The Broadcasting Media in India – Willing captains to Bush Apologists?

Bush Apologists have found a new offensive ally amongst the Anchors of Indian Media. The Hindustan Times Leadership Summit was where George W Bush received a standing ovation from the Indian media.

CNNIBN's Sagarika Ghose thinks Bush is “charming” and can break the ice with his humour. I do not think that the people of “Eyeraq” share this “charming” opinion of George W Bush. Could we please stop dancing on the graves of the civilians killed in Bush’s wars?

We have an entire audience giving Bush a standing ovation. I did not listen to his speech. I will admit that I did see updates from Indian Media’s twitteratti. In my opinion, the most important part of his speech (irrespective of what he said or did not say) was that he got a standing ovation and it was led by the English broadcasting media.

The people who stood shoulder-to-shoulder and clapped for Bush are the very same people who are glorifying a Home Minister who is about to launch an armed offensive in his country. An offensive that ignores the vast amounts of grey in between the black and white of a Corporatist Policy and the armed ideology of the Naxals. These apologists for Bush are quick to paint a Medha Patkar as anti-democratic. Bush the hero and Patkar the enemy. This endorsement of corporatist policy that has aggression as its foundation is worrying. 

The apologists (in Indian Broadcasting media) are more than happy to share a glass of wine and a laugh with the worst terrorist to have graced this earth since Adolf Hitler. Bush sold his nation’s soul to the Lockheed Martins and Raytheons. Are we supposed to give him a standing ovation and excuse his tyranny? Are we to empathize with him because he could not construct a sentence in his own mother tongue? Are we supposed to laugh at the fact that Americans consider him illiterate? Is that a charming joke?


The questions, as one journalist (thankfully) pointed out, were soft. I would like to be more honest and blunt. The hand-picked questions were intended to establish that George W Bush was the best thing that happened to India.Nobody has the courage to pin George W Bush for his genocide in Iraq.

There is no shock and no awe. What little credibility the English Broadcasting media had left in my books has now been flushed down the toilet.

BJP - Going Downhill in Karnataka as well

It has barely been a few weeks since Karnataka was ravaged by a “10,000 year flood”. Rehabilitation and reconstruction operations should have been on in full swing under the supervision of the Chief Minister and his office. In true BJP fashion, the Chief Minister finds himself embroiled in a power struggle with a faction within his own party. Ministers are being courted by both sides and a deadline has been set for resolution. Only the BJP is capable of landing itself in such an ugly mess while completely ignoring the people who are suffering from the devastation of the floods. The indifference and lack of sensitivity on display to the urgency at hand is vulgar. The money that has been donated by many citizens towards relief work will probably now be diverted to trade donkeys within the party.

The state of affairs in the Karnataka unit of the BJP is testimony to the fact that the BJP deserved the humiliation in the Lok Sabha elections, the bruising in Maharashtra and the wipe out in Arunachal and Harayana.

There is a silver lining in this episode. If the BJP is unable to prevent a mutiny in Karnataka, it will be one step closer to self-destruction. Yipeee!

How the media can get in the way

Live coverage of ...The Thana pipeline accident showed journalists, camera crews and photographers hampering rescue and clearance operations by their presence in large numbers. In the background one could hear an anchorperson in the studios asking railway officials why gas cutters had not reached the site yet.

The above paragraph originally appeared in TheHoot.org under the Media Watch Briefs section (In the way)

Participants in the hostage handover? (A copy of my Letter to TheHoot.org)

This letter originally appeared @ www.thehoot.org TheHoot.org on Oct 24th 2009 [Participants in the hostage handover?]

Dear Hoot,

The behavior of the media in their coverage of the Atindranath Dutta release has me confused. News Channels on the one hand are protesting that the government is negotiating with terrorists. On the other hand, they were falling all over themselves to play a role in the hand-over of the hostage.

With so many journalists present, it would have been impossible for the para-military forces to engage in a counter-offensive with the Naxals, without putting the journalists at risk. The state government had no choice but to stand by and watch as the media took the bait, hook, line and sinker from Naxals. I cannot put this down to the media being naive.

Correspondents on the ground have been far more sensitive, intelligent and “journalistic” in their approach to stories than their counterparts in the corporate studios. This time however, these correspondents were more than willing to engage not as observers to the hostage drama but as participants in the hand-over of the hostage. There was nothing “humanitarian” about their participation. Their biggest contribution to the hostage drama was in making it impossible for the government to play hardball with the Naxalites. The Naxals did this by spoon feeding the media and keeping them one-step ahead of the government. The media was used and manipulated into weakening the government ability to engage with the Naxals. The media, in my opinion, could not have been oblivious to this. The media was more than happy to be used.

Anand Bala
Bangalore
October 23, 2009

Checklist of things Condemned by the media

• Condemn the Naxals (agree)
  
• Condemn every single peaceful resistance movement taking place in 200 Indian districts.
  
• Condemn the NGOs
• Condemn the people who work in the NGOs
• Condemn the activists
• Condemn the people who read what the activists write
• Condemn the non-violent alternatives
• Condemn the people who come up with the alternatives
• Condemn the poverty
• Condemn the people who live in poverty
• Condemn the intellectuals
• Condemn the labour
• Condemn the labour unions
• Condemn the violence (agree)
  
• Condemn the V schedule of the Indian constitution
  
• Condemn the people who don’t condemn the violence
• Condemn the people who don’t condemn the people who don’t condemn the violence

Note to the media:

• Can you please condemn yourselves while you are condemning everything else?
• Can you please condemn the mining companies that want to violate the Indian constitution?
• Can you please move beyond condemning and talk about issues and not personalities?
  

Techcrunch and going to Chile (and how Americans forget history)

I fell off my chair laughing at a piece in TechCrunch titled Chile Wants Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses, Your Tech Entrepreneurs.

