Not your regular nerds

Normally, when you hear about prominent people in the US with Indian-sounding names, you can safely bet that they would be from the fields of academics, technology, or business. So it is always refreshing to come across the few who are not. Two such gentlemen are Dinesh D'souza and Rahul Mahajan, both political pundits of some repute. What is remarkable about these men, and what makes it strange to mention them in the same breath, is that they come from the polar ends of the American political spectrum.

Dinesh D'souza is the author of several staunchly conservative books, the latest one being the controversial (not to say the others were any less controversial) The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11 . He is the 'Michael Moore of the right', if I may use the expression, and normally panders to the radically conservative Christian audience. Indeed, his latest book has been lambasted even by conservative scholars as being over-the-top. Is it surprising, given the claim that he dated Ann Coulter at some point in his life?

Rahul Mahajan is a noted liberal commentator and anti-war activist. He too has recently released a book, The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism (by the very name, you will burn down your bookshelf if you stack it next to D'souza's book). It would be a stretch to call Mahajan a mainstream figure; most of his writings having appeared in far-left publications and his following centered among the nihilistic leftist lot, but that's still a lot. I recently heard him being interviewed on an anti-war radio program, where he hinted that the anti-war movement, in its current form, has reached the limits of its effectiveness. I wonder what he wishes to lead it towards.

As much as I am vexed by the extreme nature of the political views espoused by these two individuals, there is also some degree of respect present. Maybe its bigotry, but that I tend to be more impressed by individuals succeessful in areas that their genetic, familial, cultural, and economic roots have not prepared them for. The political assimilationist that I am (at least in principle), I had rather hang out with a piyo (the word comes from PIO - person of Indian origin :D) representing Oklahoma farmers than the piyo representing New Jersey's gujju community.

Lorem ipsum dolor

Roll-calls are unpleasant
For Warren T. Franklin
For whenever his call comes up
The teacher frowns, and spits, "WTF?!"

Wanted: Enemies at home

When I introduce cricket to people unfamiliar with the game, I describe the nature of the game (as played and watched in India) as being akin to war - the only clashes which interest and rally people are the ones waged with foreign nations; internal conflicts are to nobody's taste. But jokes apart, the lack of Indian interest in domestic cricket is certainly worth a discussion. Well, at least worth a couple of anecdotes, in any case.

When I was a kid, I used to bicycle past the university cricket ground to and from school, and often pause outside the fence to watch inter-university matches. Best I remember, the only souls watching the match would be a few kids like myself hanging around with the hope of chasing the odd ball lofted over the fence, and a few peons from nearby offices biding their time before the inevitable return to work after xeroxing the electricity bill. And to think that I now pay $7 to watch high-school football games, and college ball tickets are so expensive I prefer to watch them on TV!

More recently, I was in Udaipur, Rajasthan, during a Duleep trophy match. It was a "first-class" match in all respects except for the viewership, attracting as many spectators as a snake-charmer would on a hot afternoon in Kolhapur. Later in the afternoon I walked across the street into an office for some business, where a few of my distant colleagues were animatedly discussing the Indian cricket team. When I butted in and asked them if they were following the Duleep trophy match, they looked at me as if I had brought up an alien subject, nodded no, and continued their discussion.

Reams have been written about what ails the institution of domestic cricket, but what intrigues me is the mind of the individual so-called cricket fan. Is it indeed a paradox, or am I missing something in, that in a nation where cricket is supposed to be an obsession, most fans wouldnt be able to guess the names of any players (except the celebrities) on their state or zonal cricket teams?

This week saw a whole bunch of articles (TOI, ET, IBN) surface about nervousness and despair in the ranks of "India Inc" (god, how I hate the expression) about their advertising plans going bust if the team doesnt make it far. One estimate was a loss of Rs 150 crores in withdrawn advertisements. It seems like a no-brainer that in domestic sports, advertisers win no matter who loses, especially in markets like India where most of TV advertising is dominated by national brands. I hope that the scare of losing the 150 crores, or actually losing it (we shall see soon), will persuade the corporates to put their money where it should be.

When scribe's holier than script

The other day, I unthinkingly made an uncomplimentary comment about The Economist magazine in conversation about journalism with a learned friend of mine. I remarked how, apart from bringing extremely well-written material to my desk, the magazine brought with it a highly partisan worldview. My friend wasn't in agreement or amused, instead got offended, suggesting that I was being sentimental and rash in my judgment. Coming from where it was coming, I was thrown into self-doubt.

But come last week's issue of the magazine, and I am back to my old slanderous self. Here, I quote from a leader on George Bush's tussle with Hugo Chavez for influence in Latin America. "The United States is locked in a regional battle for influence with Venezuela's oil-intoxicated autocrat, Hugo Chávez... who seems to enjoy the company of other anti-American demagogues, from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to London's publicity-hungry mayor, Ken Livingstone....He poses a danger to the rest of Latin America, where his simplistic ideas are sometimes popular... [emphasis mine]".

Name-calling journalism is something one would expect from rags like Counterpunch, but the wordsmiths at Economist are urging you to reform that perception. Of course, the name-calling is selective; you don't hear them calling Bush a power-intoxicated president or a greedy oilman, and his ideas of ushering in democracy by force in faraway nations are never labeled simplistic. Which reminds me how, a few months back, when western publications were still trying hard to build the case against Iran, this magazine referred to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, factfully but in a derogatory spirit, as a "son of a blacksmith". Nevermind, and they never mentioned, the fact that the son of a blacksmith is a doctorate in engineering, an ex-university professor, an ex-mayor, and an ex-soldier - all virtues which would be highly prized in an American president (pay attention to how they describe Rudy Giuliani or John McCain).

To some, seemingly enlightened voices like those of the Economist, World Affairs, or BBC represent the truth, this belief turning into dogmatic faith with continued exposure. Which explains why half-truths, contradictions, and absurd positions generated by the merchants of popular opinion go unchallenged even by those who are supposed to be discerning and critical (apart from those in the intelligentsia who are explicitly affiliated with the dark side) . It is by this token that ideals like national sovereignty and self-determination sometimes fly under the radar of so-called "world opinion", and other times over - Ethiopia sending an army into neighboring Somalia gives reason to cheer, while Iran sending agents and a few bombs across the border gives reason for war. It is by the same token why Ahmad Shah Masood earned the title of 'Lion of Panjshir' from his gora friends, but leaders of the Iraqi resistance will be lucky to be rewarded a shallow grave for exactly the same acts. This is the reason why the western world's shameless pimping for Fatah is not seen as undermining of democratic principles.

It is this approach to truth - "you hear what we want you to hear (and what sells)" - that is the reason why events like 9/11 seem to come out of nowhere and take even well-informed souls by surprise. It is this shaping of views, and news, why it takes two years before the Iraq exercise is downgraded from 'war on terror' to 'troubled mission' in public opinion, and another two years before sliding towards 'quagmire'.

Last week, a letter-writer is the magazine in question asked "I was slightly amused by your description of the increasing confrontation between America and Iran, which you reported to be caused in part by the latter's 'meddling' in Iraq. In the interests of balanced journalism, what word would you use to describe the actions of the United States in Iraq?". Not that the editor intends to address that one, but I am curious to know what the answer might be.