Umm... hello?

If someone is reading out there... yes, you, you know who you are.... Leave a comment and tell me whether you think this makes sense. Am I among the very few people who think it makes sense to let banks charge whatever they please?

Note: my views are not based on a preference for a bank to bilk the populace, but on (what I think is) sound logic.

Quick prediction...

In years to come, Pramod Muthalik's lawyers will be able to use his widely-stated opinions as part of an insanity-plea defense.

'Each member is a bomb in himself.' Click that link. Along with some horrifying ideas, there is also much to chuckle over....

Umm... the ear??

Dr. Watsa strikes again... where should we be inserting our body parts?

I'm wondering if this is a 'letters to Penthouse' sort of thing in the Mumbai Mirror, people CANNOT be asking these questions in real life.

More soon....

In the meantime, Feliz Neuvo Anno, and all that jazz....

A fitting response.

Bravo! Bravo!

P.s. this is a lesson in good writing. I think I suck, for the most part.

Dazed, tending towards confused

Arundhati Roy is well-known as a Champion of the Left and among best known voices around the globe for 'forgotten people'.  Some people, including me, tend to treat Ms Roy's work as conspiracy theory for some part, justified rabble-rousing on behalf of people impacted by a development agenda for some more part, and the sound of a person in love with her own voice / words for the rest.  

A recent piece by Ms Roy in the Guardian exemplified this third aspect of her speaking / writing (i.e. that she lacks ability or willingness to be succinct).  It left me dazed and confused at the end of multiple readings and re-readings.  I will try to be clear, unlike Ms. Roy.  I did not understand the point (or points) she was trying to make in her 5,000+ word magnum opus.  Brevity may be the soul of many things including wit and lingerie, but it definitely is not the soul of Ms. Roy's writing.  

The problems created by this verbose writing style are only accentuated by a series of seemingly meaningless examples or analogies, some of which are not only meaningless but also incorrect.  Ms Roy has done her homework only partially, if at all.  Good editorial comment-type pieces are not writing by pulling together a bunch of quotes from previous speaking / writing engagements and giving them a bit of 'spit and polish'.  

At the risk of oversimplifying, let me paraphrase what Ms. Roy has said (to the extent I understood it) in shorter, simpler sentences.  Which may not be as hard-hitting as the original material, but hopefully manage to leave the reader focussed on the points which the author set out to make.  All portions in italics are my comments on the point she makes.  

1.  One of the hotels attacked in Mumbai is an icon - 'of the easy, obscene injustice that ordinary Indians endure everyday'.  That war (the one against hunger which ordinary Indian endure everyday) is not this war (the one against the terrorists).  We should deal with this one against terrorists which is on TV.  

2.  When it comes to understanding terrorists, some (Side A) say terrorism is a hateful scourge, which has nothing to do with the rest of the world around it.  Others (Side B) say that it needs to be understood within time, place and political context.  Note that there are people from both Muslim and Hindu communities who carry out outrages like attacking an iconic hotel or perpetrating genocidal acts in Gujarat.  

3.   If she had to choose between Side A and Side B, she'd pick Side B. We always need context. 

Whaa...?  There is no justification for this point of view, which makes the entire previous discussion about Sides and their views blah blah, completely irrelevant.  Irrespective of the fact that I agree with her about context being important, please note that it has taken Ms Roy 874 words to make this point.  Which she has not explained.  

4.  In India, the relevant context is Partition.  India's undertaking to be a secular democracy has been undermined by the presence of Hindu nationalists.  

5.  The US War on terror put wind in the sails of the BJP who were in power at the Centre. It  'allowed them to do exactly as they pleased, even to commit genocide and then present their fascism as a legitimate form of chaotic democracy'.  

Note that the timing in all of this is off.  Ms Roy references the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 and the BJP coming to power in 1998; both of which were well before the War on Terror commenced post 9/11 in 2001.  You can hardly say that the BJP benefited to the extent of being able to form a national government by events that took place 3 years after they formed the government.  

I'm continually impressed through every re-reading of this document at Ms. Roy's brilliance at making the irrelevant remark or providing the inconsequential example of something (I don't quite get what).  A classic here is the mention of the Indian origin of Hafeez Saeed of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the origin in Sind (now Pakistan) of LK Advani.  