The premise of the argument is that Chile is a great place to invest. I agree with the author. But the Author totally forgets to mention America's history with Chile (Kissinger advising Pinochet on Shock Therapy). Chile has a brutal chapter in history that has been scripted by the Chicago School and American Corporate Interests. I see no reason why the piece should have been structured to make it appear that their recent history resembles a picture postcard.

Lets look at some really funny quotes from the article -

"But Chile does have 40% of the world’s copper, a magnificent inflation hedge."

The last two people who shouted this from this from the top of the Military towers were Milton Friedman and General Pinochet. Chile was in Hyperinflation and the military junta brought in by the Chicago boys was killing people on the streets like they were swatting mosquitoes....to privatize the mines and wipe out local industry in the name of "structural adjustment".  When Americans start thumping their chest with those same lines, it sends a shiver down my spine.

"To top this off, Chile is a thriving democracy with one of the most open economies in South America. In fact, if I was starting a new tech company and didn’t need to be in any particular area, I’d start it in Chile in a heartbeat"

Chile has struggled and shed blood to put democracy back on track. The bloodshed had a lot to do with American presence. This fact is completely glossed over. Where tech companies locate these days has very little to do with democracy. It has more to do with the degree of conflict that the country is engaged in (directly and indirectly). Two examples - i) The USofA and the business of outsourced wars and ii) Israel and the high tech security industry that is bubbling over thanks to wars that their patrons are fighting in Asia. To link American enterprise with democracy is to forget history or to deny it.

"Everyone told stories about how Chile was built by immigrants and welcomed the world’s most skilled and most oppressed"

I wonder who this guy was speaking to? Definitely not the activists for democracy in the 70s and 80s in Chile. Except the Americans, most people have a different view of what happened after Allende was killed by the Pinochet junta. For Americans it was a perfect investment opportunity. For the people of Chile it was a disaster. They were the ones who were oppressed. To gloss over these facts like they never happened is naive.

I do not blame the author. He had to build a case for Chile in 500 words or less for TechCrunch. He chose to focus on the potential of Chile. Fair thing to do. However, it would have been more appropriate if the author had not created an image of the past that is far from the truth.

Why does the media hate moderates (and why intellectual is a bad word)

There are several reasons behind why the Indian English Broadcasting media snaps, barks and spits at moderates. What they are doing to the moderates on the Naxal debate is exactly what their favorite spittoon the (Communist Party Politburo) does to corporates (snap, bark and bite). Here is my take on this sudden aversion to moderates.

• The Fifth Schedule
  Moderates believe in the Indian Constitution and the Fifth Schedule of the Indian constitution which says "Tribal Land for Tribals". If the English Broadcasting media fell in line with the constitution of India, their advertisers would not be too pleased
  
• Essar group spends enormous amount of money advertising for Vodafane Essar
• Tatas spend a huge amount of money on advertising for DoCoMo, Tata Tea and Tata Motos
• Both Essar and Tatas are asking for a quick land transfer of mines from Tribal hands to their mining companies. 

• Cops - are they always the good guys?
  Moderates do not see a Halo on the head of every Indian policemen. Moderates, based on their own experience, understand that police are not the cleanest institution in the country and have been known to behave like feudal lords when nobody is recording. Moderates also understand that if the police are the only interface between the people and the government, it will lead to violence on both sides. For our English Broadcasting Media, the police are not even a small part of the problem, they are in fact the solution. This lens which is based on the heroics of encounter cops and our good cops who "fight the good fight" does not do justice to reality. When the moderates condemned the beheading of Francis Induvar...they were condemned as hypocrites. 

• Middle Class Morality?
  The anchors of English Broadcasting media are no more a part of the middle class. With their ESOPs and salaries they have crossed the line into upper-class territory. This is not a bad thing. Good for them! The down-side is that they claim to represent "middle-class India". They do not have reporters covering a rural beat but send 5 reporters to cover a Fashion Week. This is best reflected in their choice of panels to discuss naxalism. They will without hesitation bring in the Bollywood crowd and Cuffe-parade brigade. These stakeholders look down at the problem and do not address it at eye-level. It can be insulting to listen to the Cuffe Brigade talk about "a need for things to get worse before they get better".
  
  
• Moderates make the English Broadcasting media look dumb and lazy
  The moderates, by adding depth to the debate, make the reporters look dumb and riculously illiterate about the rural India. The only way to defend this illiteracy is by focusing on what they can see...the tip of the iceberg and brushing everything else under the carpet. Moderates who stand up and question become a "Naxal Sympathiser".

The concise format of TV broadcasting prevents anchors from being able to dig deep and separate the wheat from the chaff. This however is no excuse to oversimplify a sixty year old problem that is complex and has many shades. To condemn people who are willing to look at the big picture can not be excused. It is as good as beheading open-debate.

Stating the Obvious (and why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize)

Image from PoliticalCartoons.com

Barrack Obama managed to bag the Nobel prize for peace. As most parts of the world are still getting back on their chairs after rolling on the floor laughing, let us look at why he deserves the prize

• His election campaign spent 730 Million Dollars!
  
• He increased the number of troops in AfPak by a mere 21,000
• He has committed to limit the number of Nuclear warheads on American soil to 1,500
• The drone attacks that he ordered in the Swat valley have killed over 600 civilians
  
• He put pressure on Palestinian representative not to peruse the Goldstone report at the UN
• He feels IMF and World bank should have a greater role in the world economy
• Refused to meet the Dalai Lama
• As the commander and chief of the US army, he is the head of the largest military occupation force in the world. 
• Except for his ability to read the word "peace" of a teleprompter, he has had very little to do with peace.
• Obama condones torture according to Amnesty International.
  

