Make way for meaningful randomness

A financial system in meltdown, the imminent possibility of a lengthy global economic recession, and with no end in sight to the so-called war on terror, the recent attack on the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad was only one item of a fortnight dominated by bad news and doomsday predictions. For Pakistan however, this was more than just another bomb in a city. It represented a terrorist threat on a scale larger than anything witnessed before.

 

Pakistan is not new to being terrorist strikes. In the first 9 months of 2008, the country has witnessed some 45-odd attacks, claiming hundreds of lives already.

 

The ‘clash of civilizations’ paradigm has been thoroughly debunked in Pakistan, given that almost all of those dead in the attacks are Sunni Muslims. The ‘international dimension’ is undermined when the terrorists seem to be operating from within the country. And Pakistan’s allies in the war on terror have now begun air raids on Pakistani soil, respectfully laying to rest the ‘new strategic partnerships’ that the Bush Administration so enthusiastically set out to create in 2001. All in all, it is difficult to ascertain who exactly is at war with whom in Pakistan.

 

The lack of any clear political direction in Pakistan’s Federal and Tribal Areas (FATA) has shifted the war on terror squarely into Pakistani territory. Ironically of course, the battleground for global security can most accurately be described as a ‘no-man’s-land’. Long permitted by the Pakistani establishment to decree unto its own laws, the economically malnourished and religiously conservative areas of North and South Waziristan seem now to have more in common with Taleban and Al Qaeda ideologues and fighters, than with the federal administration in Islamabad.  

 

And so, when the proposed location for a dinner with the President, Prime Minister and Chiefs of Staff is reduced to a smouldering shell on the perimeter of Pakistan’s highest security zone, it does not take a security expert to figure out that Pakistan is facing a terribly dangerous security problem.

 

Flash back to 2001 and Pakistan was everyone’s new favourite military partner. Having undergone an overnight strategic conversion, divorced its Taleban allies and joined the anti-terror bandwagon, Pakistan was hailed as an ideal in its resolve and commitment to international security. That Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had sheltered, even supported militant outfits in Kashmir and Afghanistan was quickly forgotten (not to forget the democratic credentials of its then Head of State). Most dangerously, the links between the ISI and regional militant outfits were swept under the carpet, but never fully severed. The ISI was seemingly re-orientated Westwards but the essential ideological change never took place.

 

As the Musharaff administration fumbled over the handling of its tribal areas, many in the FATA turned against their own national administration. Indeed, hardliners were handed the golden hammer with which to nail the Pakistani administration, pointing to the locals how their own government was sending troops into the area in collusion with a foreign power. Despite subsequent efforts at working with FATA-based hardliners, Pakistan never really recovered from the debacle.

 

Worse still, an unsympathetic ISI, resourced to its teeth, began to distance itself from the federal administration and began to cultivate its own political clout, independent of any direct line of federal control. Come 2008 and moves to place the ISI under the control of the Interior Ministry backfired, faster than one could utter ‘accountable’. The recent new appointment of Lt Gen Ahmed Shujaa Pasha could be a sign of some hope. Or it could be another entrenched army interest, unlikely to report to its civilian government.

 

Indeed this institutional incoherence in Pakistan’s national security structure is the biggest obstacle in tackling the terrorist threat.  

 

It may seem ironic that mere weeks after the celebration of Pakistan’s return to democracy, voices are calling for cooperation with the army. Once Pakistan’s most revered institution, the cronyism, incompetence and corruption of army officials handling civilian institutions during the Musharaff years has perhaps done irrepairable damage to the image of the Pakistani army.

 

And yet in the country’s bleakest moment (one which could well become an existential struggle), the Pakistani army can provide the backbone of physical security upon which to rebuild the country. Pakistan’s most urgent problem is tackling the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). An effort in which the armed forces are fully engaged no doubt, but also an effort where institutional incoherence is utterly unaffordable. A concerted security strategy must see proactive cooperation between the civilian government and armed forces, providing mutual commitment, resources and most importantly – political will.