6.  Since 2001, for most terrorist attacks in India, the government has blamed the LeT based on 'incontrovertible evidence'.  But this is difficult, if not impossible to prove.  In our bid for the moral high ground, let us not forget that the Indian army has trained the LTTE.

Note the sweetly worked-in snide reference to corporate money in the original article, which is irrelevant.  The reference to the Indian army training the LTTE is complete and utter bollocks.  There is clear evidence of Indian support to a pre-LTTE organisation called the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO) in the mid-1980s (which was subsequently overcome by the LTTE), but the Indian army has never trained the LTTE.  Ask anyone in the IPKF or anyone involved in the Rajiv Gandhi assasination trial; the Indian army did not bankroll / train these people.  

7.  Pakistan is heading towards civil war due to the inconsistencies in their position arising from supporting the Americans.  They started off supporting 'Aghan Islamists' (whatever the term means) in their war against the Soviets and have ended up fighting these people due to Pakistan's support for the US war on terror.  If India decides to go to war against Pakistan at this time, the whole region will descend into chaos.  On the other hand, going into a war with Pakistan will enable the Indian government to avoid the serious trouble building on our home front.  

8.  This was different because since it was on TV, the army could not use tactics it otherwise would have - like ignoring the hostage situation and blowing up the building.  This went on and on and TV ratings soared.  Any TV magnate or corporate advertiser who measures time in airseconds will know what this is worth.  (How is this relevant?  What is the point being made here?)

9.  We cannot understand these attackers because we respect life and cannot understand those who do not even care for their own.  These men don't even care about the fact that their actions will result on a backlash against Muslims in India (a tenuous connection at best).  Terrorism is a heartless ideology and terrorists don't care about collateral damage.  'Islamist terrorists' (there's that term again!) need dead Muslims as the proof of victimhood, which is central to the cause.  

10.  In subsequent analysis, there has been no mention of Kashmir, Gujarat, Babri Masjid.  The death of VP Singh passed without a mention.  (Note: No mention of the other elephants in the room she references earlier - atrocities on Dalits, attacks against Christians, etc.  I love the sheer hypocrisy of conveniently choosing when to use certain examples and when to ignore them).  

11.  Another chapter of horror in Bombay may have begun; the Indian elite attacking politicians, glorifying the army and asking for a police state.  (To put it simply, Ms. Roy is lying.  I think no one from the Bombay elite has asked for a police state.  The only statements regarding imposition of President's rule and creating a police State have come from the Shiv Sena and some BJP politicians in Bihar.  And whoever the Sena may speak for, few people will make the claim that they speak for the elite of Bombay.  A  Google search for 'Mumbai + President's rule' for news articles in the last month did not indicate anything else.  Ms. Roy should back her outrageously sweeping statements with specific facts.)  

12.  This comes at a time when people in India were beginning to see that in terrorism, victims and perpetrators sometimes exchange roles.  Lawyers and activists were raising questions about the 2001 Parliament attacks, which have never been answered.  This holds true for even more recent cases.  However, the Hindu right has become confused regarding its stance on whether it is anti-national to question the police since the Maharashtra ATS claims regarding involvement of Hindu holy men and women  (Sadhvi Pragya, etc.).  

Ms. Roy blames the police for incorrectly arresting / killing in 'encounters', where they find it convenient.  Yet, when the police arrest Hindu terrorists, Ms. Roy is silent about whether these arrests are 'convenient' as well.  I'm not for a minute saying anything about whether the police are right or wrong.  However, Ms. Roy seems to make the exact same error she accusses the Sangh Parivar of making.  To question the action of the police only in the matters in which it is convenient, seems to be deeply flawed and immensely troubling.   

13.  The media, and specifically Arnab Goswami have taken to demonising people  like Ms. Roy who question the police.  This amounts to incitement and threat.  

Incitement? - maybe. But threat?  Really?

14.  The War on Terror has cost the Americans more than it has cost anyone else.  It will not be financially viable to actually make changes to homeland security policy and practice to effectively secure India.  Other solutions like more stern anti-terrorism laws will not work either.  All of this is the result of past decades of sins.  