Why is Chidambaram Waiting? Why "announce" a counter-offensive?

A military operation is typically strengthened if there is a surprise element. Our Home Minister has announced Operation Green Hunt well in advance and has been publicizing it with gory pictures in the Media. This "staging" period is serving a specific purpose -

• Giving the media ample time to justify the military action. Intellectuals are being dismissed as romantics and activists are called "ant-national".
  
• During the staging period, every act of the Naxals is put under the microscope by the media, further strengthening the call for military action. (Maoist violence has been a regular affair for about a year now. It is hitting the headlines with a vengeance only now.)
  
• Naxals, now that they know what is happening, can dig their heels in and make sure that their arms are well stocked for the show-down. This will make it a very bloody affair.
  

If Chidambaram had done this 2 weeks ago - he might not have gotten the support that he will get today. This manipulation of public opinion is very worrying.

If Operation Greenhunt happens we will create an Iraq like situation (of chaotic civil war, death and destruction) or imitate what happened Post Operation Blue star in 1984. 

Can Red Paint Camouflage a Blood Bath? (and the Media's cry for blood)

The signs in the media are ominous. There appears to be a “calibrated” approach to building consent for definitive and armed action against “naxals”. Operation Green Hunt is what this campaign is going to be called.

There are several “news stories” coming together to make a military option look deceivingly inevitable. The government may end up biting of more than it can chew (for the wrong reasons) and worse, create an even bigger problem.  The Naxal problem is being painted red in the hope that it will camouflage a bloodbath by both the government and the Naxals.

The first coat of Red Paint is the “Chinese Threat”. The media is hyperventilating about Chinese incursions. The perception in the mainstream English media is that China is showing signs of threatening India’s sovereignty. The screams (which sound like birthing pains when they come from Arnab Goswami) are proving to be baseless and nothing more than a disguised sales pitch for increased defence expenditure for our borders with China. The media’s response and the muted denial of the Indian government is the first coat of “Red” paint that we are looking at. Fox-news would have been proud of some our Journos and analysts.

The second coat of red-paint is a beautiful bluff. Arcelor Mittal has threathened the government of Orissa that it would pull out of a 20 billion dollar project in Orissa unless Land Acquisition was hastened. The reason why land acquisition is progressing at such a slow place for the project is that there is resistance at the grass-roots. The people do not want to hand over their land and the Government cannot categorically show that the plant in question is a “public-purpose”. In such a backdrop, there is a fair reason for the delay under Indian law. Arcelor Mittal seems to think land for their company is an enshrined fundamental right in the Indian constitution. Rather than call the bluff, and request the company to take a hike, the Government is taking a rather subservient stance. It has said it will catalyse the land transfer. The second coat of Red Paint is now in place and the “markets” are beginning to see a beautiful shade of “Red” in driving away investment.

All we need now is some red polish to finish the job. This is done by changing the goal posts. You change the goals posts by changing the focus of the debate from the cruel and lopsided nature of development policies over the last 50 years. Instead you bring into sharp focus Naxal violence and display it once you have been able to gloss-over the context. It is easier to whip up anger over the beheading of a cop than it is to get the urban Indians angry about the horrific infant mortality rates in rural India. The dysfunctional analysis lumps a violent INDIAN grassroots resistance with the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Al Qaeda. Once you force urban India to link Naxal Violence with Mumbai Terror attacks….building consent for military action will become easier. All you need now is some hot air for the paint to dry. Indian media houses have an abundant supply of hot air. This is best seen in the way any intelligent debate is shot down with language such as “Romanticizing Naxalism” and “Intellectual Sympathisers”. By blocking of reasonable debate, you are left with hot air statements like “Naxalism is an attack on Indian sovereignty”.

Once dried, we will have a backdrop of red-paint and any blood-bath led by 70,000 para-military forces can be easily camouflaged, rationalized and sponsored with ad-spots on the 10PM news shows.

A key dramatic element that unfolded before the war on Iraq was Collin Powell and his infamous vial of Anthrax at the UN (and we thought Gadaffi was a raving lunatic). I will not be surprised if we see a similar dramatic plea in the “Indian war on terror”. Get ready to see little red books of Chairman Mao (or some such stupid equivalent) translated into Hindi as being clinching evidence of Chinese financial aid to the Maoists.

If the government decides to use the might of the Indian army, we will be inviting a civil a war. The red-paint may temporarily camouflage the blood-bath but it will not take long before the violence starts to affect the urban cities that seem to be disconnected from the rest of the country. Every name in the body count has been and will be an Indian citizen.

--#--

On a side-note this paragraph from a book I am currently reading sums up what the media is doing with Naxal debate very well.

"For "terrorists", read "guerillas" or – as President Ronald Reagan would call them in the years to come – "freedom fighters". Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists. In the Middle East, in the entire Muslim world, this word would become a plague, a meaningless punctuation mark in all our lives, a full stop erected to finish all discussion of injustice, constructed as a wall by Russian, Americans, Israelis, British, Pakistanis, Saudis, Turks, to shut us up. Who would ever say a word in favour of terrorists? What cause could justify terror? So our enemies are always "terrorists." In the seventeenth century, governments used "heretic" in much the same way, to end all dialogue, to prescribe obedience. Karmal’s policy was simple: you are either with us or against us. For decades, I have listened to this dangerous equation, uttered by capitalist and communist, presidents and prime ministers, generals and intelligence officers and, of course, newspaper editors."
-- Robert Fisk, Page 74, The Great War For Civilisation – The Conquest of the Middle East"

Operation Green Hunt - The Indian version of Shock Therapy

70,000 paramilitary forces are about to enter the poorest districts in India. The excuse for this march of troops is a Maoist Rebellion. Are we on the verge of a civil war that pit's urban India against the poorest citizens of this country? Citizens who have been at the wrong end of the development continuum? Citizens who's land is now coveted because they contain mineral wealth? The answer appears to be "yes".