 

Only the Pakistani armed forces can rein in the ISI. This semi-autonomous entity is often reported to tip off militants of planned strikes by the Americans and their Pakistani allies. It then comes as no surprise that the US would be willing to attack without informing Pakistan. Wherever the blame may lie for the so-called infringement of Pakistani sovereignty, it remains true that Pakistan cannot gather the moral authority to challenge the Americans unless the Pakistani military and civilian establishment is wholly and squarely against militancy. And that includes the ISI.

 

The ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) may share a chequered history with the army, but this is an opportunity to overcome past caricatures and to right past wrongs. After all, the stakes have never been this high. For Pakistan, this war is no longer a western war on terror but now a struggle to prevent itself from becoming a failed state; an effort to prevent an insecure free-for-all, compounded by all sorts of economic ills.  

 

Undoubtedly, security is not the only problem. A stagnant economy, mismanaged agriculture, rampant corruption and unchecked inflation are choking what was once a relatively stable country. But surely, it is only upon the bedrock of basic security that any nation can be built, or as is this case – be rebuilt. No economic investments, or agricultural technology, or accountable practice can be secure, so long as country’s ability to govern and indeed remain itself is in doubt.

.

Whether or not the Pakistani government and armed forces work together is no longer a matter of strategic cooperation, posturing, or leveraging influence. It is now upon these two groups to keep the country together.

 

Both may have proven themselves less than competent in the past few years, but when the question shifts from relative influence within a state to no state at all, surely one can expect better?

So it's that time of the year again when we begin all our new year resolutions. For most of us, in a couple of weeks we find our restraint wearing thin. And before we even know it - there's another new year's resolution down the drain!

What if we spend a few minutes to stop and reflect on why they didn't work the last year? Maybe we'd get some useful answers.

Most of our resolutions are based on something that we, at that moment, are not. The extra 10 kilos around the waist, to cite the most common example. Whatever the motivation is, more often than not - it is something negative. And so, more often than not, it is bound to fail. The logic is simple...

Resolutions built on negative self-opinions, reflecting our own regrets and shortcomings,  serve only to remind ourselves of our failures. Thereafter every effort becomes stained with our previous inability. Obviously nobody wants to constantly be mulling over shortcomings, and the very first time we're challenged (that divine-looking, chocolate-dripped strawberry, for example) we only stop to think of what we can't do (in this case, exercise only a small amount of self-control). We aim small and fall at the smallest challenge. Thereafter, its a downward tumble!
If our resolutions are to last through the whole year year then why not build them on something stronger than our shortcomings? Then there's no frustration at not reaching targets. There is no mulling over failures. Six-weeks into the new year, we won't hear ourselves say, "There goes another New Year resolution..."

To extend the example, wouldn't we all be much happier having positively resolved to be healthy, fitter individuals this new year, rather than resolving negatively to lose weight in order to look better (which, by the way,  implies that at the moment we're all overweight and ugly!)? Wouldn't it be better to celebrate every small victory than berate ourselves at every small loss? Wouldn't it be better to remain inspired through all obstacles than fall at the first one?

The wonderful thing about being positively resolute is that we're always inspired and so working on our resolutions becomes its own reward. And to an inspired person the concept of 'impossible' is just, well, impossible!

Come to think of it, our resolutions are all driving to the one same end - happiness. Happiness doesn't lie in low-fat, low-carbs (and low-taste) cereal bars, just as it doesn't lie in chocolate-dipped strawberries. It lies within.

Resolving "to be..." for its own reward, rather than what we "could have been" is the secret to unlocking this happiness.

Hope you have a Happy New Year 2008!

Love,
Om

It's pretty obvious that I haven't been blogging. Why exactly? It could be attributed to the never-ending piles of school work that have been building on my desk all term, or that I was actually employed this term, or that I chaired India Week or ran for elections. Now now, I'm not writing a eulogy for either myself or the term. But the fact remains that it was a great one and kept me suitably away from blogging.

 

Then again it could be because there was little inspiration. I mean a cold, grey day when everyone's wrapped up and in a hurry to avoid the wind chill works well for a black and white photograph, but for a blogger who finds inspiration in the world around him it can be quite the dampner.

