No doubt, we deserve the self-congratulation. But how about some reflection too? Can 'inclusive India' be less an abuse, more a priority?
VINOD MEHTA
Sixty is a confusing age. You are obviously too old to be described as young, you are well past customary middle age, but you are not yet ready to knock at the Pearly Gates. It is a nebulous, in-between moment, something similar to the feeling, "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Since we live in times where numbers are worshipped, there is much hoopla and hyperbole, orchestrated perhaps by the publishing and media industry, regarding India's 60th birthday. While one may be understandably eager to wish the Republic many happy returns, I wonder why 60 is seen as such a sexy landmark—considering that just 10 years ago we went through an identical uplifting exercise.
Nevertheless, for a relatively young and still fresh democracy, any number is welcome if the looking back and looking ahead involves something more than sentimentality and nostalgia. The advance publicity to the run-up to Wednesday, August 15, unfortunately, relies too heavily on self-congratulation and self-promotion. I would have preferred to see a little breast-beating and honest reassessment.
The backslapping, let me quickly add, is not entirely unwarranted. In the past 10 years, India's tentative steps into the brave, new world of economic reform and globalisation have yielded handsome results. All the talk of attaining "economic superpower" status may be premature and pompous but the boost to the country's self-confidence and self-esteem (best summed up in that awful phrase: "India can do it") means the middle-class native can roam the world head held up high, even though it may still be necessary to line up like the shivering Boat People at international airports. Happily, we have crossed the glass half-full or half-empty stage, our march forward is no longer a matter of perspective or a matter of individual perception. Optimism is justified. The deniers are few and far between.
However, self-congratulation needs a dose of realism. Before my critics say, there he goes again, let us remind ourselves that in Superpower India, 75 per cent of 1.1 billion citizens live on less than Rs 80 a day, out of which 30 per cent live on less than Rs 40 a day. The NGO Child Relief and You tells us that 50 per cent of India's children get no school education; 25 per cent of victims of commercial sexual exploitation are below 18; 1.2 million children under the age of 5 die of malnutrition every year; 90 per cent of working children live in rural India....
To enumerate these dismal figures, to emphasise that substantial chunks of our shining republic live in conditions of sub-Saharan poverty, is not designed to dampen the celebrations or put out the lamps. It is merely to jog the collective memory of the firecracker enthusiasts that we still have a long way to go. If "inclusive India", instead of being a term of abuse, name-calling and contention, henceforth becomes the top priority of all political parties, the 60th birthday celebrations would have more than achieved their purpose.
As I write, hundreds of scholars all over the planet are busy writing, debating, discussing and analysing the "miracle of Indian democracy". How does this fragile and fickle creature prosper on Indian soil? Since 1947, there has been no shortage of prophets of doom, both local and foreign, who prophesied that in five or ten years India would become either a tinpot banana republic or descend into bloody chaos. Yet, in 2007, the miracle is clearly visible for all to behold!
That the cards were stacked heavily against "a land of Babel with no common voice" is a commonplace. How a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, argumentative, bulky piece of real estate, encircled by juntas and tyrants, managed to hold its 14th free and fair general election in 2004 (in which the incumbent was unceremoniously thrown out) makes even sage heads sit up in bewilderment.
Nevertheless, I believe too much is made of the aforementioned secular miracle. After all, the United States is as, if not more, heterogeneous than India, and few people repeatedly remark on the survival of American democracy.
Many years ago, I asked a cerebral infantry brigadier why a military coup had never taken place in India. Why had it never even been attempted? Size, he replied, the country is just too big! "Which TV station does the army capture?" he asked. In 1999, Pervez Musharraf's soldiers concluded a coup in less than four hours simply because the number of strategic points the army had to seize were few. And all in one city. Besides, there were just two generals whose support Musharraf needed in order to execute the operation. An army takeover in India has been conspicuous by its absence not because no ambitious chief has ever thought of it, or because our troops are extra patriotic, it has been absent because the logistics of a coup d'etat were always impossible. Let us thank Lord Rama for gifting us a continental-sized landmass!
One other fact to remember: we remain a functioning democracy not despite the multiplicity of gods, tongues, regions, temperatures, colours, cuisines, but because of them. As Indira Gandhi discovered in 1975-77, there is no way you can rule the whole of India from Delhi. Again, size and diversity ensure that in 60 years we have faced only one civilian dictatorship—and that too for merely 18 months.
I am not discounting the wise historian Ramachandra Guha's British bequests—the army, the railways, the English language, the game of cricket—plus our own Bollywood songs, which have helped keep this country at once democratic and united. I am just adding a caveat that the putative civilian or military despot was probably put off his anti-national designs when he examined the social, political and regional map of the country.
Even my critics would concede that I am not given to jingoism. However, as I contemplate India and the world on our republic's 60th birthday, I feel privileged, even blessed, to claim citizenship of our loud, messy, sometimes infuriating but unfailingly robust, resilient and free democracy. I realise we have no choice in these cosmic matters, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that if I am reborn as a human thanks to my good karma (printing your rude letters must be worth a few brownie karmas), I hope it is close to Nizamuddin East in New Delhi.
Why do I feel privileged and blessed? Because I dwell in a land where two make-or-break, defining battles of the 21st century are being staged. First, can a country long cursed with the flush maharajas vs starving peasants image create a society through market capitalism which is approximately fair, just and equitable? Can we, say in seven years, eliminate the shaming poverty of the aam aadmi courtesy an economic system perceived to be loaded against the poor while favouring the rich? The world is watching with breathless fascination whether a developing country like India, with no option but to embrace the global free market consensus, can deliver to 400 million people the basic amenities of life.
Second, the "clash of civilisations" champions will either triumph or perish on our soil. If India can demonstrate that 160 million Muslims can be absorbed into the national mainstream, rejecting
Mr bin Laden's suicidal radicalism, to emerge as devout but non-militant citizens in an overwhelming Hindu majority state, we would have delivered a terminal blow to the Samuel Huntingtons of our time—intellectual bigots who insist that Islam cannot peacefully coexist with other religions. No other country on our estranged globe is better placed to wage this crucial clash.
It may be the heady 60th anniversary brew, but I feel India will win both the battles.
“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe. “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer
Search This Blog
Tuesday 14 August 2007
Sunday 12 August 2007
Focus On Carbon 'Missing The Point'
By Eamon O'Hara
10 August, 2007
BBC
Focusing on the need to reduce CO2 emissions has reduced the problem to one of carbon dioxide rather than on the unsustainable ways we live. Is it not time to recognise that climate change is yet another symptom of our unsustainable lifestyles, which must now become the focus our efforts?
Yet governments, and those organisations who have now assumed the role of combating climate change, subscribe to the notion that climate change is our central problem and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is the cause of this problem.
Undeniably, climate change is a serious problem but it is only one of a growing list of problems that arise from a fundamental global issue.
For many decades, the symptoms of unsustainable human exploitation of the natural environment have been mounting: species extinction, the loss of biodiversity, air and water pollution, soil erosion, acid rain, destruction of rainforests, ozone depletion - the list goes on.