The government is taking millions of their poorest citizens and putting them in the same basket that they put Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists. This incorrect and outrageous re-labelling gives the Government the license to use military grade force on it’s own citizens. Once you get rid of these citizens you can transfer land from tribals and the forests to the mining company who’s share-holders are the first citizens of the liberalized and globalized world. The free-market will take control of all the “affected” districts. The Government will wipe out as much poverty as it can by wiping out as many civilians as it can.

Lakshmi Mittal has issued a threat to the Orissa government. He has said the he will pull out of a Twenty Billion Dollar investment unless the land acquisition is not “hurried-up”. If the Indian government was looking for an overt and corporate approval for Operation Green Hunt to place at the door-step of the first world, Lakshmi Mittal conveniently stepped in to provide it for them. Mr Mittal will not only get the land and mines but will also get a guarantee that others will be scared into submission to object to the land grab. Needless to say there will be a lot of bloodshed. Civilians will die, paramilitary forces will die and naxals will die. The mining company’s profits will rise. Lakshmi Mitall’s bluff is exactly what the media wants to hear to justify operation Green Hunt. 

We have a Home Minister who has represented Enron in India in his capacity as a Harvard educated lawyer. He has held office with one of the largest mining conglomerates. A conglomerate, who’s subsidiaries receive some of the largest and most coveted mining concessions. We have this man deciding to send in our troops to kill our own people. Both Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush would have been proud of this strategy if they were the authors.

Operation Green Hunt will have many of the ingredients of “shock and awe”. The porn stars of India Media will be “embedded” with the para-military forces. We will see a live telecast of genocide that will be inconceivably rationalized and justified by the media. Do not be surprised if you see a TATA TEA advertisement promoting “Jaago Re” as the civil war in Chattisgarh unfolds. As these events takes place in India and on TV screens in our living rooms – we will see laws being re-written. These laws will further alienate people from their lands. It will be India’s highest dose of Shock Therapy to date.

The unfortunate reality is that we are on the brink of a civil war. The smoke screen of a civil war is what the disaster capitalists create to change the laws of the land and transfer wealth and resources to shareholders and away from citizens. Bolivia, Chilie, Argentina, Poland and Russia all suffered under this mode of capitalism. There was a difference, they were sold-out by the world-bank and were under dictatorships. We are doing it under a democratically elected government.

The Iraq Playbook - New Delhi's Surveillance Plans

If the SiliconIndia.com website is to be believed, then "BOSCH may provide security systems for commonwealth games"

Surveillance is supposedly at the heart of counter-terrorist operations. I wonder what they are doing by outsourcing basic surveillance? This move to get the private sector involved in what should be a primary government responsibility is right out of the Iraqi playbook of American Disaster Capitalism.

It appears that BOSCH already provides security systems for the Mumbai Airport.

The question is, do they just provide the camera equipment and wiring - which is okay or do they go further in manning the cameras, defining the locations and controlling what is and what is not recorded? If they are doing more than supplying equipment I want to know how they can be held accountable in case the government (post-facto) says - "BOSCH was supposed to provide us with the information through their surveillance".

While this may seem trivial, this is exactly how the Disaster Capitalists Complex worked following the invasion of Iraq. Gunmen are paid by the hour and hired by the truckload as part of "surveillance measures". It started with the purchase of "security equipment" from American and Israeli companies.

I am not comfortable with the private sector getting a role in the surveillance of our public spaces. That should be the government's job.

A media that is obsessed with terror did not pick up the story. The article that I read - devotes more times to "market size" of security and BOSCH's revenues through security than anything else. No mention of experience other than some name-dropping and no analysis of how this will reduce the threat of terror.

Condeming Violence (and getting neatly labelled in the process)

Condemning violence is becoming problematic these days. If you condemn violence against women and terror strikes, people will nod their heads in agreement. It is when you start condemning other forms of violence as well that you start getting some interesting responses. Here is a list some of the labels that I have been given by acquaintances and close friends over the last few months.

• Romantic (because you condemn the violence of in-equitable development)
  
• Maoist sympathizer (because you condemn the use of force by the government to evict people from their homes in tribal districts)
• Marxist (Because you condemn the use of 60,000 mercenaries in Iraq by the US government)
• Leftist (Because you condemn the violence of imperialism)
• Communist (Because you wave the facts around the death of 4 million people at the hands of US troops in the last 60 years)
• "Socialist Type" (because you criticize the violence of water privatization)
• Capitalist (Because you condemn the violence of Maoists)
• Anti-National (Because you condemn the militarization of Kashmir, North East and the death of Pakistani Civilians in US Drone strikes)
• Atheist (Because you condemn the violence of religion)
• Environmental Extremist (Because you condemn the violence of corporate greed)
• Activist (Because you condemn violence against Dalits)
• Terrorist Sympathizer (Because you condemn the violence of Israel against Palestine)
• Conspiracy Theorist (Because you condemn the media for spreading hate)
• Jihadist (Because you condemn the violence of America)
• Hypocrite (still trying to figure this one out)
  

Violence seems to have two categories or buckets. Popular violence and Unpopular violence.

Popular violence is the kind of violence that we support and excuse.Violence that does not affect us directly but seems to benefit us tangibly or intangibly. This sort of violence typically

• Preys on fear created by the media (e.g. fake encounter killings), 
• Appeals to national jingoism (lets wait for the SWAT Valley to self destruct) 
• Provides for a larger corporate presence in the country (mining concessions are more important than people who live in those areas). 
• A sure give-away that the violence is "popular violence" will be the over-whelming support that it will receive from the media (Iraq war).

