in America – but negotiable in India.

Obama: Do we expect too much?

.

No American President in living memory has generated the kind of international excitement that Barak Obama has. We can almost say that he has assumed office not as President of the United States of America but as President of the United States of the World.

This is risky for him. When expectations are so high and so many, can any human being meet them? When the world is in such a complicated mess, can any one person solve even half its problems? When hopes are too high, disappointments come too fast. Will the world’s honeymoon with this new kind of leader prove to be just that – a honeymoon?

Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are the two American presidents with whom Obama has already been compared. There is good reason for that. In their time, Lincoln and Roosevelt faced unprecedented challenges and rose to the occasion. People wanted a healing leadership after the civil war that devastated America; Lincoln provided it. People wanted visionary initiatives to save the country from the catastrophe of the Great Depression; Roosevelt provided them.

Obama faces both these challenges. Americans today want a unifier and healer after the terribly divisive war years of George Bush. They also want a saviour who would lift America from the mounting misery of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. In other words, Obama has to be a Lincoln and a Roosevelt rolled into one.

As if that’s not hard enough, he has to be more. The problems Lincoln and Roosevelt faced were entirely domestic. Bush’s America has erased the boundaries between domestic and foreign. Solving American problems today is not separated from solving world problems, and vice versa. Which means that Obama faces challenges no government leader in modern history has faced.

Will he succeed? To put the question in sharper perspective: Will he be superhuman enough to succeed? The short answer is that if anyone can succeed, he will. But that may not be saying much. In today’s chaotic, anarchistic, violent, lawless, madhouse of a world, can anyone succeed?
Two words summed up both the campaign and the presidential profile of Obama – Change and Hope. These two simple, monosyllabic words must be the reason that all countries in the world joined America in its excitement over Obama. For every country in the world wants change – from the politics of corruption, the economy of the rich and poor, the social systems of discrimination. And every country welcomes the slightest glimmer of hope because hoping for a better tomorrow has become the only way to survive.

Obama, unlike any other leader in our times, has held up the message of Change and Hope in a credible manner. People in Japan and South Africa, in Indonesia and Brazil think that Obama’s success will somehow be their success. This is not entirely a reaction to the Bush years of deception and cruelty. It is rooted in the fact that Obama is a fresh breeze, a man whose sincerity is as impressive as his intellectual talents.

He still has to work under an entrenched system of lobbies, political pressure groups and manipulative power centres such as the Jewish caucus and the evangelicals. His climb will certainly be steep. But he will have one incomparable strength: the backing of Americans, and the people of the world, in greater measure than any American President before. To wish him success is to wish ourselves success.