Desicritics Author: C R Sridhar

'Mommy Dearest' - The Controversial Legacy of Mother Teresa

C R Sridhar — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:31:46 EDT

‘Saints, should always be judged guilty until they are proven innocent.’
-George Orwell.

Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, also known as Mother Teresa, captured the media attention of the world for her pious service of the poor and abandoned children of Calcutta. Born in Skopje – now capital of Macedonia- on 26th of August, she was raised by her strict Albanian mother to be a staunch Roman Catholic .At the age of eighteen she joined the sisters of Loreto as a missionary and came to India in the year 1929. In the year 1950 the Vatican gave permission to Mother Teresa to start the diocesan congregation that would become the Missionaries of Charity. The mission of the charity was a noble one as it was to take care of the homeless, the destitute and the unwanted people. The order, Missionaries of Charity, had thirteen members, which grew to more than four thousand nuns running orphanages, hospices for the care terminally ill and Aids patients. In 1952 Teresa converted an abandoned Hindu temple into the Kalighat home for the dying. The order opened the Nirmala Shishu Bhavan, the Children's Home of the Immaculate Heart, as a haven for orphans and homeless youth. The charitable activities of the order established organisations in other parts of India and also worldwide, especially, in Venezuela, Asia, Africa, US and Europe.¹

The Extraordinary career of Mother Teresa

The brief curriculum vitae of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu does not do adequate justice to the extraordinary career of Mother Teresa. In public and in the media, her wizened body and her wrinkled face radiated a quiet compassion, which could only be seen on saints' faces as they calmly served the wretched of the earth. The media revelled in showing photographs of starving babies in Mother Teresa’s hands. Other photos revealed Mother Teresa in a saintly light as she hugged the dying who were vulnerable in their last moments of life. She became an icon of service to humanity and international recognition poured in first as trickle and then as flood. She won Padma Shri (India), Order of Merit, Golden Honour of the Nation (Albania), culminating in the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded to her in 1979. As an international celebrity, Teresa became a brand ambassador of the Vatican espousing the controversial policies of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to abortion, divorce and contraception.

When she died in 1997 the Holy See began a process of beatification towards declaring Mother Teresa as a saint. For canonizing Mother Teresa it was necessary to establish two miracles unless the Pope dispensed it. The first miracle- the healing of a tumour in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture- was mired in controversy as the medical doctors attending on her and her husband claimed that the tumour was cured by conventional medicine.

A devil’s advocate

Christopher Hitchens, an author and journalist, who declared Mother Teresa as a pious fraud, challenged the beatification and canonization of Mother Teresa. He said ‘her intention was not to help people’ but ‘she was working to expand the number of Catholics.’ His objections were overruled by the Roman Curia who saw no obstacle to the canonization of Mother Teresa. Hitchens alleged that there was no examination of the witnesses who claimed that Monica Besra was not cured by a miracle but by prescription medicine. It was also alleged that Monica Besra had tubercular cyst not malignant tumour as claimed by her order. All these claims were perfunctorily examined without critical scrutiny raising doubts that the standards were deliberately lowered to put the canonization of Mother Teresa on a fast track.²

But the Vatican was in a quandary - if the scrutiny process was diluted and divine intervention in human affairs is too promiscuously recognized, the church exposes itself to skeptical questions that if one leper can be cured by divine help then why not other lepers? Does the Lord show preference in not eradicating infant leukemia and mass poverty? If so, is such a God biased in saving some souls but not the others? Such questions relentlessly open the floodgates of critical challenge lowering the credibility of the Faith. This unease was reflected in some cardinals who objected to the fast track canonization of Mother Teresa. However the beatification of Mother Teresa took place on 19th October 2003 and the title ‘Blessed’ was conferred on her. This placed her firmly in the ante- room of sainthood.

A spanner in the hagiography

In a cynical age such as ours, where the highest form of human endeavour are self-seeking individuals working for the maximization of personal advantage, it is not surprising that tales of personal sacrifice bring tears to the eyes. The reputation of Mother Teresa as a saviour of the poor received a turbo boost when Malcolm Muggeridge filmed Mother Teresa’s work in Calcutta titled Something Beautiful for God, which was shown on BBC. He wrote a book with the same title, which sold more than 300,000 copies sold, reprinted 20 times and translated into 13 languages. There was no looking back for the obscure Albanian Nun who catapulted to world celebrity. The hagiography industry churned out books with titles helper of the poor, protector of the sick, and friend of the friendless, which established the icon status of Mother Teresa as a living example of a saint.