 

And that's got me thinking why exactly do we blog? If anything could embody 'public opinion' it would have to be blogs. Nearly every internet user I know has either written, read or commented on one. I can't write everyday but some of my friends can. And how! Entries upon entries about the walk to school, an afternoon on the ledge, mobile phones, everything. And the best thing is that it all reads well.

 

At its very basic I think blogging comes because of our eternal desire to achieve immortality. To leave a little bit of ourselves 'out there', even if it's only a little blip on the ass of a very, very big internet.

 

It's always useful to stop in the middle of the day and ask yourself "why am I doing this". The answer could surpise you.

 

Guess I just want some of the immortality pie.

It's somewhat how I've been feeling lately. I've just been so damned busy lately that I have had no time for myself, let alone anyone else. You know that thing called a holiday? I didn't have one this December.

And what's really weird - I dreamt last night that I was interacting with *hold your breath* myself! Somehow I managed to go back in time to when I was 2 years old and chill with myself. And yes, I was the ideal child. While we're at it, I'm sorry that you weren't.

In any case, I'm not going to explain the nuances of what I've been upto. Not here at least, for your public consumption.

 

 

 

 

As a new year dawns, a chapter in history has come to a close. Not the final chapter, but certainly a significant one in what is potentially the most violent conflict of our century - the war in Iraq. The occassion? The execution of Saddam Hussein.

At 0600 Hours local time (0300 Hours, GMT) on 30th December 2006, the former Iraqi Dictator was hanged at the gallows in suburban Baghdad bringing to a gruesome end a troubled life and a ruthless dictator. And yet, his execution is coming under severe criticism not simply from various European nations but also most visibly, from the human rights NGO - Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Human Rights Watch has launched some prominent criticism on the trial under which Saddam was convicted of crimes against humanity. Their allegations include the witholding of information from the defence, an illegal jurisdical procedure and a biased judgement. Whilst the technicalities of human rights can be debated inconclusively - for the circumstances surrounding Saddam's trial are ad-hoc at best and mysterious at worst. How, for example can US involvement be entirely divorced from the proceedings when it was the US which financed the set-up of the tribunal which sentenced Saddam, trained the judges and assisted in framing the charges against Saddam? More immediately, was Saddam's time of execution publicised in advance? Who were the people present there, and who had granted them access?

To be sure, this is not to debate whether or not Saddam Hussein deserved to die. Any leader who kills anywhere between 500,000 to a million of his own people (let alone become the first leader to use chemicals within his own territory) has certainly committed a grave crime against humanity, and does deserve punishment for it. My aim here is however, to frame the political context surrounding Saddam's death.

For the new government of Iraq, hailed by the coalition to be the face of a new, more compassionate government, to conduct its affairs in a manner as divorced from its people and the procedure of justice as described by Human Rights Watch hardly inspires confidence into how democratic and participative a new Iraq can be. The execution of Saddam not only comes on the eve of a holy day for the Muslims, but also on the eve of what many consider the lapse of the country into a lawless state of civil conflict.

Consider this - Saddam murdered thousands. This makes thousands of families who would have nothing better than to administer the same treatment to Saddam. But is Saddam's death deliverance to those thousands of families? In a country as divided as Iraq, I would argue hardly not. Those millions who have suffered under Saddam have a right to know what charges were framed against him and what procedure was followed in his killing. The last thing that these people need is an annoucement one day that Saddam will be killed within the next ten days, and to have him dead within the span of a few sunsets. Saddam's victims need to feel that they were involved in his trial and in his execution in a way beyond the few hundred witnesses who were interviewed by the prosecution. In Saddam's death, justice may have finally caught up with Saddam, but justice still fails the thousands of families whose lives were reduced to misery under Saddam.