Common cause
These problems all clearly have a common origin, yet the search for solutions has invariably focused on targeted treatments rather than addressing the root cause.
Success has, at best, been patchy. In general, none of these problems have completely disappeared and many have continued to worsen.
Renewable resources might provide a safer alternative to oil and gas and other finite resources, but it will not remove our energy and resource dependency
Global warming - the latest in this list of environmental woes - is a particularly worrying development, not only because it is potentially catastrophic, but because it is going to be incredibly difficult to control.
The solutions currently being put forward, such as those being championed by the European Union, focus almost exclusively on reducing carbon emissions.
However, by focusing on the need to reduce CO2 emissions has reduced the problem to one of carbon dioxide rather than on the unsustainable ways we live our lives.
This oversight has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies.
This approach to curing our problems is a bit like relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroin.
The large-scale transition to renewable resources might provide a safer alternative to oil and gas and other finite resources, but it will not remove our energy and resource dependency, which will continue to expand in line with economic growth.
Before long, we will discover that even renewables have their limits. We are already being warned about the dangers of excessive demand for biofuels, which is reportedly leading to the clearing of rainforests and increasing competition for land between food and energy production.
The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe
Ultimately, our problem is consumption, and the environment is not the only casualty.
The modern Western lifestyle also has an inbuilt dependency on the cheap resources and the low carbon footprint of developing countries, which has compounded global injustice.
Worse still, maintaining our relatively wealthy, comfortable and unsustainable lifestyles is now dependant on maintaining this imbalance.
Seventy-five percent of the world's population - more than 4.5bn people - live on just 15% of the world's resources, while we in the West gorge on the remaining 85%.
The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe.
Change of direction
So, what can we do? Obviously, the first thing we need to do is act, and act fast.
Every day we wait, another 30,000 children needlessly die; between 100-150 plant and animal species become extinct; 70,000 hectares of rainforest is destroyed and another 150m tonnes of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, another $3.0bn (£1.5bn) is spent on arms and weapons of mass destruction.
We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability.
In my view, we need to embrace this as an opportunity and not see it as a responsibility. Living a more sustainable lifestyle does not have to be a burden, as some people fear.
It could be a liberating and rewarding experience to participate in creating a better world. After all, how good do we really have it at the moment?
How many people are tired and weary of modern living? The endless cycle of earning and consumption can be exhausting and does not necessarily bring happiness and fulfillment. Can we do things differently, and better?
If we don't, then we are heading for certain disaster, regardless of whether or not we manage to reduce our emissions.
Eamon O'Hara is a Brussels-based policy adviser for the Irish Regions Office, which represents Irish interests in the European Union
Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!
Friday 10 August 2007
Sixty Years Of Fake Freedom: The South Asian Story
By Partha Banerjee09 August, 2007
Countercurrents.org
As an Indian-American who's been involved with political movements in both countries, I'm deeply disturbed.
There's now a lot of government-sponsored patriotism, hype and euphoria to celebrate the 60th anniversary of independence both in India and Pakistan. At midnight of August 14, 1947, then British rulers finally gave up on their two centuries of unconstitutional, immoral and brutally repressive colonization, and transferred power after partitioning India in three pieces, causing massive bloodshed and human misery. Today in India and Pakistan, the ruling-class politicians and corporate media including the Bollywood film and entertainment industry are busy singing praises for the "prosperity" of these two "mighty" nations. Military dictator Musharraf of Pakistan and the Indira Gandhi-Sonia Gandhi dynasty in India are making wise moves to exploit the time's sentiments. Still, there's perceptible lack of enthusiasm among the common "Desi" folks, who unlike the golden jubilee celebration in 1997, are not coming out in full force to observe this "historic" occasion.
We shall however pay attention to the Indian and Pakistani governments' hollow prosperity drumbeats, and take a hard, "unpopular" look at the grim reality.
If the 1947 British-penned independence and blood-soaked partition have created any prosperity, it's been for the region's rich and powerful elite who inherited and perpetuated a feudal, pyramidal and colonial status quo where in half a century, a political colonization has given way to a social, economic and intellectual subjugation. The new "free" system makes the subcontinent's younger generation blindly follow a U.S.-style, market capitalist model, where equal rights, education, employment and healthcare for all, and other such egalitarian concepts have been pushed into near-oblivion, or else, ignominy. Rampant privatization without any attention to human values and safeguard for the havenots has taken over the subcontinent's body and soul. Of course, mega-rich business magnets, big land owners, cricket players, movie stars, and yes, corrupt politicians and their pet mafia have prospered.
Reality is, the entire South Asia is reeling under massive corruption, explosive population growth, out-of-control environmental pollution and recurring natural calamities, and a gingoist-chauvinist war climate is in vogue. Hindu and Muslim middle class do not trust each other, a fact unthinkable even during the British Raj. Nuclear proliferation has brought South Asians on the brink of mass extinction a number of times, and the threat is ever-present. Indian, Pakistani and the relatively new Bangladeshi governments have all thrived on mass-production of lies about the state of the state, and their mouthpiece media have stirred up ultrapatriotic fervors and a semi-fascistic leader-cult-worshipping, especially at the times of war. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have all seen scores of savage wars, resulting thousands of innocent being killed, and millions permanently displaced and impoverished. Refugees and war-traumatized families have lived for generations in makeshift, filthy "shelters" and "jhopris" along the railway tracks and highways.
In South Asia, demands for rights and justice for women, religious minorities and the massive underclass tribals and lower castes have actively been rejected as concepts of "yesterday's failed communist doctrines." Communal riots have surged and claimed numerous lives and women's honor. Prisoners and protesters, including women and children, have been brutalized by the Indian military, paramilitary and police; due process and other basic legalities have almost always failed for the poor. Political dissent in particular has been silenced by the ruling-party mafia. The so-called democratic elections have seen the worst forms of money- and muscle-power, with help from officials and bureaucrats. Many key elections have proved to be pure travesty. People in power endorsed massive booth-capturing, false voting, media muzzling, thuggery and religion-or caste-based divisive politics. The ruling Congress Party and former ruler Hindu fundamentalist BJP have proved equally efficient at this power-grabbing game. India's regional parties in particular and establishment left to a lesser degree have not been far behind.
In Pakistan, for most of the time since 1947, coup-generated military regimes have ruled with support from the U.S., and an elected prime minister (one of the very few elected leaders) has been hanged. Bangladesh, in its post-1971 history as a sovereign nation, has gone through a number of dictatorships and martial laws; military and police tortured and killed some of its best-known intellectuals and noble men, the slaughters allegedly sponsored by the U.S. and CIA.
South Asia now has more than one-fifth of the world's population. Eighty percent of the one-billion-plus mass still live in places where there's little or no electricity, drinkable water, paved roads or public schools. In many places, farmers and day laborers die of starvation; many farmers have killed themselves out of despair. The disparity between the rich and poor in South Asia is one of the extremes in the world. Basic literacy and primary education are still out of reach for most poor. Brutality against women and children is sky-high in numerous places. A conservative, superstitious patriarchal society has re-emerged where families are encouraging female infanticide, with help from corrupt doctors and medical practitioners. India now is one of the top AIDS-affected nations.
