Indian Obama?

Mr Omar Abdullah is chief minister candidate from the NC side. I sincerely hope that Congress gives him a chance to lead J&K right away in greater national interest.
Among all the current younger politicians, I rate him the best. From some of the TV interviews that I have watched and of course his famous speech in parliament, I feel he has got what it takes to lead people.
I feel the Indian media has missed out a potential Indian Obama. They have played up the 'Prince' but in my opinion the prince is no match for Omar. If we ignore the dynasty bit, He can be considered the real "Indian Obama" in the sense that he can bring in the right changes to lead J&K and India .Here is my prayer to god.
The prayer

• May god help you fulfill the aspirations of the people of J&K
• May god help you solve all problems of the people of J&K
• May god help you balance the conflicting interests.
• May god help you put peoples interest first
• May god help you become the best CM of J&K
• May god help you become the best Indian Leader and lead the nation
• May god help you become the best leader in the neighbouring countries
• May god help you become the greatest International Leader and usher in the 'Kingdom of god'

Obama and the Kingdom of God

These are some of the observations after Watching one of the TV channels prognosis for 2009, Obama and Shashi Tharoor's interludes.
Kingdom of God
There seems to be a quest among non christian countries for the kingdom of god . Vatican of course wants it, but the majority of the christian countries seem to regard their existing kingdoms as god's very own. The BJP in India wants RamRajjya . The Jehadi's all over the world want to bring in their god's kingdom. The sikhs wanted Khalistan meaning " Land of the Pure". Pakistan means the land of pure(land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean) or the Kingdom of God. Even officially atheist china seems to be wanting to find it's roots in the teachings of Confucius. Iran already has semi kingdom of god.
Poor God must surely be in a dilemma because one man's God seems to be another's terrorist.You might ask what has Obama got to do with the Kingdom of God ?Answer is that large sections of the world want it and He might as well give it a whirl.
Tharoor and the two faces of USA
According to Mr Tharoor one facet of USA is that of the Aggressor in Iraq another that of the land of opportunity. Mr Tharoor as an Ex-UN official should have known better than to refer to the two faces.A school boy might be a lousy student but a great footballer. The face used by person depends on the context and the observer. If Mr Tharoor wanted to balance one against the other or appear balanced that's o.k. But in the context of prognosis for 2009, Obama and Change It is about as relevant as a statement like "US has the best blonde's in the world." ( never mind the truth or falsity of the statement)From the point of people at large worldwide land of opportunity face or image is relevant to only a micro mini segment. If everyone lands up in the land of opportunity no opportunities will be left for anyone.
Will Obama usher in the Kingdom of God
This immediately begs the question whose god? Chances are that it will be the American God( Whatever that might mean). He may as well end up portraying all his acts ( Whatever they might be) as acts of god.
What's the hitch
There are no Universally accepted ethics. Otherwise we wouldn't be needing an advisory by the U.K authorities "Don't indulge in extra marital affairs in Islamic countries etc.."If there were accepted norms some troubles might be averted.God is inaccessible to the majority. might as well go for the next best thing of Universally accepted ethics.
As I said earlier one needs an acceptable code at least on major issue contexts to approximate the Kingdom of God. In the context of leaders this implies an ability to put societal interests above personal interests and for international leaders to put the world interests above "self interest" ( -of the nation .people and experts call it "real politic")
It is anybody's guess whose interests Mr Obama will espouse. Of course guesses could be wrong. Wait and watch.
Experts etc..
Are people well up on current orthodoxy.
Change is the only certainty other than death. Today's innovator may well become part of tomorrows orthodoxy