The invasion of and continued violence within Iraq has undoubtedly made the region far more unstable than it was earlier in the decade. The Shia-Sunni conflagration has opened and worsened the wounds between the two communities. An internal conflict that is (allegedly) conveniently supported by the Iranians. The mere mention then of Moqata Al-Sadr, Shia cleric and Saddam's arch enemy at the former dictator's execution, would do no good for those Sunnis who believe already that Saddam's execution was an affair choreographed by the Shias. Surely the new government could have taken enough precaution to prevent hecklers from attending the execution. Not that Saddam deserved a respectful life, but surely the event should have been one marked by sobriety and not by taunts and guffaws. How such an execution will be digested by the Iraqi public remains to be seen.

In the meantime though, it is worth considering the possible implications of Saddam's allegedly biased trial combined with the insecurity that prevails in the country. Within sections of the population, Saddam can very well become a political martyr, dying in the face of an illegal and self-defeating invasion which ironically brought with it promises of freedom and security. Radical voices within the Islamic world can well use Iraq as a textbook example in exposing the so-called 'vacuous' and 'false' political ethos of Western nations - particularly Britian and the United States. This in turn only makes both countries, and the world at large, more insecure. Not to mention the intonation of Al Sadr and how it could potentially turn the communal unrest for much the worse.

In matters of legal analysis, it is always worth remembering the maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied'. As long as Saddam was in power, justice was delayed to those who suffered under him. In the knee-jerk manner that his trial has come to be described, could it be the case that justice was achieved too soon - distancing and denying the Iraqi people from their own rightful recourse and in effect, losing a golden opportunity to move towards peace and normalcy within the country?

I do think so.

 

 

 

The month is December. In the lower Alps, all you can see are green hills. One cannot help but ask in this heartland of European skiing - where is the snow? Recent reports of snowfall patterns throughout Europe are carrying the same message - the snowline is retreating. With an abject lack of snow even in winter, banks and insurance companies have reduced lending to resorts less than 1500 metres above sea level. But the economic impact is much more than that - there simply aren't any tourists interested in a barren mountain in winter. To ski - the only option is to go higher north.

 

The message is as clear as it can be - the temperature is rising. What has widely been recognised as global warming, or called 'climate change' for political expidency, is a reality in our world today in a way it simply wasn't five years ago.

 

And yet the messages being relayed in the newsmedia is not that of caution or alarm, it is one of passive observation. Even the BBC, known for its unwillingness to take sides, refusing to imply that something is wrong. Global temperatures have increased by a half a degree centigrade over the last hundred years. For a planet that has been around for millions of years, this is an alarming statistic. The effects of climate change are disastrous - with changing weather patterns being linked to numerous and hugely destructive climatic phenomena, whether it be floods in Mumbai or hurricanes Katrina and Rita in New Orleans. The melting of glaciers at an increasing rate, not only threatens coastal cities, but also entire countries such as Malives and the South Pacific archipelago-states.

 

What has been remarkable in shaping global attitudes towards understanding and dealing with global warming is the staunch refusal by the Bush Administration towards accepting or pledging to act towards reducing global warming. Bush's attitude is two-fold. Firstly, he simply refuses to acknowledge climate change as a scientific phenomenon. Secondly, in combating global warming he believes that carbon emissions need to be reduced not simply by developed, but by developing nations as well.

 

To tackle the first reasoning, it would be simplistic and seductive to brand his views as that of the 'village idiot', but I hope to develop an analysis more sophisticated than that. It seems that the Bush administration is preoccupied with an unjustified belief that its domestic industries will lose too much money than is viable if they wake up to the needs of the planet. Heavy industries in the United States are already some of the most highly protected in the world. The Bush Administration does not want to remove this industrial protection and thus fuels the ignorant view that recognising and acting against climate change (in reducing carbon emissions) will reduce domestic production, push people out of jobs and stagnate the industrial belt of the United States. However what the Administration is refusing to understand is that with a five degree rise in temperatures (which doesn't seem far away with the way things are going - perhaps not in our lifetimes, but certainly beyond), global output could fall by more than 10% - pushing millions of Americans, and workers all over the world out of jobs.

 

It is undeniable that the United States is the most powerful country in the world in terms of setting the policy agenda for global action. But when the global leader simply does not see climate change as worth placing on the agenda - we clearly, have a problem greater than the one with which we are faced immediately.