The 1947 partition was cooked up by the British and Western powerbrokers, at the behest of Gandhi and Jinnah's feudal policy followers who overnight became the new rulers. Most of these new kings (and queens) neither made any personal sacrifices during the 100-year-long, glorious independence struggle nor did they have any knowledge, connection or compassion for the reality on ground. The hundreds of thousands of young men and women who gave their lives to bring about the "azadi" were excluded from the post-partition power structure, and later the struggle itself was undermined. The new feudal rulers were chosen by the British after their two hundred years of repression and pauperization of a truly prosperous India, to retain a class-divided system where the real power would never transfer to the masses, and the "free" nations would forever remain subservient to the West. They've succeeded in their mission.
Moreover, in sixty years of a fake freedom, we South Asians ourselves have been successful to raise an apolitical, apathetic generation wilfully ignorant of our own history and way of life -- political, economic and cultural.
Thanks to the freedom 60 years ago, we are now completely colonized.
Partha Banerjee is a human rights activist, writer and teacher based in New York City. He can be reached at banerjee2000@hotmail.com
Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!
Monday 6 August 2007
Sreesanth, the beamer and the refusal to give an inch.
Sreesanth has been pilloried in all quarters for his beamer to Pietersen and his slight shoulder brushing of Vaughan.
But in my view, Sresanth represents the metamorphoses in the Indian attitudes to white opponents. Indians will pay back in kind and with interest for all the non cricketing aggro directed at them on the cricket pitch.
It is the near decapitating of Pietersen that hastened his departure and the rest of the English batting order and paved the way for an Indian win.
I will not encourage Sreesanth - but he is a necessary evil to all the white bullies who get aay lightly on the cricket pitch.
But in my view, Sresanth represents the metamorphoses in the Indian attitudes to white opponents. Indians will pay back in kind and with interest for all the non cricketing aggro directed at them on the cricket pitch.
It is the near decapitating of Pietersen that hastened his departure and the rest of the English batting order and paved the way for an Indian win.
I will not encourage Sreesanth - but he is a necessary evil to all the white bullies who get aay lightly on the cricket pitch.
Saturday 4 August 2007
Scrabble
FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE
When you rearrange the letters:
FLIT ON CHEERING ANGEL
DILIP VENGSARKAR
When you rearrange the letters:
SPARKLING DRIVE
BARA THEDA
When you rearrange the letters:
ARAB DEATH
PRINCESS DIANA
When you rearrange the letters:
END IS A CAR SPIN
MONICA LEWINSKY
When you rearrange the letters:
NICE SILKY WOMAN
DORMITORY:
When you rearrange the letters:
DIRTY ROOM
PRESBYTERIAN:
When you rearrange the letters:
BEST IN PRAYER
ASTRONOMER:
When you rearrange the letters:
MOON STARER
DESPERATION: When you rearrange the letters:
A ROPE ENDS IT
THE EYES:
When you rearrange the letters:
THEY SEE
GEORGE BUSH:
When you rearrange the letters:
HE BUGS GORE
THE MORSE CODE :
When you rearrange the letters:
HERE COME DOTS
SLOT MACHINES:
When you rearrange the letters:
CASH LOST IN ME
ANIMOSITY:
When you rearrange the letters:
IS NO AMITY
ELECTION RESULTS:
When you rearrange the letters:
LIES - LET'S RECOUNT
SNOOZE ALARMS:
When you rearrange the letters:
ALAS! NO MORE Z 'S
A DECIMAL POINT:
When you rearrange the letters:
IM A DOT IN PLACE
THE EARTHQUAKES:
When you rearrange the letters:
THAT QUEER SHAKE
ELEVEN PLUS TWO:
When you rearrange the letters:
TWELVE PLUS ONE
AND FOR THE GRAND FINALE:
MOTHER-IN-LAW:
When you rearrange the letters:
WOMAN HITLER
Bet your friends haven't seen this one!!!
DON'T FORGET TO SHARE
Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!
India: the Empire strikes back
From Raj to riches: as India celebrates 60 years of independence, acclaimed historian William Dalrymple salutes a country returning to its pre-colonial wealth
When I moved back to India with my family four years ago, I took a lease on a farmhouse five kilometres from the boom town of Gurgaon on the south-western edge of Delhi. From my road I could see in the distance the rings of new housing estates, full of call centres, software companies and fancy apartment blocks, all rapidly rising on land that only two years earlier was billowing winter wheat.
Tourists walk in front of the historic Taj Mahal in the northern Indian city of Agra
One of India's most historic sites: the Taj Mahal
The first time I lived in Delhi, in the late 1980s, Gurgaon was a semi-rural Haryana market town, with a single large Maruti car plant to one side; it was home to no more than 100,000 people.
Now it had become a city of several million; some said three million, some said more - the speed of growth was so enormous that it was difficult to obtain accurate figures. Either way, Gurgaon was now home to a population almost equal to that of my native Scotland.
Here an increasingly wealthy middle class had suddenly taken root in an aspirational bubble of fast-rising shopping malls, espresso bars, restaurants and multiplexes. These new neighbourhoods, most of them still half-built and ringed with scaffolding, were invariably given such unrealistically enticing names as Beverly Hills, Windsor Court, West End Heights - an indication, perhaps, of where their owners would prefer to be and where, in time, they might eventually migrate.
Four years later, Gurgaon has galloped towards us at such a speed that it now abuts the edge of our farm and the proudly-touted "largest mall in Asia" is arising a quarter of a mile from my house.
advertisement
What was farmland and a pool for water buffaloes when I moved in is now a mass of cranes, flanked by billboards advertising the latest laptops and iPods. There are still no accurate figures but the population has probably topped five million.
The speed of the development of Gurgaon is breathtaking to anyone used to the plodding growth rates of western Europe: the sort of construction that would take 25 years in Britain comes up here in five months, even if, at the end of it, the "luxury" flats will probably only have electricity for a couple of hours a day and the water supply will be intermittent at best.
The speed of change in Gurgaon reflects that of the growth of the Indian economy in general: economic futurologists all agree that China and India will at some stage in the 21st century come to dominate the global economy.
The various intelligence agencies estimate that China will overtake America between 2030 and 2040, while India will overtake the US by roughly 2050, as measured in dollar terms. Measured by purchasing-power parity, India is already on the verge of overtaking Japan to become the third largest economy in the world.
Incredibly, India now trains a million engineering graduates a year (against 100,000 each in America and Europe) and stands third in technical and scientific capacity - behind the US and Japan, but well ahead of China.
Today India's IT sector alone annually earns the vast sum of almost $25 billion, mostly in export earnings. With an average growth rate over the last decade of 6 per cent and current growth of 9 per cent, it is little wonder that average incomes are doubling every 15 years: the number of mobile-phone users has jumped from 3 million in 2000 to 100 million in 2005; the number of television channels from one in 1991 to more than 150 last year.