Irresponsible Media

Last time I wondered whether Media was following an undeclared war time reporting code.I happened to see Barkha Dutt's so called Debate and Rajdeep Sardesai's interview of Mr Antulay. Both of these shared the same sentiments and also shared the same with other media.
Whose views are these anyway?
It appears the entire media has one interest( whose?) and is determined to thopo(thrust) their views on everyone.They seem to be determined to manufacture news to suit the war.Further they read statements to suit their convenience and imagine they are the people or perhaps they are above the people and of course the politicians.So much so that I wonder who the handlers of the media are.
One can claim that these are the results of agreement on common shared values or principles. But when elementary logic is given short shrift you have to either think they are dumb or that they have some other agenda.
As far as I can tell people are collectively supreme, followed by the parliamentarians( or politicians if you like), followed by the judiciary. The so called fourth estate should stick to neutral ground on matters of opinion.
Mr Antulay said that he neither wants to deny nor confirm his resignation. This was interpreted by media to mean that He has resigned. Why can't it be interpreted as his reluctance to talk about it.
When one participant in Barkha's view asked to be given more time she let the cat out of the bag by declaring that The editorial policy was different and so she would rather reflect their ( the NDTV) view than that of the participants. Why have a farcical debate when you have made up your mind and don't want to listen.
Similar observations apply to Rajdeep sardesai's interview. If you don't wish to listen to what the other guy has to say for god's sake stop the farce. If that is part of the so called pressure tactics to force the other guy to "confess" I am afraid that's not on. Mr Antulay was patient .Some one like me would probably told him ...you know what.

I am at a loss to understand why the media is keen to have the so called surgical strikes and manufacture public opinion and or News. A war only raises costs to ordinary folks like me without any assurances on betterment of life or security.

Sum
It is best if the media ploys are seen by the public for what they are and not be swayed by their so called expertise.

Whither Liberal Democracy or RamRajjya ?

I happened to watch the parliamentary proceedings yesterday on the 17Th Dec 2008 in parts and also watched TimesNow TV News/panel discussion at night on Antulay's remarks. I also have in front of me "Antulay's remark over martyr sparks row " on TimesNow website as I give vent to my feelings on the issue.
Advaniji
I watched only in parts the parliamentary debate.A text of the proceedings is unfortunately not available either on the parliament website or elsewhere.So I could be a little lax. During the half an hour or so that I happened to listen to Advaniji 90% time was dedicated to "we told you so" or why the tougher laws were not brought in when BJP asked for them.One would have thought that the parliament's time is precious and that the "we told you so" bit was restricted to 10% so that substantive matters could be debated.I strongly suspect that there was little of "substantive matter".May be there ought to be a debating framework.Perhaps there is.I will come back at a later date.Or perhaps the speaker should have restricted he "we told you so" bit.
Does Mr Advani look up to only the US of A for a role model. what about the about 200 countries where there were no terrorist attacks ever happened in the first place.
whither "White Paper on Terrorism" ?
As far as my knowledge of the reactions in India to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks goes no soul searching has been done.As far back as Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 , Andhra Pradesh State Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Bandaru Dattatreya has demanded a white paper on terrorist activities, particularly in Telangana and the Hyderabad city. Nothing ever came out and it is a pity that Advaniji has not asked for "White Paper on Terrorism".
Complex problems need multi pronged solutions not just a few tinkering here and there. I wrote last time about the need for common people to make a fishbone diagram. Let alone common people the people who should know better seem to know no better.
Antulay's remark
This title is borrowed from the TimesNow website article.Whether it was a remark, a cry of anguish or plain dramebazee as we say out here I don't know. I tried to look up Mr Antulay's site. pity he doesn't have one.Surely He could afford to have maintained a site. As mentioned earlier transcripts of the debate are not available.
I start by analyzing the possibilities
case1: Antulay made an off the cuff remark Looks very unlikely because he is a mature politician and could not have made a potentially damaging remark.
case2: a cry of anguish Nobody knows who all were part of the team giving inputs to the Home minister. If indeed Mr Antulay was part of the team or was in the know of things Mr Chidambaram could have intervened to say so.To my knowledge such an intervention did not take place. The only interventions I know of are the ones which all but said said that He was a 'Pakistani agent'. I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
case3: "dramebazee"cannot be ruled out. But neither can it be claimed that he was "playing politics"(what are politicians supposed to do anyway?)