 

The second contention espoused by the current administration is with reference to reducing global carbon output. The United States believes that the cost of cutting carbon emissions (and 'losing jobs') is far greater than the benefits when developing countries are exempt from reducing carbon emissions. Now that would have been a justifiable argument were it true. Unfortunately, it isn't. The United States is the world's largest producer of carbon. So if it cuts down on carbon production, then it does make a real and tangible difference and cannot justifiably point fingers at developing countries. If concerns that this position as the leader in global carbon-production would be overtaken by China in the near future are true, then the United States should certainly consider their position in terms of setting an example (for those who consider the US to be hegemonic - to lead by example).

 

To be fair, this does not take the blame off of the shoulders of countries such as India and China. India especially, if it wants to become a global players must revise its environmental strategy in favour of a more sustainable industrial and energy policy. The continued production of thermal power stations, which run on coal is not a step in the right direction. We are lax in our environmental safeguards and continue to be so. Systematic deforestation and desertification are very real problems in our country. Problems that we are yet to wake up to. Unseasonal rainfall is destroying agriculture - the mainstay of India's social economy. Annual floods in the metropoles are reducing the outut of our industrial and financial nerves.

 

Recently at the LSE, I had the opportunity of meeting with Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of India's Planning Commission (and effectively one of the strongest voices in setting Indian policy) and I asked him whether India had the physical infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions once we entered the league of developed countries in the near future. His response was discouraging. He asked me in return, whether with the population of over a million and without a correspoding increase in jobs as in population, could we ever really consider ourselves developed - and if not, is there any need to worry about reducing emissions? Such a dismissive and downright dangerous attitude is hardly condusive to the creation of a liveable world in the future. Even if we might never technically be a 'developed' state; as the fifth largest and second-fastest growing economy and the second most populous polity in the world - it must be our priority to understand and act on global problems.

 

And this I think is an attitude that all nations must adopt. Global warming is not a problem that is limited simply by political boundaries or phsyical relief - we are all affected by it and unless we do something, we will all suffer from it. Future generations will look back at us today and will paint us perhaps in two lights - as those who acted and saved the world before it was too late; or as those who debated technicalities, lost the bigger picture and damned all future generations to inherit an irreversibly damaged planet. What legacy we leave behind is a choice that lies squarely in our own hands.

 

As a final thought, walking down the streets of London I often hum to myself the popular tune, 'I'm dreaming of a white Christmas...' With how things stand currently, I can't help but wonder whether in the future a 'white Christmas' might be just that - a distant dream.

I had the opportunity of recently witnessing yet another Delhi vs Mumbai debate. Well if you can actually call it a debate, that is. Mostly it involved a bunch of 5-or-so incredibly loud people who were clearly being the noisiest lot in the pub (and in an English pub - that's saying somthing!), trying to convince me how Delhi is cleaner, has better infrastructure, has faster cars, has nicer food, has hotter women...

 

I, being bored as ever, chose not to participate. Much to their annoyance, that too. Finally, about an hour or so into the 'debate' one of them asked why I was being this passive. My response: 'why argue when most of you aren't cool enough for Mumbai, to begin with?' Needless to say, nobody bought me a drink that night.

The recent spate of serial killings of prostitutes in Suffolk has caught the eye of this city and not in the least, this nation. The alarming regularity of the killings (now numbering 5) over the last few weeks have left residents afraid and wary. Commercial sex workers have been advised to keep off the streets and Scotland Yard has its top officers pursuing the case.

 

Yesterday, before the commencement of a local carol service in Ipswich, silence was observed in the memory of the victims - all five of them prostitutes, either in their early twenties or late teens. Whilst their death has been gruesome and pitiful (and of that there is no doubt) it strikes me as curious that local residents chose to mark the death of such victims, who weren't much of a positive influence on their community either. The victims weren't just local residents going about their things; most were drug addicts, forced into prostitution to finance their drug habit. Instead of highlighting the case of their deaths as the pathetic end that a life of addiction can lead to, local residents in effect expressed solidarity with drug offenders - not warranting death, yes - but drug offenders nevertheless.