It is a similar picture on India's roads: in the early 1990s, as India was starting to relax import and investment restrictions on foreign manufacturers, there were only six or seven makes of car.
More than 90 per cent of them were Hindustan Ambassadors, the Indian- made version of the 1950s Morris Oxford - effectively clumpy vintage cars. Now the new six-lane highways are full of sleek and speedy Fiats, Fords, Mercedes-Benz and even the odd Porsche and Bentley.
Emperor Khurram (Shah Jahan, 1592-1666)
The 17th century Mughal emperor Shah Jahan who created the Taj Mahal monument
So extraordinary is all this to us today, particularly to those who knew the sluggish India of 20 years ago, that it is easy to forget how little of it would have surprised our ancestors who sailed there with the East India Company. The idea of India as a poor country is relatively recent: historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe, whose fertile soils gave two harvests a year, and whose mines groaned with minerals.
Ever since Alexander the Great first penetrated the Hindu Kush, Europeans fantasised about the wealth of these lands, where the Greek geographers said that gold was dug up by gigantic ants and guarded by griffins, and where precious jewels lay scattered on the ground like dust.
In Roman times, there was a dramatic drain of Western gold to India. This is something the Greek historian Strabo comments on with great anxiety in his writings - an image graphically confirmed by the recent finds of huge Roman coin hoards around Madurai in Tamil Nadu and a large Roman coastal trading post near Pondicherry.
At the peak of the trade, during the reign of Nero, the south Indian Pandyan Kings even sent an embassy to Rome to discuss the latter's balance of payments problems. Even today, the English "pepper" and "ginger" are loan words from Tamil - respectively, pippali and singabera, testaments to the spice trade that was once a staple of this lucrative Indian export traffic.
It was similar legends of India's extraordinary wealth that drew the merchant adventurers of the Company eastwards. They came not as part of some Tudor aid project, or on behalf of a charitable Elizabethan NGO, but as part of a desperate effort to cash in on the vast riches of the fabled Mughal Empire, then one of the two wealthiest polities in the world.
What the Poles are to modern Britain - economic migrants in search of better lives - the Jacobeans were to Mughal India.
At their heights, the Mughal Emperors were really rivalled only by their Ming counterparts in China. The Great Mughals ruled over most of India, all of Pakistan and Bangladesh and great chunks of Afghanistan.
Their armies were all but invincible, their palaces unparalleled and the domes of their many mosques glittered with gold. For their contemporaries in distant Europe, they were potent symbols of power and wealth. The word Mughal (or Mogul) is still loaded today with connotations of this, even when it is divorced from its original Indian context.
In Milton's Paradise Lost, for example, the great Mughal cities of Agra and Lahore are revealed to Adam after the Fall as future wonders of God's creation. This was hardly an understatement: by the 17th century, Lahore had grown larger and richer even than Constantinople and, with its two million inhabitants, dwarfed both London and Paris.
"The city is second to none either in Asia or in Europe," said Portuguese Jesuit Father Antonio Monserrate, "with regards either to size, population, or wealth. It is crowded with merchants, who foregather there from all over Asia. There is no art or craft useful to human life which is not practised there. The citadel alone has a circumference of three miles."
It was, in terms of rapid growth, instant prosperity and unlimited opportunities, the Gurgaon of its day.
What changed all this was quite simply the advent of European colonialism. Following Vasco da Gama's discovery of the sea route to the East in 1498, bypassing the Middle East and conquering the centres of spice production in South Asia, European colonial traders - first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and finally the British - slowly wrecked the old trading network and imposed with their cannons and caravels a western imperial system of command economics.
It was only at the very end of the 18th century that Europe, for the first time in history, had a favourable balance of trade with Asia. At the same time, the era of Indian economic decline had begun and was most precipitous in the region around the British headquarters in Calcutta.
As the 18th century historian Alexander Dow put it: "Bengal was one of the richest, most populous and best cultivated kingdoms in the world… We may date the commencement of decline from the day on which Bengal fell under the dominion of foreigners."
This was certainly the view of Edmund Burke, who impeached Warren Hastings, India's first Governor General, charging him with oppression, corruption, gross abuse of power and ruthlessly plundering India.
On February 13, 1788, huge crowds gathered outside Parliament to witness the members of the House of Lords troop into Westminster Hall to sit in judgement on Hastings.
Tickets for the few seats reserved for spectators were said to have changed hands for as much as £50. In the audience was Sarah Siddons, the great society actress (and courtesan), as well as Edward Gibbon, Joshua Reynolds, the novelist Fanny Burney, the Queen, two of her daughters and most of the ambassadors in London.
For all the theatre of the occasion - and, indeed, one of the prosecutors was the playwright Richard Sheridan - this was not just the greatest political spectacle in the age of George III. It was the nearest the British ever got to putting the Empire on trial and they did so with Edmund Burke, one of their greatest orators, at the helm, supported by the similarly eloquent Charles James Fox.
Hastings stood accused of nothing less than the rape of India - or as Burke put it in his opening speech: "Cruelties unheard of and devastations almost without name… crimes which have their rise in the wicked dispositions of men, in avarice, rapacity, pride, cruelty, malignity, haughtiness, insolence - in short everything that manifests a heart blackened to the very blackest; a heart dyed in blackness; a heart gangrened to the core… We have brought before you the head, the captain general of iniquity - one in whom all the fraud, all the tyranny of India are embodied."
When Burke began to describe the violation of Bengali virgins and their mothers by the rapacious tax collectors the British employed - "They were dragged out, naked and exposed to the public view, and scourged before all the people… they put the nipples of the women into the sharp edges of split bamboos and tore them from their bodies" - Mrs Sheridan "was so overpowered that she fainted and to be carried from the hall".
Hastings was in many ways the wrong target for Burke's Parliamentary offensive and, after a trial lasting nearly 10 years, he was eventually acquitted on all charges.
But it is worth recalling the damage that the Company undoubtedly did to the flourishing economy of India as the 60th anniversary of Indian Independence dawns amid unprecedented excitement at India's rapid rise towards its projected superpower status.
Today, academics, historians and economists are fiercely divided between those who believe European colonial rule brought great benefits to India and those who believe Britain put India into irreversible political and economic decline.
Given the complex and emotive issues involved, it is hardly surprising that there is little neutral territory in this politically super-charged debate: did Western mercantile-imperialism bring high capitalism and free trade to India, as supporters such as historian Niall Ferguson would have us believe; or did it irrevocably destroy millennia-old trading networks?
Did it bring democracy to a part of the world inured to despotism and tyranny; or did it remove political freedom of expression from lands with long traditions of debate and public expression of dissent, as argued by the Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen?
Did the British Empire bring in constitutional guarantees of the freedom of the individual; or promote slavery, exploitation, indentured labour and forced migration? Did the British bring just governance and irrigate the deserts, or did they plunder natural resources, drive a number of species to extinction and preside over a succession of famines that left many million dead while surplus grain was being shipped to Britain?