It must be said to the credit of Hitchens that he initiated the critical process of challenging the status of Teresa and the hagiography industry devoted to the sanctimonious humbug of deifying Teresa. In 1994 he produced a documentary film called Hell’s Angel, which was broadcast on Channel 4. The film was vilified and the author was subjected to abuse. Undeterred, Hitchens meticulously researched the life of Mother Teresa and published a book called The Missionary Position. In this book, Hitchens rakes up controversial issues about Teresa and calls into question the credulous nonsense written about the saviour of the poor.

In bad company

In a broadside delivered against the uncritical adulation of Mother Teresa, Hitchens asks inconvenient questions- what was Mother Teresa of Calcutta doing in the presence of the hated family of Baby Doc Duvalier who was the ruthless dictator of Haiti? The event referred to by Hitchens was the visit of Mother Teresa to Haiti in 1981 to accept the Legion d'Honneur. In a magazine called L’Assaut, a propaganda organ for the Duvalier family, there are photos of Mother Teresa holding the bangled hand of Michele Duvalier (wife of Baby Doc) and gazing at her with respect and reverence. The magazine quotes Teresa as having said, ‘Madame President is someone who feels, who knows, who wishes to demonstrate her love not only with words but also with concrete and tangible actions.’ Whether the oppressed people of Haiti who were murdered, raped and pillaged by the Duvalier family for generations, echoed her sentiments is not known, as they were not quoted in the magazine. Her pious endorsement of the Duvalier family was in line with the extreme Right wing and conservative faction of the Vatican hierarchy supporting the Duvalier oligarchy.³

While it would be tempting to view Mother Teresa’s Haiti visit as a social faux pas not worthy of criticism, there is overwhelming evidence that she supported repressive dictators and regimes in Central and South America. She gave support to the Reagan administration by her participation in the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which was awarded to her inside the White House in 1985, when right wing death squads embroiled the administration in a scandal relating to the murder of four American nuns and the Archbishop of San Salvador in Central America. Her admonition of the Sandinista Revolutionary Party gave support to the contras, a vicious mercenary army actively funded by the Reagan government to bomb schools and hospitals in Nicaragua, raised serious doubts about her political neutrality.

During the suspension of civil liberties in India by Indira Gandhi in 1975, the Mother uttered no words of criticism. She purred beatifically-‘ People are happier. There are more jobs. There are no strikes.’ Her friendly relationship with Mrs Gandhi and the Congress party played an important role in silencing the criticism. ‘Mother Teresa’ says Michael Parenti, ‘is a paramount example of the kind of acceptably conservative icon propagated by an elite-dominated culture, a saint who uttered not a critical word against social injustice, and maintained cosy relations with the rich, corrupt, and powerful.’⁴

Money has no smell

Other controversies dogged Mother Teresa. One of the most serious scandals to affect her reputation was her financial involvement with one of the biggest frauds known in American history - Charles Keating. The savings and loan scam of Keating swindled $252 million, mainly from small and poor depositors. A staunch Catholic he gave Teresa $1,250,000 in cash and the use of a private jet. In return Mother Teresa gave a glowing character certificate and pleaded for his clemency during the trial. The Deputy District Attorney for LA, Paul Turley in a tersely worded letter addressed to Teresa asked her to return the money stolen by Keating. Mother Teresa did not return the money. No action was taken by the court for its recovery. It appears that saints are immune from coercive proceedings.⁵

The theology of suffering

At the heart of suffering lies a deception, which must be examined rationally to understand the theory and practice of Mother Teresa. At a 1981 press conference she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: ‘I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.’⁶ Her reply made her critics accuse her of loving suffering more than the sufferers. The spectacle of suffering was beneficial for faith as only in pain one thought of the Lord. The alleviation of pain of dying patients was not an important objective.