 

I don't mean to argue that all prostitutes are drug addicts. Neither am I arguing that they did deserve the death that they got. Nor do I think that it is outright wrong for the community to express unity and solidarity in the face of trouble. I just think that whoever the killer is, is preying on the drug instinct of these young women. It is this instinct that communities need to kill, and not observe the memories of those who were arguably, killed by their drug habit.

 

Info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6171319.stm

Five years from September 11, 2001 one of the most commonly asked questions has been whether or not the world today is a safer place.

 

I do remember quite clearly how the world had rallied behind the US in the aftermath of the attack and how united the world was in condemnation of those who had carried out the attacks. Whilst the invasion of Afghanistan successfully unseated the Taleban from power, I would argue that the War on Terror has overall, been far less successful than it should have been. The United States and its allies entered Afghanistan with three objectives in mind - to unseat the Taleban, to find Mullah Mohammed Omar and Osama Bin Laden and to disarm the Pashtun tribals and warlords. To this day, only one of these objectives has been achieved - that of removing the Taleban from power. Osama Bin Laden is still far from being caught (and even if he is eventually caught, for reasons explained later, it would make little of a difference to the terror movement) and Mullah Mohammed Omar is now no longer even part of public memory or discourse. As for diarmament, those who claim to be the internal police of Afghanistan today are but yesterday's warlords and their mercenary armies. Even the cause of unseating the Taliban has been ill achieved. Southern Afghanistan faces an increasing insurgency and the number of dead coalition soldiers in the area are rising by the week. Not to forget the nameless, faceless and unrecorded civilians who are killed in the conflict.

 

Whilst most Afghans once welcomed the arrival of Western troops within the country, now the mood seems much more of disappointment and frustration. Why, most Afghans ask, were a lack of resources for rebuilding cited when mysteriously numerous millions of dollars and thousands of troops were discovered to go to war in Iraq?

 

Whilst I have been generally supportive of the US action in removing Saddam, I have also been apalled at how crudely the whole exercise was carried out. The earlier pretext of Sadamm possessing nuclear capabilities was poorly explained and to the great shock of many, was covered up with the very US ultimatum, 'either you are with us, or against us' - an ultimatum that eventually removed any possibility of an open debate on the issue of going to war. Although no real weapons ere eventually recovered, it cannot be denied that Sadamm possessed the know how and had resources to the materials needed to acquire these armaments in the future. The reason I support his unseating is because it would have been much more foolish to have waited for Sadamm to act on this knowledge and resources and effectively thereafter hold the world by the noose of oil - a position that Iran is currently bordering on. Just like in the case of global warming and climate change, where we cannot wait for all of the scientific information to come in before acting, lest it might be too late; was the case of Iraq. Saddam was buying time with the efforts of the IAEA which, although it pleaded more time to assess whether Iraq did (then) possess nuclear weapons or not, was widely supportive of the view that he had once commenced on a programme closer to the First Gulf War, even if the programme was defunct in 2003.

 

However this view was never explained. Instead, hogwash stating that Sadamm was supportive terrorist groups was widely propagated. Had Bush realised that his close allies and friends, the House of Saud and Saudi Arabia were the source of a majority of 9/11's funding and manpower supply; then the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have effectively been prevented. Had the US put greater pressure on Musharraf to enter the North Western Frontier Province three years ago, instead of earlier this year, then a hideout for the Al-Qaeda would have been denied. Had the US expected a higher level of intelligence from those whom it expected to believe that Saddam (the only secular leader in the Middle East) was harbouring Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, it could have escaped the tag of being a liar. However such approaches have been half-hearted at best and ignored at worst.

 

The effect of this all has been to create the perception that the US (and implicitly - the West) have launched a war against Islam. The attack on Iraq and the lack of effective rebuilding measures in Afghanistan have armed Islamic fundamentalists to propagate the idea that their sovereignty and honour have been impinged upon and that they must avenge this. Areas that have for long been severely neglected by their domestic governments and have been consequently economically impoverished are now fertile breeding grounds for the terrorists - being convinced somehow that insensitive Western action in the region is responsible for their misery. The network of terrorist organizations that has emerged is often comparable to a hydra, wherein the severing of one head will make way for several others - a reason why the death of Osama Bin Laden will be little more than symbolic.

