Thursday, August 31, 2006

Reverse spin on Israel

Dr George Bisharat, a UC law professor of Palestinian descent, gave a talk at our local Muslim center a couple of weeks back. The theme for the evening was the then-ongoing war in Lebanon, so it was rather surprising that Bisharat took the opportunity to announce the birth of a organisation called IMEU (Institute for Middle East Understanding), and dedicated all of his talk to it.

IMEU is supposed to be a one-stop shop for American mediapersons wanting information on the Middle East, specifically the Palestinian/Arab viewpoint, and Bisharat made a pretty convincing case for IMEU to exist. According to him, American and Western media has long suffered from a slant towards Israel and this has been largely because of the fact that while Zionist Americans are very media-savvy, Palestinian Americans are not. Apparently, there are dozens of Zionist media groups who overwhelm reporters with the Israeli angle on Middle East happenings and bombard newspapers with pro-Israel articles, while Palestinian/Arab Americans groups to their loss have never had a cohesive media strategy. Bisharat announced that in the short time since it has started operating, IMEU already has to its credit about three dozen pro-Palestinian op-eds "planted" in national and regional newspapers.

That said, the idea of an organisation like this being "successful" sends a chill down the spine. One it tempted to compare IMEU's potential with the unbridled and unscrupulous clout that AIPAC holds in American polity. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), rich in funds from American Zionists, is supposed to be the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. By funding campaigns of politicians on both sides, AIPAC ensures small victories (e.g., the 410-8 Congress vote supporting Israel's invasion of Lebanon) as well as momentous historical acts (e.g., the invasion of Iraq) in Israel's favor (read The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy). Undoubtedly, AIPAC is as much of an idol as a bane for Palestinian activists.

In a nation where mass media flaunts tremendous control of public policy, and the footfalls of which policy cause termors across the globe, an organisation with sinister spin-doctoring objectives like IMEU spells dark forebodings. I hope I never have to recount to my grandchildren how one warm August evening, I saw the birth of a monster.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Flood control and the lack of it

Flooding is big news this monsoon in many parts of India, on a scale much larger than the notorious Mumbai flood of 2005. Flood control is also big news this season in the Central Valley of California, though in a far less drastic way. A proposed State Assembly bill titled AB 1899 and seven other bills related to flood control were shelved yesterday since it seemed apparent that the Governor would veto them if tabled. The minor uproar that has resulted in the regional press has accused the building lobby of pulling strings to sabotage the bills. Among other things, the bills would have restricted development of new houses and businesses in flood-prone areas, and would have made local governments accountable for allowing such developments. Smells like the good old builder-politician nexus, huh?

As an Indian, it is tempting to get a wicked feelgood kick out of this, to think that flood control here is as much plagued by vested interests as in India. Recall that after the 2005 Mumbai flood, commentrators had blamed rampant construction by developers in the floodplain of the Mithi river coupled with BMC's oversight as the main reason for the flood. Unfortunately, the analogy is too far from the truth. The California flood-bill-sabotage (or the New Orleans flood disaster, for that matter) is only a dropped catch compared to flood control in India, which is a case of the team not turning up for the match at all!

There are many ways of representing the difference in effectiveness of flood control in India and the US; I choose to put it in terms of 'democratization' of flood control, because it not affected by how rich or resourceful a state is and thus offers an even comparison.

In the US, flood control at the federal level is the prerogative of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). USACE has developed its capabilities over more than a century, learning important lessons from big flood disasters (read The great Mississippi flood of 1927 and how it changed America). Hydraulic research centers run by USACE not only do studies for large project with federal/state mandates, but are actively involved in developing technical resources like manuals and hydraulic softwares for 'democratic' use, i.e., 100% of this stuff is available for free download or free mail order from USACE and is widely used by citizens. FEMA, which administers flood insurance in the US, offers PDFs of countrywide flood maps online - any citizen can log on and momentarily find out if his community has a flood risk, if the risk of the flood is 1% of 0.2%, and whether he should buy flood insurance or not. If there is a creek or river in your town, there is a good chance that the US Geological Survey offers real-time and historical flow data for it.

The point is that in addition to the large scale public works like building flood control dams and levees, these agencies have ensured that information and awareness percolates downwards. Thousands of town and country governments use these technical resources to regulate development around floodplains in their jurisdiction, and millions of citizens use it to protect or insure themselves against floods. (So that the discussion doesnt get skewed, note that all this info was freely available in print form since long before the internet came into common use.)