Unpopular violence is the violence that has typically affected somebody we know or violence that we have been witness to. Daily example of "unpopular violence" include the violence against women or the violence of alcohol abuse or the violence of terror strikes on Indian soil.

I find it amusing that people condemn violence vehemently but can be selective about the violence that they condemn at the same time.

I am getting used to the labels. Violence, irrespective of which bucket it falls in, needs to be condemned.

Jeffery Sachs: The First Son of Disaster Capitalism on Climate Change

Milton Friedman was the father of contemporary disaster capitalism and the ideologue behind capitalist genocides post 1970. If he is the undisputed father than Jeffrey Sachs is the leading contender for the title of "first son". Sachs has successfully driven hundreds of thousands of people into the depths of poverty based on his agenda of structural reform in Bolivia, Poland and Russia. He man is now getting interested in the Copenhagen conference on Climate Change. The likes of Jeffery Sachs thrive in a crisis and find the most innovative ways of manufacturing and profiteering in a crisis. Their area of super-specialization is to bring a country to it's knees by forcing it to sell their assets and waiting for the coffers to get drained before stepping in with reforms that drive the country to poverty. Sachs, after killing democracy in Russia,  is now wearing a halo and talking about poverty, famine and climate change.

His article in today's Hindu - We need action, not Kyoto II - sent a shiver down my spine. If Iraq was a disaster capitalism success story than the climate crisis is tailor made for Sachs and Chicago Boys. The crisis will be the playground from which Sachs can wrest the title of successor to Milton Friedman.

This paragraph in the article is very revealing -

The climate issue is too complicated to swallow in one gulp, as was tried in Kyoto in 1997. This invites a toothless agreement that could be more posturing than progress. We should think about the component parts of real progress, and then insist on practical policies by all major players, even as the legal framework is hammered out for later signature. There is still time for a three-part package: a political framework, a financing package, and a series of practical steps announced by all major regions to tilt the trajectory on emissions.

When a disaster capitalist like Sachs who evangelizes the shock doctrine uses the term "political framework" it translates to killing democracy (Russia, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina and Poland) and butchering any opposition (preferably with a bloodbath). When he uses the words "major players" he refers ONLY to MNCs that profiteer based on his work.

When somebody like Sachs talks about a "financing package" it will mean removing the safety nets for the poorest of the poor in the globe and providing taxation benefits to the largest corporates. It will mean creating a free market for common property resources and putting a permissible price tag to corporate pollution rather than treat it as a crime.

Sach's "Practical Policies" led to the rise of the Oligarchs in Russia, an invasion of Chechnya, a doubling of the suicide rate, the destruction of the parliament building and immunity for businessmen and politicians from being prosecuted for corruption. How practical is that?

Based on Sach's track record around "Practical Policies", "Political Framework" and "Financial Packages it is obvious that the disaster capitalists are going to tax sub-saharan Africa and other poor countries while encouraging the increase of consumption in the first-world. They will find a way to make it look "fair" by inventing a way to trade "carbon" (read "trade" as "I pollute and you pay").

The fact that the article is bereft of any mention of the contribution that his country makes to global pollution is conspicuous.His call for an interim agreement will be the cornerstone argument adopted by the Americans in ensuring that a concrete settlement remains elusive. The only agreement acceptable to the disaster capitalists of this world will be a scenario where the First World can continue to create war, destabilize nations and steal their wealth either overtly or covertly. Such an agreement will be readily signed by Obama (even without a tele-prompter).

In my opinion, the best way to begin the Copenhagen Summit would be to burn an effigy of Jeffery Sachs and Milton Friedman. We should ensure that the IMFs, World Banks, WTOs and Halliburtons of this world have nothing to do with deciding the fate of our environment. We should also ensure that America has no space on the negotiating table. Their only mandate should be to comply. They lost their participatory rights the day they set foot in Vietnam.

We should ask for a complete retreat of all US troops to their barracks. America and Europe should be taxed for the environmental damage that they have caused over the last seventy years. Americans must be severely taxed to prevent any escalation of their destructively consumptive patterns. Any failure to comply should be dealt with in the same way that they dealt with Iraq. Bomb all the factories, bridges, hospitals, electricity plants and water treatment facilities on US soil. Once the corporatist structure of the US economy lies in ruins one will be able to see the world bloom and the environment begin to heal itself. Somebody has to tell Mr Sachs that Copenhagen is not about American Imperialism or economics. (...it is about the environment stupid!)

PS- Unlike some of us, the media still has their head where the sun does not shine. The media will go to any length to promote Sachs and his policies. The media continues to manufacture consent for people like Sachs who have so much of blood on their hands.

Remember Yeltsin? (and understanding the root of the Naxal violence)

When the democratically elected parliament of Russia was attacked by tanks and burnt black by Boris Yeltsin, the western media labeled it as a victory for democracy. The country's oil and gas could be sold to Oligarchs who were owned by western businesses in a free-market. The rest of Russia went to hell.

In India, about 800 million people still live on less than a dollar a day. A vast proportion of this country is surrounded by abject poverty. These people are also sitting on natural resources like forests and mines. Poverty is a form of violence. Forgetting that these people have been at the receiving end of the poverty of violence is stupidity. To look at them as if they are the aggressors is putting the cart before the horse.

We need to understand that the mining conglomerates and Indian chaebols like Tata  are waiting on the sidelines and salivating at the prospect of receiving the land which these people protect and live on. It is these companies that will benefit when Yeltsineqeue democracy triumphs by killing and evicting the residents off their own land.

Yeltsin's "democratic" moves ensured the democracy was nipped in the bud. The "freemarket" bought the countries natural resources at throw-away prices and a vast population in Russia slipped into poverty as mines and oilfields changed hands.