 

I was shoked earlier this term to hear the opinion of a close Pakistani friend of mine, when she confided to me that she believed that Islam was under attack from the West. What should have been interpreted as an attack against the global threat of terror and nevertheless a very small minority of Islam (radical fundamentalists) and most importantly against specific states, seems to have widely assumed the status of a global war on Arab and Asian Muslims.

 

And for this, while a good deal of blame does lie with various local governments; the responsibility of the United States and its many Western allies (the United Kingdom in particular) should not go unnoticed or unmentioned. The absolute insensivity with which the Iraq invasion was undertaken, the insensitivity with which American troops conduct their affairs in day-to-day Iraq (from wherein various reports of illegal detentions and prison torture are now arising) and the lack of an effective disarmament and rebuilding programme in Afghanistan seem to embroil the concerned coalition in a seemingly endless war. More dangerously, it seems to be valid grounds for the propagation of a so-called 'clash of civilizations' - not simply amongst the downtrodden but also amongst the educated elite.

 

Whilst I do believe that it is important to give people a voice, and that democracy is (given our options) the best form of government that we can harbour; the cause of spreading democracy if undertaken with a gun will only serve to produce the opposite effect. The coalition army in Iraq is today hardly seen as a liberating army, but more as one of occupation, by the Iraqis. The widespread perception that neighbouring Iran has been nudging and supporting Shi'a-Sunni violence and the lack of attention to this cause by the Americans seems to paint their interests (rather crudely) to the extraction of oil from the region.

 

If asked today whether the world is a safer place 5 years after 9/11, I would agree implicitly with the cause that the United States and its allies have been promoting, but would disagree strongly with the means by which these causes have been promoted - effectively making the world a less safer place over the years. Had the United States and its coalition simply stepped back and sought international legitimacy in their invasion of Iraq and greater international security involvement in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, the outcome might well have been different.

 

 

Please refer to the following story>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6207494.stm

 

The story reports on various levels of physical abuse and torture of domestic helps in Faridabad, aged as little as 6 years. What is truly disturbing however, is that this is not a situation confined to Faridabad alone. The employment (and abuse) of children as domestic helps (illegal below the age of 14, under the new Child Labour Act) is widespread throughout India.

 

I have always been unable to fathom what barbaric impulse in our nature would inspire acts such as those recorded above. I have often seen how employers treat these young children, mostly employed to play along with their own children, but also expected to work through the day and be denied access to education or any sort of future. Often employers think that they are engaged in an act of great virtue by employing these children - arguing that their lives in the city are far better than the ones they would have had in the village from which they have been 'sourced' (often trafficked). Often domestic abuse drives these children to run away from their workplaces, only to be pushed into crushing poverty, drug culture, crime or prostitution.

 

The Government has enacted the law for a reason and it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to prevent the employment of child labour amongst and around us. So long as incidents as the above occur (and their numbers are severely uderestimated due to how rarely these crimes come to light), our responsibility is not fulfilled. And to those who think that they are providing their servants with a better life by employing them - do send them to school, give them 2 days a week off from work, a full 10 hours of sleep every night and only then even begin consider yourself to be providing these children with a greater chance for self-development.

 

Eradicating child labour, in our backyard first and in greater society thereafter is not an act of charity, it is (to borrow from Nelson Mandela) an act of justice.

The following words are not mine and I must confess - I don't know whose they are. Nevertheless though, they are some of the most valuable words I have come across this term and are possibly relevant to some of the recent debates that this space has been witnessing -

 

I nearly went a month without an entry here. Well, nearly...

 

In revisiting my previous blog and comments I came across one which had made a claim on the premise that 'it was in the papers'.

 

Now I'm one who looks forward to healthy debate and counter-arguments on this space. But at the same time, I do check my facts before posting them and usually copy a link when expressing a fact-based opinion. Furthermore, if ever the situation demands I am availble to furnish the source from which I am quoting.