On the other hand, in India, flood control is mostly perceived only in terms of flood relief, or in terms of big-ticket physical flood infrastructure. The former is illustrated by the recent demand by the Gujarat CM for Rs 2000 crores to mitigate flood damage, the latter by President Kalam's post-flood musing that the river inter-linking project might help prevent such disasters. 'Soft' measures for pre-emption or mitigation such as long-term regulation of construction in floodplains, development of affordable flood insurance, or development of better flood forecasting and warning systems are rarely talked about and never implemented.

On the bueaucratic front, the forerunners in India on the flood front are National Institute of Hydrology (NIH) and Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) (water is a state subject in India, so there is no direct equivalent to USACE). Both these esteemed organisations treat their knowledge bank as a heavily guarded state secret. The NIH website proudly announces that their technical studies are "widely circulated free of cost to state and central organisations", but offers no simplified or otherwise information for citizens; apparently, for them hydrology is none of your or my business. Ironically, the most downloaded paper in the international Journal of Hydrology is written by a NIH scientist and can be downloaded for $30. But can an Indian citizen living in India easily lay his hands on a NIH study, paid or otherwise? No. When I worked in Delhi, I made a request to IMD on behalf of my office to buy historical rainfall and wind data for Delhi. But when they slapped us with an estimate of Rs 90,000 for the data, we decided to forget about it (my employer wasnt some MNC, it was a 100% local enterprise).

The concept of democratization of water is of course not new. Noted water economist Tushaar Shah often calls groundwater a "democratic resource" (because it is far easily accessed than waiting for the state to build a dam) and the late Anil Agarwal had used the catchy phrase "Making water everybody's business" for CSE's water campaign. While the thriving club of traditional water harvesting advocates in India will insist that hydraulic knowledge actually flows from the bottom upwards, I believe that a top-down approach of loosening up state institutions as far as knowledge goes, and active engagement of flood-managers with the citizenry and local organisations would do no harm to the situation.

Update: Commentary on the IMD in Frontline, via David

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Sweet News

A chocolate factory worker in Kenosha, Wisconsin, slipped into a vat of thick gooey chocolate and got stuck in chest-deep chocolate. It took firemen and police two hours to extricate the man out of the quicksand-like stuff.

The best part was this:

"They tried to free the man but couldn't get him loose until the chocolate was thinned out with cocoa butter."

[link to unrelated cartoon]

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Kashmir: Separating the Greys from the Blacks

Ek dal do panchhi re betha
Kaun guru, kaun chela?
Guru ki karni chela bharega
Ood ja hans akela.
(Folk-pop song from south Rajasthan)

In his Independence Day address, Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad had called upon the Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to participate in the the 3rd Round Table conference to be held soon. He also extended to call to militant groups, asking them to lay down their weapons in favour of talks. The call was immediately turned down by the APHC as well as Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, the latter being one of the largest militant groups in Kashmir.

What caught my eye in this report was one of the pre-conditions laid down by the Hizb for any kind of talks. It demands that the struggle in Kashmir be called a freedom struggle instead of terrorism. As if to smack this condition in the face, the article is titled "Terrorists turn down CM's appeal". Of course, the newspaper didnt go out of its way to underline this ridicule, it being standard practice in the our press to brand all Kashmiri militants as terrorists. Further, very rarely would you come across journalists making the distinction between Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (largely made up of indigenous Kashmiris) versus, for instance, Lashkar-e-Toiba (largely foreign; spawned from the Afghan/Pakistani anti-Soviet mujahideen).

Another interesting titbit of news was APHC Chairman Maulvi Umar Farooq's announcement that he would be visiting Ireland soon to study the peace process there. The Kashmiri problem (and probably its solution) has often been compared to the northern Ireland issue, and had been extensively discussed in the book Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace reviewed here.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

His Master's Voice

Monday evening I attended a talk given by Republican Congressman Dan Lungren at a small church in the town of Elk Grove, CA. He was invited by a group called Elk Grove Peace and Justice Forum. This group and the church have liberal leanings, so for Lungren, being a Republican, to have accepted the invitation was itself a bold and unusual step.