The "democratic" march of Indian armed forces into vast areas of this country where the administration has no control has a simple lesson. Democracy has failed these people and continues to fail them.

Azadi! Azadi! - Democracy, the Indian Army and Kashmir

I came across this paragraph in the article titled "Is Democracy Melting?" by Arundhati Roy.

The war in the Kashmir valley is almost 20 years old now, and has claimed about 70,000 lives. Tens of thousands have been tortured, several thousand have "disappeared," women have been raped, tens of thousands widowed. Half a million Indian troops patrol the Kashmir valley, making it the most militarized zone in the world. (The United States had about 165,000 active-duty troops in Iraq at the height of its occupation.) The Indian Army now claims that it has, for the most part, crushed militancy in Kashmir. Perhaps that's true. But does military domination mean victory? 

The comparison with Iraq is a cruel reality. What will it take for the the "democratic" government in India to come good on it's commitment to the United Nations to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir?

The media as usual is silent about key issues that affect Kashmir. This includes and is not limited to the overwhelming presence of the military.

On a relevant side note, as India embarks in it's next phase of "auctioning" of the country's assets, Kashmir could possibly serve as the distraction that the private sector needs before digging their hands into what has been built using common property resources and tax payer money.

An Interview with Robert Fisk

Unfortunately I have still not been able to lay my hands on Robert Fisk's book "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East". I hope to get a copy soon though. It has been recommended by several people.

Fisk is recognized as one of the great journalists of our time. [You can read some of Robert Fisk's articles here]. Unfortunately there are few like him in Indian media (P Sainath being one). Journalists with potential are being eaten up by the system. You can not expect much when some of the largest media houses own equally large advertising businesses. An unsanitised version of the truth may be offensive to their advertisers and might upset the incestuous relationship that corporates and the media share.

If the following interview with Fisk about the book (and other things) is anything to go by, I can not wait to get my hand's on a copy.

The Goldstone Report Summary (and an excercie is précis writing)

Background 
The media is India is largely silent on the Goldstone report and is obsessing over Twitter, a war with China and nuclear weapons. Since the media in India chooses to ignore the report and not talk about the middle east, I thought I would make it easier for our journalists who believe that news comes in 140 characters or less. Here is my attempt at a summary.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Most people around the world were shocked by the actions of the Israeli Government in December 2008 and January 2009. The military attack on the civilians of Gaza happened after a three year "blockade" of Gaza. Another ingredient (but not equal ingredient) in the escalation was repeated rocket attacks by militant groups in Gaza on civilians in Israel. The Goldstone Report is the report of the mission headed by Justice Goldstone and appointed by the UNHRC to look into the entire episode. The report was published in mid-September. [Full version of the Goldstone Report]



Disclosure -

• I do not claim to have read the report word-for-word but I have looked at what I would think are the key sections (and that is a lot of reading).
• The content and intent of this report needs to be discussed by the common-man (aam-admi) in India and in every developing country in the world. 
• The finding of the report are emblematic of the length and extent to which a “modern” and “democratic” government will go to grab what is not theirs based on a false sense of insecurity.

My summary (and this will be a long one)

"both the Israelis and the Palestinians share a secret fear – for some, a belief – that each has no intention of accepting the other’s right to a country of their own."

1. Casualties

• Israeli Casualties (13 Israeli citizens killed in the entire episode)
• 3 civilians in Southern Israel
• 10 soldiers
• 1 soldier in southern Isreal
• 9 Soldiers killed in fighting inside Gaza
•  4 of these soldiers were killed in friendly fire
  
  
• Number of Palestinians Killed – (Varies based on the source)
• 1,387 to 1,417 (Goldstone Estimate)
• 1,417 (Gaza Authorities)
• 1,166 (Israeli Government)
• If we take the lower end of the Goldstone Estimate, for every one Israeli casualty 106 Palestinians lost their lives.
  

2. Basis of the report

• 188 interviews with people, 300 reports and documents and over 1200 photos and public hearings in Gaza and Geneva (permission for such hearings in Israel and West Bank was denied.
• The report does not hesitate in stating that Israel authorities refused to co-operate with the mission
• There were restrictions based on the mission by Israeli authorities.
  

3. Root Cause Analysis

• The blockade of Gaza by Israel was at the root of the problem. Preventing the free movement of people and blocking the movement of essential goods (e.g fuel, food and healthcare) into Gaza was a key cause to the crisis.
  
• The demolition of homes, forcing the separation of the people of Gaza and West Bank also contributed to the escalation.
  

4. Police Deaths

• Within the “first few minutes” of the operation in Gaza [on Dec 27 2008] 99 Policemen in Gaza were killed across six police facilities.
• By the end of military attack 240 policemen representing a sixth of the police force in Gaza was killed.  
• Israel’s rationale for this move is that the Gaza Police is part of the Palestinian Army.
  

5. The “we warned you” Rationale

• The warnings issued by the Israeli authorities comprised of pre-recorded phone messages, leaflets and light-firing on roof-tops.
• The phone messages lacked any specifics which made them dysfunctional. The warnings urged people to move to the city-centre – which was where there were fierce gun-battles, making the instructions counter-productive. 
• The report summarizes this by saying that the Israeli authorities did not do enough to distinguish civilians from combatants
  

6. White Phosphorous

• Israeli’s used white phosphorous bombs on the Al Quds hospital forcing a serious fire and causing the evacuation of seriously injured people.
• There was a “reckless” use of White phosphorous in densely populated areas.
  