 

It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 'it was in the papers' isn't sufficient justification for making a claim, especially when that claim cannot be backed up with a specific source. This isn't a personal attack on anyone; just a pointer to state that if I'm making the effort to check my facts I would be grateful to be countered with verifiable sources. 'It was in the papers' just isn't acceptable.

Going to hospital in January changed my life in more ways than I can possibly recognise. In the starkest way possible, it made me aware of how utterly useless my body can come to be. For those few days, neither could I stand up, nor sit. To walk was unbearable, to lie down was torturous. Eating was painful, digestion - impossible. I was breathing, but it seemed to infuse no life in the dormant and vacous mass that I had become.

 

To have regained strength from thence was not simply a recovery but a process of regeneration and rebirth. In managing to walk it was as if I had taken my first steps. To eat lunch was to have rediscovered taste. To be able to shower was to be independent again. To manage a routine was indeed to live again.

 

Somewhere along the way, I moved up a plane. Coming this close to being unable to make any use of life (and indeed, sometimes wishing it were over) and to be ressurected from the brink made me appreciate just how easy it is to exist but to be of no mortal consuequence - to exist but not to truly live. And in realising this, I promised myself to live every coming day and moment as it should be; to maximise whatever I was capable of because I was well aware of just how easily it could all be lost.

 

This was, by no means easy. In Marh of this year, I wrote of how I could just not bring myself to have a good time in a club anymore. There was the frustratingly evasive question of why I could not enjoy drinking anymore. Up until that point, to have a good time meant to be sozzled and the slipping familiarity of that was alarming.

 

Tonight I think (or hope, at least) that I have found my answer. I know that, of which I am capable. In 'living' I have realised that my potential (or yours for that matter) is boundless, and the key to tap that potential is to maximise consciousness. It is to ask yourself 'who am I?' or 'what am I?' or even 'what am I here for'. The key to finding your answer is not to drug yourself but to actually probe deeper within. All of what you find will not be comforting. In fact a large measure will be difficult. Nobody wants to probe through layers of dust, reopen old bandages to treat and clean the muck inside, which is just so much easier to ignore completely. To deal with that pain though, is in itself, an elevating experience. To face battle, to be wounded and to bleed is to realise for yourself just how far you can push yourself and that even after the darkest of nights there is a dawn.

 

Drugs, cigarettes, alcohol are an impediment to this. To wilfully confuse the consciousness, to inject ourselves with what can only be described as concentrate impurities for our body is not only dangerous but also incredibly foolish. Our bodies are the product of thousands of years of evolution. They are the product of complex variations and mutations so that we can have today an instrument with which we can change the world; the most powerful instrument which we can ever possess - our selves.

 

I guess this is what they all call spirituality. The ability to connect with the spirit within, to realise that the body is an instrument of the mind; the only instrument of the mind. From that starting point one can probabl even begin to answer the eternal question: 'What am I here for?' To be spiritual is to be in control, to not allow any other person or substance to control you. To be spiritual is to be conscious. To be spiritual is to live.

 

 

I'm a big fan of punk rock music. Especially the sappy stuff. The kind they play in the American Pie movies. I don't know exactly why, even. I mean for someone who hates sappy movies; sappy, emo (rock) music just does it for me.

 

So here I am, well past midnight in London and my computer begins to play 'Wherever you will go'  and my mind wanders back to the summer just gone by. I did meet all the old bunch and it was great catching up. But to be honest, my summer was special only because of the crew whom I saw nearly everyday and who were with me right until when I left to fly back.

 

Kabir, Rishit, Mawas, Auntiji, Sajnani, Binal, Katre, Gaurav, Zaz, Taha, Hardik, Tulika, Prerna, Mree, Sandeep, Harry...

 

you guys are awesome!

 

I won't say that I can't wait until next summer until I see you again, because honestly that would blind me to all that London has to offer until next summer. So times may come and go, we might not see each other and we may even move apart as time goes along but in the years to come I will surely count myself as fortunate to have friends such as you guys.

 

That is all for now.