Dan Lungren has considerable political experience (Congressman current and 1978-89, ex-California Attorney-General, member of House Judiciary Committee) so I expected his talk to be an exposition of the thoughts and ideas that go behind a mature politician’s approach. Unfortunately, Lungren had little to offer besides the hackneyed post-9/11 truisms that are already being doled out in good measure by his party and the administration.

His talk centered on the Israel-Hizbullah conflict as he defended the administration's no-ceasefire policy and put the Israeli position in the context of “peace and justice”. There were barely 60 people present in the church, but most of them were anti-war, so when the question-answer session started it became pretty clear that a ceasefire wasn’t coming soon, not in this church! To all questions alike, Lungren tossed back official Republican party lines – at least half a dozen times he qualified his views by adding “as President Bush says”. Except for some disagreement with the administration’s fiscal approach, everything conformed to the GOP cookie-cutter.

One highlight though was Lungren’s unwitting admission that America’s Iraq adventure is for oil, when he mentioned on a couple of occasions that energy self-sufficiency was important so that “our men and women don’t have to fight abroad like they are doing now”. You never hear such public admissions. The person who pointed this out was none other than Bill Durston, Lungren’s Democratic opponent in the coming election (November), who was present in the audience. Unfortunately, Lungren refused to engage with Durston, insisting that they save themselves for their first official debate on October 5.

While most questioners gave Lungren room to weave and digress, one gentleman in the audience who called himself David hit the nail on the head. Here is what transpired:

David: Sir, talking about ‘justice’, what is your view about the Palestinians’ right to return [1]?

Lungren: I believe that Israel and Palestine should live side-by-side … blah … democracy… blah …peace ..blah

David: Sir, you haven’t answered my question. What do you think of the Palestinians’ right to return to Palestine?

Lungren: As I said, I believe in the two nations….

David: Sorry for interrupting. It seems to me that you think that the right to return does not apply as far as Palestinians are concerned. Is that correct?

Lungren: *silence*

David: Thank you.

[1] i.e., UN resolution 194 which gives Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Ahmadinejad on CBS

Mike Wallace interviewed Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week in Tehran, which was aired today evening on CBS 60 Minutes. Ahmadinejad doesnt speak to western journalists, but he made an exception this time. Mike Wallace is remembered for his interview in 1979 with Ayatollah Khomeini.

The most anticipated questions were of course about Ahmadinejad's proclamation for wiping out Israel and calling the Holocaust a myth. Ahmadinejad evaded these questions, and quite clumsily so. Though he did make his point about Israel by counter-questioning Wallace why Palestinian should give up their life and homes for the Jews when they didnt have anything to do with the Holocaust. He called Israel "an imposed regime" and wondered why America offered it unconditional support.

On the troubles in the Middle East and America's role in it, Ahmadinejad was blunt. Like his friend Hugo Chavez, he summed it up by saying that America was trying to create an empire and wasn't willing to accomodate others, and it was its attitude that was the root cause of the problems. He evaded the question of Iran supplying weapons to Hizbullah by pointing out the hardware that the US is supplying Israel with. He bemoaned the fact that his letter to Bush has gone unanswered, and hinted that it only goes to show that Bush likes to speak with bombs.

If at all the interview was designed to look like a confrontation, the scores are:
Ahmadinejad=10, CBS/Wallace=0

The conduct and production of the interview was pathetic. Wallace apparently seemed high on his reputation as a no-holds-barred interviewer, but for a viewer who doesnt share America's cultish adulation for TV show hosts, he seemed plain condescending and rude. To show off your balls by asking tough questions is admirable, but scolding your guest for peripheral things like the length of their answers ("keep your answers concise") is just showmanship in bad taste and disrespectful of the man's position. The editing was poor; Doordarshan's editors in the 1980s would have done a better job.

Rider: A very interesting notion was put forth by Michael Slackman in his syndicated article 'Yes' means 'no,' maybe in talking to Iranians in which he points out how the Iranian cultural principle of 'taroof' dictates the practice of insincerity - of praising people when you dont mean it or inviting people when you dont want them over. The article tries to point out how this cultural norm gets in the way when no-nonsense straight-talking Americans try to communicate with Iranians. For Indians it would be an interesting read because many things that qualify taroof hold true in Indian society too. In the case of this interview, it might explain the vagueness that peppers Ahmedinejad's answers.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Salwa Judum: Good or bad?