TimesNow news/panel discussion
The main reporter was seething with rage at the supposed "misdemeanour" of Mr Antulay and the subsequent discussion was colored by this undercurrent. For starters I make the "No war / No Censor Assumption"
No war / No Censor Assumption
Under this assumption I expect any media person to to remain neutral, objective and rational. If there is a war/censorship I expect the media to acknowledge and say sorry gentlemen we can't be objective.
Antulay's remark supports the Pakistani media/Government
The substance of the discussion implies Antulay's remark is a disgrace to the nation and therefore should be condemned. Mr Singhvi, the congress spokesman washed off his hands and left the resignation thing to the honorable prime minister. Dileep Padgaonkar made an ad-hominem attack and claimed that Mr Antulay was a loose cannon. The shiv sena MP wanted 'the sack for Mr Antulay'. Another senior journalist was more balanced and said that a sack is not required because such an action would actually help the Pakistani Establishment and / or the media.
I expect media person's to be objective in their views and / or discussions and not get swayed by so called patriotism the way the shiv sainiks and all are prone to. Neither should they believe that problems will vanish by lighting candles or talking to movie stars.
If Pakistani media is right (I personally doubt this) what is the problem? Give it a whirl. Show them that they are wrong. Do I need to add that you are supposed to critique ideas, not people.
Jug Suraiya claimed in one of his recent articles that the Pakistani media is far too establishment biased.In yet another article Mr Suraiya also advocated/remarked that a potential reunification of the subcontinent is a potential solution. I am personally inclined to believe in this potential solution/Utopia(depending on how you look at it). Any Engagement with our 'Subeh ka bhulaahs' or prodigal sons should be fair. If they are right so be it. If they are wrong please do tell them why that is so rather than saying that 'we don't trust the Pakistani press' and that Everything they say is 'Bakwas'. Please do consider issues on merits of the case. case by case rather than lump the good, the bad and the ugly into one heap of scrap.
Mr Karkare and the Martyrdom
As I have said earlier the late Mr Karkare was probably a fine officer and that my personal sympathies lie with his family. Having said that We should bear in mind that we lost three officers in one go and that too ill prepared for the task. The Bombay Police chief's claim that they reached the spot within 10 minutes and wanted to save more lives is simply incredible.
The Indian movie goer is used to seeing all and sundry Heroes and villains brandishing their AK-47s . Is the Mumbai police so blissfully ignorant of these movies and the reality? Do they run their affairs in such a lackadaisical fashion bordering on the unprofessional?
Either the Mumbai police is incompetent ( I don't want to join the candle brigade. Let's not forget that there is rampant corruption and inefficiency) or they are doing a cover up job. Every one doing his or her job cannot claim Martyrdom. If we use this as a definition we will end up with too long a list of Martyrs.Besides Martyrdom is no excuse with which to gag the doubts raised by people.
People certainly want to know the answers to many questions that the events have raised in their minds. It is a pity that the media considers 'Asking questions' as Anti Patriotic Pro Pakistani etc. If Mr Anulay asked questions for which he didn't get the answers ( as far as can be figured out) he is well within his rights, at the risk of sounding Unpatriotic, to raise the question in an inappropriate way.(And of course take the credit or the blame).
Back To Media
Pakistani media is supposed to be part of the "civil society". Should we rubbish them lock stock and barrel?No Sir, give the issue a fair trial, review and critique the views as they come. That the question or comment or remark came from Pakistan is no bar to it's fair trial or critique.
I don't have answers to the questions I have on the circumstances leading to Mr Karkare's death.( I am by no means implying that he was gunned down by Hindu Fundamentalists.).Perhaps as a member of the laity, I am not entitled to have my questions answered in "National Interest".
To the extent that it sets to rest Any questions or doubts raised either by the Pakistani media or by laity , Mr Anulay's request for a probe is justified especially because Mr Antulay is no ordinary Mortal. He is a cabinet minister and no less. To say that he is "playing politics" is absurd. What else do you expect him to play? Cricket? If he voiced either his or a section of his constituency's voice that is as it should be not as it should not be.
All the media commentators claimed that his questions had no basis as they were his views. A section of the Hindi channels called it "Shahadat par Sawal"- Questions on Martyrdom. Tears, candles, patriotism .. etc need not veil basic flaws in thinking and Critiquing events. Whether or not the conclusion follows from a hypothesis is established in this sort of cases is by recourse to empirical facts. Which in this case means a neutral probe. one eminent journalist claimed that he had similar circumstantial questions and doubts but that this did not entitle him to conclusion. Fair enough at face value , But not so when you realize that it is Mr Antulay's basic job and not the journalists to answer these questions on behalf of people.
What are parliamentarians supposed to do? Put their rubber stamp and move on? To my knowledge there has been no parliamentary debate on the general terrorism perspective. Yesterday was the only occasion when Mr Antulay could have raised the issue. Mr Chidambaram's speech on 11th dec cannot be counted as an initiation of debate.
As far as I am concerned people like me too have a right to have their questions answered except in rare cases of national security. To cry foul to each and every thing as "national security" is to cry wolf.
To deny Mr Antulay the right to know is to deny the people their right to know because Mr Antulay represents them.
RamRajya and Caesar's wife must be above suspicion
Ramayan tells us that Lord Ram asked SitaMata to undergo the acid test based on a dhobi's allegation. To me the Lord was establishing the principle of heeding the Minority view. If that is a part of the tradition that Indians carry why didn't the BJP, Shiv Sena combine respect the minority view?Let the truth come out "Satyameva jayate".Let there be an enquiry or probe.
In Brief