Most important of all, did the British promote religious tolerance, or did they instead sow the seeds of religious conflict with cynical policies of sectarian divide and rule - thus laying the scene for the politico-religious divisions we see around us and what Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntingdon would have us believe are today's civilisational clashes?
There are no easy answers to any of these questions. Looking back at the role the Europeans have played in South Asia until their departure in August 1947, there is certainly much that the West can unambiguously be said to have contributed to Indian life: the Portuguese, for example, brought that central staple of Indian life, the chilli pepper; while the British brought that other essential staple, tea, as well as the far more important innovations of democracy and the rule of law, along with the railways, all of which have helped India rise again to greatness.
In the light of so much post-colonial disapproval, it is also worth remembering the impeccable reputation Victorian rule in India (if not that of the Company) once enjoyed, even from Britain's fiercest critics.
Bismarck thought Britain's work in India would be "one of its lasting monuments". Theodore Roosevelt agreed that Britain had done "such marvellous things in India" that they might "transform the Indian population… in government and culture, and thus leave [their] impress as Rome did hers on Europe".
The French traveller Abbé Dubois extolled the "uprightness of character, education and ability" of British officials in India, while the Austrian Baron Hübner ascribed the "miracles" of British rule to its administrators' "devotion, intelligence, courage, and skill combined with an integrity proof against all temptation".
It is also true that factors such as cricket and the English language have been crucial to India's modern success, cultural indicators that in their different ways set Indian eyes looking westwards to the rising power of Britain, and later the US, and away from the declining Islamo-Persianate culture of Central Asia and the Middle East, a world that would go into ever greater cultural and economic decline as the 19th century gave way to the 20th.
In the days that followed the fall of the Mughals after the great Indian Mutiny of 1857, this turning away from the old cultural moorings and the reorientation of India towards the West caused heartbreak to the old Urdu- and Persian-speaking elites.
As the poet and critic Azad wrote: "The glory of the winners' ascendant fortune gives everything of theirs - even their dress, their gait, their conversation - a radiance that makes them desirable. And people do not merely adopt them, but they are proud to adopt them."
Yet it was the depth of that reorientation and adoption, and the ease which Indians can now cross the globe and work in either Britain or the US, that today has given the country's anglicised elite such easy access to the jobs and opportunities of the Western economy.
Nevertheless, for all this we British should keep our nostalgia and self-congratulation over the Raj within strict limits. For all the irrigation projects, the great engineering achievements and the famous imperviousness to bribes of the officers of the Indian Civil Service, the Raj nevertheless presided over the destruction of Indian political, cultural and artistic self-confidence, while the economic figures speak for themselves.
In 1600, when the East India Company was founded, Britain was generating 1.8 per cent of the world's GDP, while India was producing 22.5 per cent. By 1870, at the peak of the Raj, Britain was generating 9.1 per cent, while India had been reduced for the first time to the epitome of a Third World nation, a symbol across the globe of famine, poverty and deprivation.
Today in India, the dramatic increase in wealth that we see on all sides is less some sort of economic miracle - the strange rise of a once impoverished wasteland, as it is usually depicted in the Western press - so much as things slowly returning to the traditional pattern of global trade in the pre-colonial world. Last year, the richest man in the UK was for the first time an ethnic Indian, Lakshmi Mittal, and our largest steel manufacturer, Corus, has been bought by an Indian company, Tata.
Extraordinary as it is, seen from the wider perspective the rise of India and China is merely nothing more than a return to the ancient equilibrium of world trade. Today, we Europeans are no longer the gun-toting, gunboat-riding colonial masters we once were, but instead are reverting to our more traditional role: that of eager consumers of the much celebrated luxuries and services of the East.
# William Dalrymple's new book, The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857, published by Bloomsbury, has just been awarded the Duff Cooper Prize for History.
When I moved back to India with my family four years ago, I took a lease on a farmhouse five kilometres from the boom town of Gurgaon on the south-western edge of Delhi. From my road I could see in the distance the rings of new housing estates, full of call centres, software companies and fancy apartment blocks, all rapidly rising on land that only two years earlier was billowing winter wheat.
Tourists walk in front of the historic Taj Mahal in the northern Indian city of Agra
One of India's most historic sites: the Taj Mahal
The first time I lived in Delhi, in the late 1980s, Gurgaon was a semi-rural Haryana market town, with a single large Maruti car plant to one side; it was home to no more than 100,000 people.
Now it had become a city of several million; some said three million, some said more - the speed of growth was so enormous that it was difficult to obtain accurate figures. Either way, Gurgaon was now home to a population almost equal to that of my native Scotland.
Here an increasingly wealthy middle class had suddenly taken root in an aspirational bubble of fast-rising shopping malls, espresso bars, restaurants and multiplexes. These new neighbourhoods, most of them still half-built and ringed with scaffolding, were invariably given such unrealistically enticing names as Beverly Hills, Windsor Court, West End Heights - an indication, perhaps, of where their owners would prefer to be and where, in time, they might eventually migrate.
Four years later, Gurgaon has galloped towards us at such a speed that it now abuts the edge of our farm and the proudly-touted "largest mall in Asia" is arising a quarter of a mile from my house.
advertisement
What was farmland and a pool for water buffaloes when I moved in is now a mass of cranes, flanked by billboards advertising the latest laptops and iPods. There are still no accurate figures but the population has probably topped five million.
The speed of the development of Gurgaon is breathtaking to anyone used to the plodding growth rates of western Europe: the sort of construction that would take 25 years in Britain comes up here in five months, even if, at the end of it, the "luxury" flats will probably only have electricity for a couple of hours a day and the water supply will be intermittent at best.
The speed of change in Gurgaon reflects that of the growth of the Indian economy in general: economic futurologists all agree that China and India will at some stage in the 21st century come to dominate the global economy.
The various intelligence agencies estimate that China will overtake America between 2030 and 2040, while India will overtake the US by roughly 2050, as measured in dollar terms. Measured by purchasing-power parity, India is already on the verge of overtaking Japan to become the third largest economy in the world.
Incredibly, India now trains a million engineering graduates a year (against 100,000 each in America and Europe) and stands third in technical and scientific capacity - behind the US and Japan, but well ahead of China.
Today India's IT sector alone annually earns the vast sum of almost $25 billion, mostly in export earnings. With an average growth rate over the last decade of 6 per cent and current growth of 9 per cent, it is little wonder that average incomes are doubling every 15 years: the number of mobile-phone users has jumped from 3 million in 2000 to 100 million in 2005; the number of television channels from one in 1991 to more than 150 last year.
It is a similar picture on India's roads: in the early 1990s, as India was starting to relax import and investment restrictions on foreign manufacturers, there were only six or seven makes of car.
More than 90 per cent of them were Hindustan Ambassadors, the Indian- made version of the 1950s Morris Oxford - effectively clumpy vintage cars. Now the new six-lane highways are full of sleek and speedy Fiats, Fords, Mercedes-Benz and even the odd Porsche and Bentley.