During the past fortnight, two newspapers broadcasted from opposite ends of India's political spectrum carried articles on Salwa Judum, the anti-Maoist movement in Chattisgadh. Salwa Judum has been in the spotlight recently after the Erraboru massacre in which Maoists attacked a refugee camp organised by the former and killed between 35 to 60 people (figures vary with source). It is interesting to see Salwa Judum being painted in contrasting colours by these two newspapers.

From the right, the Aug 6 issue of the Hindu nationalist weekly Organiser carried an editorial on the movement. The editorial is in reaction to the opinion prevalent in some quarters that the Salwa Judum is not really the organic resistance movement that it is made out to be, that it is has been organised by the Chhattisgadh government to fight the battle on its behalf, and that its actions have only exacerbated the situation. The editor (R Balashankar) argues that the Centre should put its weight behind the Salwa Judum instead of casting doubts about its credentials. For him, Maoist violence stems from "the wily plains people, mostly from Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh" while the Salwa Judum is made up of "gullible Vanvasis" trying to fight them off. The battle is clearly between good and evil, and there should be no questions about Salwa Judum or its methodology.

On the other hand, the July 22 issues of Economic and Political Weekly from the left hosted a special section with eight articles on the Maoist movement (free registration required for viewing). Of course, EPW is not a formal political mouthpiece but seems to host views exclusively from the left. Nearly all the articles are written by individuals who empathise with the Maoist movement (R Balashankar call them 'apologists in the media'; one of the writers is Sitaram Yechury, a CPI politburo member) and who think Salwa Judum is a villain manipulated by the Chattisgadh (BJP) government and deserves to be eliminated. Though all of them critisize the Maoists for their harsh methods, they all claim that conditions for the "revolution" has come from poor living conditions stemming from historic reasons such as a feudalistic land tenure system.

The most apparent cosmetic difference in the writings from the two sides is in the wording used to describe the people living in the Maoist areas. The left calls them tribals or adivasis as has been the official practice since Independence, while the Organiser calls them 'vanvasis' (The Hindu nationalist movement is trying to rub off the notion that adi-vasis have been living here since before the Aryans invaded India since it debunks the very notion of Aryan invasion. It is also trying to broaden its base from its currently upper class Hindu support).

For someone who is not familiar with leftist writing, the tone in some of the EPW articles can come across as treasonous. One of the articles titled "Spring and its Thunder" seems to be written with as much gusto and hot blood as you would expect from Chandrasekhar Azad in the middle of his struggle. It almost leads you to think that a successful communist revolution is imminent and the only thing in debate is the methodology. The subtle condonation of the violence that goes hand-in-hand with the Maoist movement is disturbing. On the other hand, the Organiser seems to take an illogical line too. It advocates suppression of the Maoist movement at all costs by attributing all its causes to urban troublemakers, not sparing half a syllable to indicate that at least one of the causes of adivasi/vanvasi unrest is poor social conditions.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Like a civil war?

One of my all-time favourite films is Thoda Sa Roomani Ho Jaye. It sports an innocuous theme of a small-town family and the world around them, but the film is peppered with classic subtleties of social and political satire. At one point, the protagonist’s brother who is a orchard-farmer is complaining about the delayed monsoon and how it is affecting his business. His father, in jest, reprimands him: “Kya sarkar ne akal ghoshit kiya hai? Jab tak sarkar nahi kehti, akal kaise ho sakta hai?? (How can a drought be till the government proclaims it to be so?)”.


One finds this joke playing out in real in the American media’s attitude towards the sectarian violence in Iraq. For months, journalists and commentators have indulged in a continuous foreplay-like situation of talking about the resemblance to civil war but never directly calling the Iraqi disturbance a civil war. Gen Abizaid’s testimony before a Senate committee brings them closer, but they continue to dawdle near the brink. Presumably, the media is waiting for confirmation from the administration before bringing the C-word into their regular vocabulary to describe the Iraq war. So much for an independent press.