7. Destruction of civilian targets/civilians

• 3,354 homes compactly destroyed, 11,112 partially destroyed
• Palestinian jail, legislature building – were civilian targets that were destroyed beyond repair
• Two hospitals - Al Quds and Al Wafa were civilian targets that should not have been targeted. 
• On the attack on the UN site in Gaza, the report is categorical in stating that Israel’s storyline is inconsistent, factually incorrect and filled with contradictions. 
• There are documented instances of Israeli combatants targeting civilians who they knew were not combatants 
• The report presents documented cases of “intentional’ Israeli attacks on civilians.
• There was “arbitrary” killing of Palestinians. 
• In an area already blockaded for three years, Israel targeted -
• Chicken Farms,
• the only flour mill in Gaza 
• a wall to a sewage lagoon (releasing 200,000 cubic feet of sewage)
• the only cement packaging plant
• food and drinks factories
• neighborhoods that did not have any combatants
• Women and children who posed no threat to Israel ...were held in degrading conditions and without access to food, water and sanitation
• Civilian detainees were held in sandpits and Israeli combatants took positions and were firing from inside the sand-pits. 
• Israel strategy around the acts was based on maximum damage to civilian properties that would in-turn handicap civilian life. 
• Thanks directly to the attacks a precarious situation of food insecurity will worsen in Gaza
  

8. Use of Palestinians as human shields

• Palestinians groups, by launching attacks from crowded areas, were exposing residents to retaliatory attacks. There is not enough evidence to completely rule out the deliberate use of civilians as human shield by Palestinians.
• Israel too, used Palestinians as human shields when entering locations that has Palestinian combatants.
  

9. Rocket Attacks on Israel

• Since 2001 there have been over 8000 rocket attacks on Israel.
• Starting June 2008, 3 Israeli civilians have died in the rocket
• Of the 1000 people injured in the rocker attacks, 914 of these were injured during the Israeli Assault on Gaza (Dec and Jan)
• 95% of the children in Serdot suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorders.
• The rocket firing by Palestinian combatants has affected the education system and violated the basic rights of the citizens in the communities most affected. 
• The rocket attacks, according to the Goldstone report are “deliberate” and “indiscriminate” attacks on civilians and are not targeted at military assets. There only purpose is to spread terror in the civilian population.
  

10. Human Rights Track Record in Israel and Palestine

• Both the Gaza and Israel authorities have come in for sharp criticism on their ability to protect citizen’s right.
• Neither of the two sides are doing anything to make themselves more accountable when it comes to dealing with human rights violations within areas under their control.
  
• Prima facie it appears that neither side will be ready to open criminal prosecution against war criminals on their side of the border.
  

11. Reparations

• The reports puts the bill of damages in Palestine at about 1.3 billion USD. 
• To this must be added interest, human cost and the cost to the environment.
• 613 Million USD is required in the form of urgent and aid for rebuilding basic infrastructure.
  

12. Conclusion

• The battle in Gaza during 27 Dec 2008 and 18 Jan 2009 can-not be understood in Isolation. This battle was direct result of Israel’s policies and Human Right’s Violation that they committed against the Palestinians.
• The “collective punishment” heaped on the Palestinians by the Israelis is unacceptable
• The 3 year blockade that preceded Israel’s attack has already brought the people of Gaza to their knees. The blockade has forced in-human condititons on the entire population of Gaza. 
• The continued blockade is making it almost impossible to reconstruct basic civilian facilities in Gaza. People are stilling living in rubble, without sanitation and with almost non-existent healthcare.  
• The report finds that the attack was planned and not targeted at specific combatants but targeted at the people of Gaza.   
• Whenever Israel used the term “supporting infrastructure” they meant the people of Gaza.
• Attacks were aimed at crippling civilian life in Gaza and went well beyond targeting combatants
• The Gaza authorities need to stop rocket attacks on civilians in Israel. 
• There are victims on both sides of the border. 
• Israelis and Palestine have no spaces to engage with each other constructively. All they have today are checkposts and gunpoints.
• The problems between Fatah and Hamas are making the problems in the region worse. The political stakeholders need to find a constructive way of settling their differences
• The International Community has failed to protect the civilian population of Gaza from repeated war crimes by the Israeli forces
• Israel needs to be prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity based on the attack and the blockade
• Israel detained civilians during and before the attack. This is inconsistent with International Law. 
• Israel can-not force the separation of the people of Gaza and the West Bank. 
• Palestinian authorities failed to control rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel
• Authroities in Gaza used extra-judicial instruments to tackle dissent
• Israel remains unaccountable for it’s actions against the people of Palestine. This ensures that further military action by Israel in Gaza will remain a clear and present danger.

My comments - 

1. I have tried to be as neutral as possible when constructing this extract of the report. I have not touched upon issues such as the use of depleted Uranium by the Israeli forces and some of the evidence and letters that are available in the report. 
2. If the international community does not react based on the content of this report, it will send a dangerous signal to repressive regimes across the world.
   
3. The UN, based in on it's past record of looking the other war when it comes to Israel, will not be able to take any action based on the report and will not be able to prevent further atrocities by the Israeli forces. 
4. Many parts of Asia are gripped by war and/or the fear of war. This report presents an opportunity for citizens across countries to replace war lobbyists and to build a groundswell of support for peace. Tough ask but possible. 

Salma Sultan's Question on contemporary Broadcasting

Most Indian's of my age grew up watching Salma Sultan on DD. It was nice to see her in the studios once again, albeit in the gaudy setting of NDTV and CNN IBN, on the occasion of DD's 50th anniversary.

Salma Sultan asked a wonderful question to Rajdeep Sardesai. The question is important and the fact that the question came from a pioneer of Indian News Broadcasting is equally important.