Emperor Khurram (Shah Jahan, 1592-1666)
The 17th century Mughal emperor Shah Jahan who created the Taj Mahal monument
So extraordinary is all this to us today, particularly to those who knew the sluggish India of 20 years ago, that it is easy to forget how little of it would have surprised our ancestors who sailed there with the East India Company. The idea of India as a poor country is relatively recent: historically, South Asia was always famous as the richest region of the globe, whose fertile soils gave two harvests a year, and whose mines groaned with minerals.
Ever since Alexander the Great first penetrated the Hindu Kush, Europeans fantasised about the wealth of these lands, where the Greek geographers said that gold was dug up by gigantic ants and guarded by griffins, and where precious jewels lay scattered on the ground like dust.
In Roman times, there was a dramatic drain of Western gold to India. This is something the Greek historian Strabo comments on with great anxiety in his writings - an image graphically confirmed by the recent finds of huge Roman coin hoards around Madurai in Tamil Nadu and a large Roman coastal trading post near Pondicherry.
At the peak of the trade, during the reign of Nero, the south Indian Pandyan Kings even sent an embassy to Rome to discuss the latter's balance of payments problems. Even today, the English "pepper" and "ginger" are loan words from Tamil - respectively, pippali and singabera, testaments to the spice trade that was once a staple of this lucrative Indian export traffic.
It was similar legends of India's extraordinary wealth that drew the merchant adventurers of the Company eastwards. They came not as part of some Tudor aid project, or on behalf of a charitable Elizabethan NGO, but as part of a desperate effort to cash in on the vast riches of the fabled Mughal Empire, then one of the two wealthiest polities in the world.
What the Poles are to modern Britain - economic migrants in search of better lives - the Jacobeans were to Mughal India.
At their heights, the Mughal Emperors were really rivalled only by their Ming counterparts in China. The Great Mughals ruled over most of India, all of Pakistan and Bangladesh and great chunks of Afghanistan.
Their armies were all but invincible, their palaces unparalleled and the domes of their many mosques glittered with gold. For their contemporaries in distant Europe, they were potent symbols of power and wealth. The word Mughal (or Mogul) is still loaded today with connotations of this, even when it is divorced from its original Indian context.
In Milton's Paradise Lost, for example, the great Mughal cities of Agra and Lahore are revealed to Adam after the Fall as future wonders of God's creation. This was hardly an understatement: by the 17th century, Lahore had grown larger and richer even than Constantinople and, with its two million inhabitants, dwarfed both London and Paris.
"The city is second to none either in Asia or in Europe," said Portuguese Jesuit Father Antonio Monserrate, "with regards either to size, population, or wealth. It is crowded with merchants, who foregather there from all over Asia. There is no art or craft useful to human life which is not practised there. The citadel alone has a circumference of three miles."
It was, in terms of rapid growth, instant prosperity and unlimited opportunities, the Gurgaon of its day.
What changed all this was quite simply the advent of European colonialism. Following Vasco da Gama's discovery of the sea route to the East in 1498, bypassing the Middle East and conquering the centres of spice production in South Asia, European colonial traders - first the Portuguese, then the Dutch and finally the British - slowly wrecked the old trading network and imposed with their cannons and caravels a western imperial system of command economics.
It was only at the very end of the 18th century that Europe, for the first time in history, had a favourable balance of trade with Asia. At the same time, the era of Indian economic decline had begun and was most precipitous in the region around the British headquarters in Calcutta.
As the 18th century historian Alexander Dow put it: "Bengal was one of the richest, most populous and best cultivated kingdoms in the world… We may date the commencement of decline from the day on which Bengal fell under the dominion of foreigners."
This was certainly the view of Edmund Burke, who impeached Warren Hastings, India's first Governor General, charging him with oppression, corruption, gross abuse of power and ruthlessly plundering India.
On February 13, 1788, huge crowds gathered outside Parliament to witness the members of the House of Lords troop into Westminster Hall to sit in judgement on Hastings.
Tickets for the few seats reserved for spectators were said to have changed hands for as much as £50. In the audience was Sarah Siddons, the great society actress (and courtesan), as well as Edward Gibbon, Joshua Reynolds, the novelist Fanny Burney, the Queen, two of her daughters and most of the ambassadors in London.
For all the theatre of the occasion - and, indeed, one of the prosecutors was the playwright Richard Sheridan - this was not just the greatest political spectacle in the age of George III. It was the nearest the British ever got to putting the Empire on trial and they did so with Edmund Burke, one of their greatest orators, at the helm, supported by the similarly eloquent Charles James Fox.
Hastings stood accused of nothing less than the rape of India - or as Burke put it in his opening speech: "Cruelties unheard of and devastations almost without name… crimes which have their rise in the wicked dispositions of men, in avarice, rapacity, pride, cruelty, malignity, haughtiness, insolence - in short everything that manifests a heart blackened to the very blackest; a heart dyed in blackness; a heart gangrened to the core… We have brought before you the head, the captain general of iniquity - one in whom all the fraud, all the tyranny of India are embodied."
When Burke began to describe the violation of Bengali virgins and their mothers by the rapacious tax collectors the British employed - "They were dragged out, naked and exposed to the public view, and scourged before all the people… they put the nipples of the women into the sharp edges of split bamboos and tore them from their bodies" - Mrs Sheridan "was so overpowered that she fainted and to be carried from the hall".
Hastings was in many ways the wrong target for Burke's Parliamentary offensive and, after a trial lasting nearly 10 years, he was eventually acquitted on all charges.
But it is worth recalling the damage that the Company undoubtedly did to the flourishing economy of India as the 60th anniversary of Indian Independence dawns amid unprecedented excitement at India's rapid rise towards its projected superpower status.
Today, academics, historians and economists are fiercely divided between those who believe European colonial rule brought great benefits to India and those who believe Britain put India into irreversible political and economic decline.
Given the complex and emotive issues involved, it is hardly surprising that there is little neutral territory in this politically super-charged debate: did Western mercantile-imperialism bring high capitalism and free trade to India, as supporters such as historian Niall Ferguson would have us believe; or did it irrevocably destroy millennia-old trading networks?
Did it bring democracy to a part of the world inured to despotism and tyranny; or did it remove political freedom of expression from lands with long traditions of debate and public expression of dissent, as argued by the Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen?
Did the British Empire bring in constitutional guarantees of the freedom of the individual; or promote slavery, exploitation, indentured labour and forced migration? Did the British bring just governance and irrigate the deserts, or did they plunder natural resources, drive a number of species to extinction and preside over a succession of famines that left many million dead while surplus grain was being shipped to Britain?
Most important of all, did the British promote religious tolerance, or did they instead sow the seeds of religious conflict with cynical policies of sectarian divide and rule - thus laying the scene for the politico-religious divisions we see around us and what Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntingdon would have us believe are today's civilisational clashes?
There are no easy answers to any of these questions. Looking back at the role the Europeans have played in South Asia until their departure in August 1947, there is certainly much that the West can unambiguously be said to have contributed to Indian life: the Portuguese, for example, brought that central staple of Indian life, the chilli pepper; while the British brought that other essential staple, tea, as well as the far more important innovations of democracy and the rule of law, along with the railways, all of which have helped India rise again to greatness.