One interesting development last week (well, to Friedheads at least) was Thomas Friedman’s condescension to admitting that the intervention in Iraq is a futile exercise. He is now advocating a last-ditch diplomatic effort and then honourable withdrawal. This man represents the breed of Americans who balance their love for Israel with their hatred for Bush. They support the war on Iraq, but easily get distraught when the enemies of Israel seem to be winning. So far, Friedman has also advocated strong action against Iran; let us see how he fares on that. Watch this space.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Remember Sanjoy Ghosh












Sanjoy Ghosh (1959-1997) was a social activist who was kidnapped and killed by ULFA militants while leading a social development programme in Majuli, Assam. He was a graduate of IRMA (Institute of Rural Management, Anand) who earned a reputation for efficient and direct development action by founding and nurturing URMUL (Uttar Rajasthan Milk Union Limited), later leaving it to lead an NGO called AVARD in Assam. During his work there he mobilised people to protect themselves from frequent floods, but in the act got into the way of the nexus between ULFA and local flood embankment contractors.

Sanjoy is a legend on rural development campuses like IRMA and TISS, where youngsters look up to him as proof that someone with an urban middle-class background like themselves too can make a difference, so what if the price is heavy. One of the oft-repeated anecdotes is how his IIMA and IRMA interviews basically consisted of Sanjoy grilling the panel about what they had to offer him, and how he turned down admission to IIMA in favor of IRMA.

Last week, an ULFA militant named Mridul Hazarika died in a police encounter in Assam. Hazarika allegedly had a hand in Sanjoy's kidnap and murder. One is hesitant about how to react to this piece of news...what justice would Sanjoy have sought?

Remember Sanjoy Ghosh.

Friday, August 04, 2006

Words of wisdom from Mumbai

A letter by a Mumbaikar in the July 29 Economist wins honorable mention and deserves to be quoted:

Sir –
So mayhem in Mumbai means a solution to Kashmir must be found. Yet when the same treatment was meted out to London there was little push for action to resolve Iraq or the other “situations” that feed the war on terror. The old bias persists. In the developing world we deserve what we get, while in the West innocence and good intentions are taken for granted.

Dominic Watson
Mumbai

Shabaash, Dominic. Unfortunately, the weekly award for incoherence and fuzzy logic too goes to a Mumbaikar. Read that letter here (the first letter in the section).

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Hetch Hetchy Hungama

Last week's spate of public debate about the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in California provides plenty of amusement as local politicians and activists posture themselves, bare their knuckles or shove their feet in their mouths.

For starters, Hetch Hetchy is the reservoir that is formed behind the O'Shaughnessy dam (in the US, dams have different names than the reservoirs they create) in the Yosemite National Park in California. It gains its notoriety from the fact that it was built in a valley thought to be nearly as beautiful as Yosemite valley, thereby submerging it forever from human sight. The plan for the dam was stiffly but unsuccessfully opposed by John Muir and others in the early 1900s, whose successors are fighting today to have the dam demolished.

The latest blast of hot air in the debate comes from a recently completed feasibility study for dam removal conducted byDWR (Dept of Water Resources, California), which found that removal and restoration can cost anything between $3 b and $10 b. In context, the controvertial proposed Auburn dam is estimated to cost $1 b. There is much at stake in the dam (or its removal). Hetch Hetchy provides water and electricity to 2.4 million San Franciscoans for whom it is dear, but its survival is also a symbolic lifeline for those like Congressman John Dolittle who are pushing for new dams. On the other hand, restoration of the Hetch Hetchy is the wet-dream of every conservationist in this state and beyond.

Both pro- and anti-removal sides have claimed victory from the findings of the report. Conservationists say that the report indicates that removal is practically possible, the only question is when. Those who want the dam standing are laughing at the cost, saying its practically impossible to raise that kind of money given California's otherwise "crumbling infrastructure".

I wasnt as surprised to hear Representative Richard Pombo (Republican) calling the idea as having "comedic value" as I was to hear Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein (Democrat), who has substantial credentials supporting environmental legislation, write off the report saying removing Hetch Hetchy will make the state vulnerable to blackout (O'Shaughnessy provides 400 of the 60,000 MW California generates). Turns out that Feinstein is an ex-mayor of San Francisco. I havent heard a single politician support it except the Assemblywoman who motivated the study.

Local newspaper editorials in northern California unanimously shut out the idea but support for the pro-removal lobby came from unexpected quarters - LA Times. The Times calls Feinstein's statements baloney and says the dam is Hetch Hetchy valley's shame and has to go. After all, the pinkies in San Francisco have forever pointed accusing fingers at Los Angeles for "stealing" water from Owens Valley (further reading: Cadillac Desert). Now LA is getting back!

free html hit counter