15.  Our choices are between Justice and Civil War.  We need to choose now.  

Civil war in India seems to be a long shot.  Over six decades of regional / local uprisings have not resulted in the concept of India's integrity being tarnished significantly.  Ms. Roy should consider reading Ramachandra Guha's book, India After Gandhi to understand the irrefutable nature of this particular truth.  From self-immolating individuals in Andhra in the 50s to terrorists who hold up the Taj Mahal hotel, the desire of individuals to make their aspirations and demands heard may have not changed; though their methods of getting attention have.  Yes, Justice needs to be provided.  But this can only be done by reducing the amount of governmental intervention into tasks that are not within the State's remit.  Law and order are undoubtedly the State's concern.  But it serves no one by insisting that our past mistakes should be repaired by the government.  If anything, our experience with governmental intervention should tell us that we should seek to minimise the role of the State and maximise the role of the individual.  Creating equality of opportunity is the most critical of tasks, equality between all social groups in outcomes will then only be a matter of time.  

Notwithstanding the fact that I don't agree with most of the things she says, or that in some matters she plainly lies, the one thing that strikes me the most is that Ms. Roy has taken 5,200+ words to make the same points that I have made in just above 700 words.  It is explicitly clear-a) Ms. Roy just plain wrong in some of these matters and b) she's also taking advantage of the fact that the Guardian seems to pay her on a per-word basis.  

From The Fatal Conceit

'The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.' - Hayek

On the other hand, to not specifically attempt to design is to permit design by the Invisible Hand. Which places no onus on individual creativity or the possibility of rewarding talent. Innovation works because indviduals think they can do things differently and better. On a standalone reading of this sentence, if we were to believe this Hayekian view, no one would ever innovate or want to do something new / different; we would all live in an anarchist world (akin to cavemen) for want of the creativity required to develop social and governing systems that enable us to interact with other humans in an efficient and rewarding manner.

Or I am making no sense at all?

Update:  I've not read the book and don't know if I am thinking of the quote out of context.  Will have to read more before I say anything further.  

Sonia Gandhi supports Azad Kashmir?

One would hope not; merely because it flies in the face of repeatedly stated Congress Party Ideology (Kashmir is an integral part of India, blah blah).

But Ms. Gandhi is Co-President of a Non-profit organization called the Forum of Democratic Leaders in the Asia-Pacific (FDL-AP). Along with others like Kim Dae-Jung and Corazon Aquino. Which on its website provides a series of links supporting pleas for Kashmiri self-determination and the advantages of an independent Kashmir. Either this is the mother of all goof-ups or the mother of all cover-ups. I wonder which?

From elsewhere: 'Forum of Democratic Leaders in the Asia-Pacific (FDL-AP) was created by President Kim Dae-Jung of the Republic of Korea in 1994. It seeks to promote the growth of democratic systems of government in the Asia- Pacific region. A primary focus is on the encouragement of political reform in Burma...'

I think she signed up to support the movement towards democracy in Burma. But I'm surprised that she would be a) unaware of or b) willing to countenance any discussions around Kashmiri independence. Moral of the Story: No matter how prestigious the position is, if you don't have the time for it, do not accept it.

It all began as America's fault

Asif Zardari's Op-Ed in the New York Times today seems interesting for a couple of reasons.

'Pakistan was an ally of the West throughout the cold war. The world worked to exploit religion against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by empowering the most fanatic extremists as an instrument of destruction of a superpower. The strategy worked, but its legacy was the creation of an extremist militia with its own dynamic.' (Emphasis mine)

Gee, he might as well come out and explicitly blame the Americans for this. He is indeed speaking the truth, but doesn't diplomacy require that he not badmouth the very people from whom he is begging for help?

He then goes on to blame this strategy for (among other things) 'the legacy of dictatorship...and the destruction of our democratic infrastructure'. This is ridiculous. Pakistan's legacy of dictatorship can be blamed on the machinations of Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan from 1958 to 1972, and on Zia-ul-Haq from 1977 to 1988. The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which prompted American support to extremists like the Taliban during the Cold War dates to 1979 and subsequent years. Mr. Zardari is conveniently ignoring facts while apportioning blame and requesting for assistance.

The Invisible Hand..

...is on a rampage. Having grown too rapidly on a diet of mortgage-backed securities...

More here. Truly brilliant....