There is a memorable anecdote about her attitude to suffering. A patient was approached by Mother Teresa who dished out theological platitudes instead of providing painkillers to the patient. ‘You are suffering like Christ on the cross,’ Mother Teresa allegedly told the patient. ‘So Jesus must be kissing you.’ The patient is said to have replied, ‘Then please tell him to stop kissing me.’⁷

This bizarre attitude to suffering was reflected in her hospices and orphanages. ‘In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, then editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, visited the Home for Dying Destitute in Calcutta and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.’⁸

Moreover, the formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics. Fox also wrote that needles were rinsed with warm water, which left them inadequately sterilised, and the facility did not isolate patients with infectious diseases. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Some former volunteers who worked for Teresa’s order have also expressed similar points of view. Mother Teresa herself referred to the facilities as "Houses of the Dying”

The orphanages where abandoned children were housed showed shocking lapses of care so strongly advertised in the media all over the world. Donal MacIntyre - a reporter and documentary-maker for Channel 5 Television who worked undercover was astonished at what he saw-

‘ I saw children with their mouths gagged open to be given medicine, their hands flaying in distress, visible testimony to the pain they were in. Tiny babies were bound with cloths at feeding time. Rough hands wrenched heads into position for feeding. Some of the children retched and coughed as rushed staff crammed food into their mouths. Boys and girls were abandoned on open toilets for up to 20 minutes at a time. Slumped, untended, some dribbling, some sleeping, they were a pathetic sight. Their treatment was an affront to their dignity, and dangerously unhygienic.’9

The donations, which poured from all parts of the world, were not invested in buying drugs and medical equipment for the care of the sick and dying. Instead, it was diverted to the Vatican Bank for general use. But when it came to her own treatment ‘Teresa checked into some of the costliest hospitals and recovery care units in the world for state-of-the-art treatment.’¹⁰

Conservative agenda

The Vatican under Pope Paul II used the popularity of Mother Teresa to support controversial issues on abortion, divorce, and contraception. The Roman church remained implacably hostile to abortion even if was necessary to save the life of the mother or in instances where women were raped and requested abortion. Its views on divorce and contraception were steeped in medieval values. The dogma of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to contraception is well known and has invited protests from all over the world.

Mother Teresa lobbied hard on the referendum to lift the constitutional ban divorce in Ireland in 1995. Her position was that of a hardliner opposing the removal of the ban on divorce. In her meeting with Margaret Thatcher in the year 1988 the main discussion centred on Abortion instead of the plight of the city’s homeless. In Spain she lobbied hard on behalf the clerical forces to prevent legislation liberalising abortion, divorce and birth control. At a open- air mass in Knock (Ireland) in 1992, she addressed the devout with the following words-‘Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.’¹¹

In her Nobel Peace Prize speech in 1979, Mother Teresa famously said -‘ I think that today peace is threatened by abortion, too, which is a true war, a direct killing of a child by its own mother. Today, abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace. Because if a mother can kill her own child, what will prevent us from killing ourselves, or one another? Nothing.’¹²

Sums up Susan Jacoby,‘Teresa never showed any concern, in India or elsewhere, about the root causes of poverty -- including lack of education, corrupt dictatorships, inequitable distribution of wealth, bigotry against social, ethnic, or religious under classes, and contempt for women.’¹³

Selecting Saints

Any Institution such as the Roman Catholic Church, which has a relationship of trust with its devotees, must maintain high standards of moral probity to retain the trust and confidence of its members. Such confidence should not be diluted in the name of political expediency. In the past, the Church crushed dissent and heresy through the office of the Inquisition to retain power. In modern times, such powers do not exist. Its legitimacy lies in moral persuasion, which is exercised through the proper selection of saints who epitomise all that is best and pure about the Church.

During the 26-year papacy of Paul II, the Pope had canonised 483 individuals to sainthood. Among the less savoury individuals selected for the honour of beatification was the reactionary Msgr. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, supporter of fascist regimes in Spain and elsewhere, and founder of Opus Dei, a powerful secretive ultra-conservative movement feared by many as a sinister sect within the Catholic Church. Other selections for beatification, which raised eyebrows, were Pius IX, who reigned as pontiff from 1846 to 1878, and who referred to Jews as dogs and Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, the leading Croatian cleric who welcomed the Nazi and fascist Ustashi takeover of Croatia during World War II and openly supported the Croatian fascist regime that exterminated hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and Roma. ¹⁴

Mother Teresa was a mild reactionary when compared to the egregious examples of Msgr. José María Escrivá de Balaguer, Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, and Pius IX but certainly not an inspiring example for the Church. More worthy persons such as Archbishop Oscar Romero who spoke against Right wing death squads for oppressing the people of El Salvador received shabby treatment at the hands of Pope Paul II. The death squad murdered the Archbishop for speaking out his mind against tyranny and oppression. The people of El Salvador venerated him as a saint. But Pope Paul II used his authority to ban any discussion for his beatification for a period of 50 years. No protests were made by the Pope to condemn the murder. The Pope merely murmured –‘Tragic’ when asked for his comments. The ground swell of support for the martyred priest made the Pope to relent: the ban was cut down to 25 years. The Archbishop was put on a slow boat to sainthood.