• Mr Karkare's death needs to be probed to on the grounds of not squandering precious officers .
• Exposing the real truth behind Mr Karkare's apparently foolhardy behaviour.
• The principle of fairness and objectivity.
• Last but not the least to set at rest any doubts or questions some among the Muslim community might share with their coreligionists across the border.
  
  
  
  

Innovation and the Young Neta

I happened to watch a CNN IBN TV show in which Sagarika ghosh asked Milind Deora what Innovative steps the congress has taken to curb terrorism.(I must confess that I knew the name Milind only today as otherwise I knew him only as Murli deora sab ka beta.) I don't know if sagarika's query was calibrated or casual in her use of the term "Innovative". Whatever might have been her intention Milind's response betrayed either an outright dishonesty of the typical politician (use lungpower or circumvent the question) or an ignorance of an important concept in contemporary discourse. His reply was something to the effect that all parties have agreed to fight the terrorism unitedly.

Let us take a look at what the term innovation can mean in the context of terrorist attacks.
First a few words on the general notion. Innovation is either an improvisation or a brand new way of doing a task, or solving a problem ,or making a device and so on. The effectiveness of an innovation is always in terms of the societal benefits. No benefit equals no innovation. The First charachteristic of innovation is that it is different from the existing solution or way of doing things. Second charachteristic is that it benefits the society. Having said that I must add that a babu sleeping on the desk cannot be said to have innovated if he stops sleeping. Doing one's job the way it is supposed to be done is not "innovation". If parties closed their ranks it is good that they have realized their folly, but to claim that they have innovated is a load of crap. Before one can innovate one must know the existing state of affairs.Newton and the apple falling on his head is a myth.