Here is the question to Rajdeep -

" yes .... we were very calm and we did not raise blood pressures like you people do...and aah..I think with changing times maybe this is something that people want or maybe this something that you want to give to people. This is a dilemma I have not been able to solve whether you are giving that kind of style to people or people want that style. That you have to answer." [SIC]

The honcho of the Indian Broadcaster's association (Rajdeep Sardesai) avoided it tactfully by saying that it was a difficult question and softened it further by saying he would need a show where he would be answering questions and not asking them.I am sure the viewers got the point.

She raised a wonderful point on the tonality of today's broadcasters and if "pace" was a good enough excuse to manufacture news and fear.

For those of us who would like to see the full interview -

FDI in Agriculture by TNCs (and a shallow Op-Ed in The Hindu)

Today’s edition of The Hindu carries an article titled “Developing countries now dominate global agricultural plantation business”. The article was written by Premila Nazareth Satyanand who …"writes on foreign direct investment issues for the Economist Intelligence Unit, UNCTAD and the World Bank".

The primary objective of the article is to extract the key message in the UNCTAD report titled

“World Investment Report – Translational Corporations, Agricultural Business and Development”.

The Op-Ed has not done justice to the content of the original report and has selectively highlighted parts of the report to make an unfair case for increased participation of TNCs in the agri-sector India (both inward and outward).

Firstly the Op-ed paints a selective of the agricultural sector. While I commend the writer in sharing the good news, the writer falls short of reality. There is a denial of the crisis that is facing the agri-sector across the world. Farmer suicides, manipulation of seed prices, and the roll of American and EU subsidies in depressing crop prices in favor of TNCs is not touched upon. (In all fairness they were not explicitly highlighted in the UNCTAD report). 

Secondly, Transnational Corporations (TNCs) have historically been a stumbling block to equitable development. The role of TNCs  in the Indian Agri-sector through companies such as Cargill and Monsanto has been more noted for farmer suicides and seed price manipulation than equitable development. 

Lastly, the Op-ed stopped short of directly highlighting the scores of red-flags that the report threw up. After reading parts of just one chapter in the report (Chapter IV – Development Implications of TNC Involvement in Agriculture) it became evident that report holds enough content to put a speed-breaker and erect entry-barriers to TNC participation in the agri-sector. If it is bad for us, why should we encourage our companies to behave badly in other countries?

The UNCTAD Report that forms the basis of the writer’s enthusiasm also highlights several other issues that would be of concern to the small farmer (and of no concern to the typical reader of The Economist).

A few of these issues

• Adverse impacts of TNC participation in the agri-sector include driving farmers out of business, and making small farmers dependent on global marketplace and pricing dictated by a handful of large TNCs (which does not include any third-world TNC).
• The report categorically states that the transfer of agricultural technology is constrained by geographic and climatic conditions.
• Only 1% of TNC budget has been spent on developing crops that are suitable to third world countries.This is much more than a bottle neck as the Op-Ed would have us believe. 
• Most first-world agricultural innovations are protected by patents, making it close to impossible to appropriate technology locally.
• The report clearly states that the expectations around technical contributions of TNCs “cannot be high”. Areas of technical participation are, according to the report, limited to seeds, agrochemicals and machinery.We know what seeds have done in Maharasthra, we know the impact of agro-chemicals on the health of farmers and the environment and we know that machinery is not always affordable to the small farmer. 
• The report also categorically states that “technology transfer to TNC owned farms does not readily diffuse to local producers and nor is this usually in TNCs’ interest.” (!)
• Most seeds that TNCs provide cannot be replanted and this leads to high degree of dependency on the TNCs for seeds. 
• TNCs have been participating in the agri sector in India for close to two decades. The impact that they have had on the poor farmer in India is limited in the best of cases. The report still demands an “incentive” for TNCs to help improve the lot of the poor Indian farmer. This to me is unfair. If you have not been able to do anything over two decades with the current level of incentive, what is going to change if incentives are increased?
• The report admits that TNCs are likely to drive small farmers out of business and says that in “some” (read as rare) circumstances they may have a beneficial  impact on the quality on employment. 
• On the one-hand the report admits that TNC participation is largely limited to plantation crops. On the other hand, it says that child and bonded labor is part and parcel of the plantation system in many part of Africa. TNC participation has yet to change this reality and needs to go beyond lip-service. Why should we encourage outward FDI in such cases?
• The report admits that the global supply chain commandeered by retailers is powerful. An example of how this power is used positively to benefit the farmer is not clearly given. What examples are given, benefit consumers in the first world more than they do consumers in the developing world or the farmers themselves. The demands of this supply chain on quality increases the consumption of pesticides and agri-chemicals and puts a greater burden on the farmer and his land. 
• While farmers enter into contractual agreements with TNCs voluntarily, the report clearly states that it is close to impossible for them to make an exit from such an agreement. This "lock-in" works in favour of the TNC and is un-equitable to the farmer. 
• Crop variety is compromised by TNCs, which puts the farmers at risk and open to the price vagrancies of the global market.  
• Funnily, the report says that public investment in rural areas is necessary to encourage private investment. I thought citizens in rural India needed roads as much as a TNC. In other words, public investment should be directed at attracting FDI and not improving the quality of life of farmers! I am expected to pay taxes so that TNCs can make easier profits!

I fail to understand what is at the root of this ebullient enthusiasm in the Op-ed other than the transfer of land-ownership and a control of food pricing in favor of TNCs. The article fails to do justice to the content that has been made available in the report. The fact that the red-flags have almost been brushed under the carpet borders on manufacturing consent for the TNCs and not a case for improved food security. Such a one sided picture is suitable to readers of the Economist but is not in the interests of the Indian farmer (irrespective of whether he is rich or poor). I can not agree with the Op-Ed's argument that the monstrous TNC's from the first world such as Cargill and Monsanto need to be replaced by equally monstrous TNCs from countries such as India.