In the light of so much post-colonial disapproval, it is also worth remembering the impeccable reputation Victorian rule in India (if not that of the Company) once enjoyed, even from Britain's fiercest critics.
Bismarck thought Britain's work in India would be "one of its lasting monuments". Theodore Roosevelt agreed that Britain had done "such marvellous things in India" that they might "transform the Indian population… in government and culture, and thus leave [their] impress as Rome did hers on Europe".
The French traveller Abbé Dubois extolled the "uprightness of character, education and ability" of British officials in India, while the Austrian Baron Hübner ascribed the "miracles" of British rule to its administrators' "devotion, intelligence, courage, and skill combined with an integrity proof against all temptation".
It is also true that factors such as cricket and the English language have been crucial to India's modern success, cultural indicators that in their different ways set Indian eyes looking westwards to the rising power of Britain, and later the US, and away from the declining Islamo-Persianate culture of Central Asia and the Middle East, a world that would go into ever greater cultural and economic decline as the 19th century gave way to the 20th.
In the days that followed the fall of the Mughals after the great Indian Mutiny of 1857, this turning away from the old cultural moorings and the reorientation of India towards the West caused heartbreak to the old Urdu- and Persian-speaking elites.
As the poet and critic Azad wrote: "The glory of the winners' ascendant fortune gives everything of theirs - even their dress, their gait, their conversation - a radiance that makes them desirable. And people do not merely adopt them, but they are proud to adopt them."
Yet it was the depth of that reorientation and adoption, and the ease which Indians can now cross the globe and work in either Britain or the US, that today has given the country's anglicised elite such easy access to the jobs and opportunities of the Western economy.
Nevertheless, for all this we British should keep our nostalgia and self-congratulation over the Raj within strict limits. For all the irrigation projects, the great engineering achievements and the famous imperviousness to bribes of the officers of the Indian Civil Service, the Raj nevertheless presided over the destruction of Indian political, cultural and artistic self-confidence, while the economic figures speak for themselves.
In 1600, when the East India Company was founded, Britain was generating 1.8 per cent of the world's GDP, while India was producing 22.5 per cent. By 1870, at the peak of the Raj, Britain was generating 9.1 per cent, while India had been reduced for the first time to the epitome of a Third World nation, a symbol across the globe of famine, poverty and deprivation.
Today in India, the dramatic increase in wealth that we see on all sides is less some sort of economic miracle - the strange rise of a once impoverished wasteland, as it is usually depicted in the Western press - so much as things slowly returning to the traditional pattern of global trade in the pre-colonial world. Last year, the richest man in the UK was for the first time an ethnic Indian, Lakshmi Mittal, and our largest steel manufacturer, Corus, has been bought by an Indian company, Tata.
Extraordinary as it is, seen from the wider perspective the rise of India and China is merely nothing more than a return to the ancient equilibrium of world trade. Today, we Europeans are no longer the gun-toting, gunboat-riding colonial masters we once were, but instead are reverting to our more traditional role: that of eager consumers of the much celebrated luxuries and services of the East.
# William Dalrymple's new book, The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857, published by Bloomsbury, has just been awarded the Duff Cooper Prize for History.
Wednesday 1 August 2007
The March To The Edge Of The Cliff
By Siv O'Neall
31 July, 2007
Axis of Logic
Mankind is blindly marching straight towards the edge of the cliff. Our so-called leaders are busy filling their pockets with gold and making sure they are first in line, that they can yell louder and grab faster than all the rest of us and that they can reach farther into whatever we're heading for. The fact that it's a morass and that it's going to suck us all up, nobody seems to care about.
Every one of the big guys wants to be the first one to cross the line at the goal. What goal? Total destruction, but that is not yet clear to anybody. Or so it seems. Let the show go on. Let's kill more innocent people, let's buy up competing corporations, let's lead the pack of thieves in money speculation, let's bankrupt more small companies, let's suck up the retirement savings of the little people, let's fool the idiots who think we're here to govern the world. We are here to take care of ourselves and our bank accounts. Who cares about the world? Who cares about tomorrow?
All the politicians and corporate leaders of the world seem to be set on exhausting the planet, killing off all the superfluous people and having a party when it's all over. Who is leading the pack? Well, Cheney & Co., clearly. Is there anybody left who can put the brakes on that clique? When they are busy destroying the world, when they happily plan to nuke Iran, when they start bombing the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, when they let the Palestinians kill each other off and yell hooray on the sidelines, is there anybody left who will stop Cheney & Co.? They are so busy dancing a victory dance because the oil and arms industries are making huge profits that they don't even see how the planet is burning. Corporate profits are soaring, so to hell with the dollar that's going down. It's good for exports and who cares if we owe trillions in debt to China and Japan? We don't intend to pay it back anyway.
The poor people are dying of AIDS and starvation. Who cares as long as the pharmaceutical industry is making a fortune? Who cares if millions of children are without health insurance? They are the children of the poor and they are not good for anything anyway.
Let the little people lose their life's savings in the big bankruptcies, the big money holders always save themselves and their fortunes. What matters is that business goes on. We can always fool enough people into believing that such and such stock is safe. When the bottom falls out, the CEOs will already be gone with their package intact and they'll pick up the lead somewhere else where people can be fooled into investing. As long as there is a war on, corporate profits are safe.
Iraq is in our way for taking over the world. There are more countries in the way, but let's take one at a time. Let's first invade and take over Iraq. Oh damn, Iraq is not going too well. Well, let the bastards kill each other off and then we'll take over when things calm down. They'll sort things out between themselves and we'll play ball with the winners after the civil war is over. In the meantime, let's nuke Iran. We can't have an Islam world power reaching from Morocco to Indonesia.
September 11 was a godsend. What would we have done if we hadn't been able to scare the people into paralysis and dumbness? What would we have done if it hadn't been for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? There seems to be clear evidence that we are secretly supporting Al Qaeda, making sure they will not disappear. No surprise. And as for bin Laden, we have to go on pretending he's still alive so we have a precise target in our war on terror. It's lies and propaganda that keep the world going. It's what we say that matters, not what we do. We can make the imbeciles believe anything we want them to believe. Repeat it often enough and it becomes the truth. We create our own reality.
If the Dems pick up some backbone and begin to realize that resistance to a dictatorship is possible, we'll have to arrange for a repeat of the attack on the homeland. It's essential that the executive should not in any way be limited in his power. What Cheney says stands, George will always go along and Rove is around to oil the wheels and keep the spin machine going.
The world has to see that it doesn't serve any purpose to isolate the U.S. We don't need the rest of the world. We are the leaders, we run the show, we decide how the Middle East is supposed to be cut up and reshaped.