Most innovations come from people who know what's going on.That is why I said earlier that you need a forum for these inputs so that one so that people can innovate.
In the context of innovations for fighting terrorism an innovation could be technological like low cost transponders for fishermen,better tear gas to smoke out terrorists or financial or managerial or social like enabling private commandos,empowering the beat constable.. building a new democratic(or anti terror) values and so on. I think Sagarika would have been better of looking for innovations (assuming she wasn't casual) by looking for these from policemen,commandos,the navy or other persons than a professional politician whose only qualification is that he is the son of a Minister and that he was educated in the great US of A.( I couldn't find anything better on the wiki).
To be a leader of a one has to know better than the followers on issues that impact the followers. In a democracy there may be no bar on age and qualifications. But this is more an anomaly When you insist on minimum qualifications for a peon's post How can you leave the all important leadership to vagaries of polls alone. It is not that sons of politicians are not eligible. They are as much as anyone else. But the media drooling over young politicians or gen-x is pathetic. Bernard Shaw once said something to the effect that if age was any criteria the stones of London would be wisest. A mod would be if youth was any criteria the newly hatched chicken would be wisest. Moral is age is not the criterion, effectiveness on the task at hand is. I tried hard to figure out what it was that Rahul Gandhi the 'Prince' is being credited with only to come out a cropper. All that the paper said was that congress was building him up. Sometime later about the sycophancy culture and who is a real leader.

Media and the Terrorists

Terrorists have let loose war on India and the Media was quick to give blow by blow account of the events in real time.There are several questions raised about terrorism,terrorists,police,the defence services and last but not the least- the politicians, so much so that Shobha De came up with the Slogan "Enough is Enough" and the slogan was quickly grabbed by the media-NDTV,IBN-CNN and the rest.

In my usual style I ask enough of what and for whom. "Enough of terrorists?" or "Enough of politicians?" or "Enough of Celebrities?" or "Enough of tearjerkers?"or "Enough of thinking?"I suspect that there are shades of many enoughs and Shobha De was better off letting it it be under the hood.

That there are several different takes is obvious.The only good thing the
media achieved by holding the various shows ( May be pardoned for the
nomenclature- I am referring to interviews with supposed laypersons,celebrities, the Aam Aadmis, the officials ,politicians celebrities
and all) was to highlight people's anger. But then that can be concluded
without the fuss. The real time reporting was good., But the commentary lack lustre.

I mention a few things that strike me as glaring in the sequence of events
before moving on to the central theme.
1.Police routinely patrol the areas under their jurisdiction? why did it not
realize the gravity of the situation in about a couple of hours?
2.It was a pathetic sight - the chief of ATS getting armed with a little
pistol ,helmet and a jacket. While my personal sympathies are with the brave officer( one of 'us') I wonder what made him take on the AK-47s and grenades with a pistol.
3.Demarcation of roles -Navy and coast guard. We have a long sea coast to
guard and are not equipped-argument only shows lack of will. Why Navy could not have helped while the coast guard was not yet ready? Answer probably would be that nobody asked for help. Whose job is this ?
The Central Theme
It is not enough for the media to highlight anger (I am leaving out the bread and butter reporting out) but they should channelize the people's expertise into creative solutions for common benefit.(I know it might be asking for too much but then the ad's exhort us to demand more.) because I believe that what people should really do is to solve their problems and that is best done by an objective "Problem solving approach" as contrasted with a subjective "Enough is Enough" or do something and fast.

The first thing they could do is to act as a facilitator in a problem solving
process rather than merely as chroniclers of events,sentiments and knee jerk reactions. Shobha De talks of accountability. Is there clarity on who is
accountable for what? Heads must roll- fine provided there are well set rules of the game. A retired police officer on one of the shows was closer when he said that the problem is complex.

The media role would include the following elements

• Problem facts -State of various facts,figures,references related to the problem
• Organizing existing Information into say a fish bone diagram
• Analyzing and chronicling all proposed solutions
• Formulating or reformulating goals/Solution Requirements.

You might say these are beyond the range of Shobha De or Simi Garewal etc but then it wouldn't do any harm to be armed with mental tools. One can also complain this is not my job the experts do it any way.

Answer- Experts at times overlook the obvious and besides there are several different experts ranging from expert on the gulli affairs to expert on international relations.

Before a problem can be solved as best as a group can, the relevant facts have to be available. Interaction of both the laity and the connoisseurs is required and to do that there needs to be a jargon and frame work that the two can share. And like I said different people bring different takes on both the problem and solution. There is no reason to believe that solution building is the monopoly of the babu or the Neta.