Oh they say China is coming on big. That's a lot of bull. China has no international standing and they are too heavily weighed down by poverty among their own people. After all, China is not even a civilized nation. No, there is nobody who can ever stand a chance to surpass America, the United States of America. America is the leader of the world and we have made sure that the world knows. One head of government after the other is coming on board the U.S. ship of State. Europe is veering to the right and the leaders are more and more interested in being on good terms with the giant in the west.
Besides, it's Big Money that's running the world and all we have to do is make sure that the big corporations are centered around us. Europe is playing our game once again and the rest of the world is sufficiently in awe of our military and financial power to want to be on good terms with us. Look at India. They were more than happy to clinch the deal about nuclear power in March 2006. That was a clever move, whoever thought of it. And as for Africa, it's being robbed by the IMF and the World Bank and there is no way African states can ever get in our way to power. Besides, the people are dying of AIDS and that's good riddance of useless people who are just overcrowding the planet.
We'll just get a major stake in the oil in the Middle East and the world is ours. Israel will help us take care of Syria and Lebanon, and Palestine will never go along with our requirements for a peaceful solution with Israel so they are out of harm's way. The Palestinians will go on self-destroying and nobody even knows that we helped kindle the fire. Smart move there. And now that we've poured fuel on the civil war in Iraq, they will soon self-destroy as well. As long as the different branches of Islam can't stop the infighting, we can safely count on being the winners in the end.
They say the United States is a wounded beast. Just wait and see what we can accomplish. Nobody can beat us. We have our own people eating out of our hand since they've been told and retold for centuries that we're the best, we're the greatest, the most moral, we're God's chosen people! America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. They would never dare tear that myth apart. Patriotism and religion keep them going.
Ok, so where do we go from here? We'll nuke Iran and then we'll see the Iranians toe the line that we set out for them. Who ever said the United States was a loser? Just wait and see.
© Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com
Siv O’Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com
31 July, 2007
Axis of Logic
Mankind is blindly marching straight towards the edge of the cliff. Our so-called leaders are busy filling their pockets with gold and making sure they are first in line, that they can yell louder and grab faster than all the rest of us and that they can reach farther into whatever we're heading for. The fact that it's a morass and that it's going to suck us all up, nobody seems to care about.
Every one of the big guys wants to be the first one to cross the line at the goal. What goal? Total destruction, but that is not yet clear to anybody. Or so it seems. Let the show go on. Let's kill more innocent people, let's buy up competing corporations, let's lead the pack of thieves in money speculation, let's bankrupt more small companies, let's suck up the retirement savings of the little people, let's fool the idiots who think we're here to govern the world. We are here to take care of ourselves and our bank accounts. Who cares about the world? Who cares about tomorrow?
All the politicians and corporate leaders of the world seem to be set on exhausting the planet, killing off all the superfluous people and having a party when it's all over. Who is leading the pack? Well, Cheney & Co., clearly. Is there anybody left who can put the brakes on that clique? When they are busy destroying the world, when they happily plan to nuke Iran, when they start bombing the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan, when they let the Palestinians kill each other off and yell hooray on the sidelines, is there anybody left who will stop Cheney & Co.? They are so busy dancing a victory dance because the oil and arms industries are making huge profits that they don't even see how the planet is burning. Corporate profits are soaring, so to hell with the dollar that's going down. It's good for exports and who cares if we owe trillions in debt to China and Japan? We don't intend to pay it back anyway.
The poor people are dying of AIDS and starvation. Who cares as long as the pharmaceutical industry is making a fortune? Who cares if millions of children are without health insurance? They are the children of the poor and they are not good for anything anyway.
Let the little people lose their life's savings in the big bankruptcies, the big money holders always save themselves and their fortunes. What matters is that business goes on. We can always fool enough people into believing that such and such stock is safe. When the bottom falls out, the CEOs will already be gone with their package intact and they'll pick up the lead somewhere else where people can be fooled into investing. As long as there is a war on, corporate profits are safe.
Iraq is in our way for taking over the world. There are more countries in the way, but let's take one at a time. Let's first invade and take over Iraq. Oh damn, Iraq is not going too well. Well, let the bastards kill each other off and then we'll take over when things calm down. They'll sort things out between themselves and we'll play ball with the winners after the civil war is over. In the meantime, let's nuke Iran. We can't have an Islam world power reaching from Morocco to Indonesia.
September 11 was a godsend. What would we have done if we hadn't been able to scare the people into paralysis and dumbness? What would we have done if it hadn't been for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? There seems to be clear evidence that we are secretly supporting Al Qaeda, making sure they will not disappear. No surprise. And as for bin Laden, we have to go on pretending he's still alive so we have a precise target in our war on terror. It's lies and propaganda that keep the world going. It's what we say that matters, not what we do. We can make the imbeciles believe anything we want them to believe. Repeat it often enough and it becomes the truth. We create our own reality.
If the Dems pick up some backbone and begin to realize that resistance to a dictatorship is possible, we'll have to arrange for a repeat of the attack on the homeland. It's essential that the executive should not in any way be limited in his power. What Cheney says stands, George will always go along and Rove is around to oil the wheels and keep the spin machine going.
The world has to see that it doesn't serve any purpose to isolate the U.S. We don't need the rest of the world. We are the leaders, we run the show, we decide how the Middle East is supposed to be cut up and reshaped.
Oh they say China is coming on big. That's a lot of bull. China has no international standing and they are too heavily weighed down by poverty among their own people. After all, China is not even a civilized nation. No, there is nobody who can ever stand a chance to surpass America, the United States of America. America is the leader of the world and we have made sure that the world knows. One head of government after the other is coming on board the U.S. ship of State. Europe is veering to the right and the leaders are more and more interested in being on good terms with the giant in the west.
Besides, it's Big Money that's running the world and all we have to do is make sure that the big corporations are centered around us. Europe is playing our game once again and the rest of the world is sufficiently in awe of our military and financial power to want to be on good terms with us. Look at India. They were more than happy to clinch the deal about nuclear power in March 2006. That was a clever move, whoever thought of it. And as for Africa, it's being robbed by the IMF and the World Bank and there is no way African states can ever get in our way to power. Besides, the people are dying of AIDS and that's good riddance of useless people who are just overcrowding the planet.
We'll just get a major stake in the oil in the Middle East and the world is ours. Israel will help us take care of Syria and Lebanon, and Palestine will never go along with our requirements for a peaceful solution with Israel so they are out of harm's way. The Palestinians will go on self-destroying and nobody even knows that we helped kindle the fire. Smart move there. And now that we've poured fuel on the civil war in Iraq, they will soon self-destroy as well. As long as the different branches of Islam can't stop the infighting, we can safely count on being the winners in the end.
They say the United States is a wounded beast. Just wait and see what we can accomplish. Nobody can beat us. We have our own people eating out of our hand since they've been told and retold for centuries that we're the best, we're the greatest, the most moral, we're God's chosen people! America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. They would never dare tear that myth apart. Patriotism and religion keep them going.
Ok, so where do we go from here? We'll nuke Iran and then we'll see the Iranians toe the line that we set out for them. Who ever said the United States was a loser? Just wait and see.
© Copyright 2007 by AxisofLogic.com
Siv O’Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)