The Byzantine intrigue of the Vatican in selecting its saints would make a cynic say in mock wonder, ‘The ways of the Vatican are indeed mysterious.’ And that sense of mystery only deepens when one considers the extraordinary beatification of an Albanian nun called Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu.

--------------
1 Wikipedia- Mother Teresa.
2 The fanatic, fraudulent Mother Teresa- Christopher Hitchens- Slate Magazine.
3 The Missionary Position- Christopher Hitchens- Verso- pages 3-6.
4 Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and the Fast-Track Saints- Micheal Parenti.
5 The Missionary Position, Christopher Hitchens- Verso- pages- 68-70.
6 The Missionary Position, Christopher Hitchens- Verso- page- 11.
7 Mother Teresa and her order come under criticism- By Clark Morphew / Knight-Ridder Newspapers.
8 Dr Robin Fox- Lancet 17th September 1994- extracts published in The Missionary Position, Christopher Hitchens- Verso- pages- 38-39.
9 "The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa" - Donal MacIntyre- New Statesman- 22 August 2005.
10 "Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and the Fast-Track Saints"- Micheal Parenti
11 "The Missionary Position"- Christopher Hitchens- Verso- page- 58
12 The illusory Vs Real Mother Teresa- Dr. Michael Hakeem- free thought today- August 1996.
13 Road to Sainthood Paved with Good Publicity- Susan Jacoby- On faith.
14 Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and the Fast-Track Saints- Micheal Parenti.

Book Review: The Global Food Economy by Tony Weis

C R Sridhar — Mon, 19 May 2008 08:28:57 EDT

The corporate images of the food economy are full of deceptive advertisements of a mythical cornucopia of contented animals waiting for their disposal as someone else’s meal. The other images, which reinforce the intrinsic ‘fun and plenty’ of the food economy, are of supermarkets catering to the affluent sections of society, with food products stacked in shelves procured from far off places.

Beneath the illusion of plenty, there are other contradictory images of starved babies with distended bellies in famine stricken Africa, coexisting obscenely with obese people from the developed world. Starved farmers in agriculturally dependent economies who eke out a miserable living out of cash crop economy offer a harsh contrast to the bon vivant life style of CEOs of Transnational Corporations.

Tony Weis, an Assistant Professor of Geography teaching at the University of Western Ontario- Canada, has written a book called The Global Food Economy, which is a searing indictment of Big Agri-businesses destroying small farmers and the delicate eco-systems devastated by modern capital-intensive modes of production. Going beyond the platitudes of corporate PR, the author ‘examines the human and the ecological cost of what we eat.’

At the heart of the problem, the author argues, lies the role of TNC agribusiness, especially the grain-livestock complex, in adopting industrial methods, which are inimical to the eco-systems and the condition of human beings in general.

Ecological footprint

The ecological footprint left by Industrial Agriculture is a negative one and exacts a mounting toxic burden. In the past the long-term viability of farms depended on a sensitive relationship with respect to the ecological limits of growing food. It was recognized that there must be functional diversity in crops, soil species, trees, animals and insects to maintain ecological balance and nutrient cycles. This was maintained in traditional farming methods by multi-cropping, rotational patterns, green manure, fallowing land, careful seed selection and the integration of small animal populations.

In contrast modern farming transformed by capitalism and industralisation represented ‘a movement toward the radical simplification of the natural ecological order in the number of species found in an area and the intricacy of their interconnections’. This was made possible by the development and rising use of synthetic fertilizers, agro-chemicals, enhanced seed varieties/genetically modified seeds, farm machinery, concentrated feedstuffs, animal antibiotics and hormones, and the expansion of irrigation systems, which allowed industrial techniques to override previous ecological constraints. Moreover, embedded in industrialized farming is the new dependence upon fossil fuel consumption in the twentieth century, not only on transportation costs involved in bringing the food from the place where it is grown to the plate of the consumer and the demands of the machinery used for agriculture instead of animals, but with the petroleum demands of proliferating synthetic fertilizers and agro-chemicals. With the price of oil reaching $120 per barrel (expecting to touch $200 per barrel) it is certain that food prices would shoot upwards.

Rejecting simplistic notions that the industrial transformation in agriculture has resulted in high yielding crops, which are also yield stable, the author points out the inconvenient truth that it leads to chronic toxicity. This is evident as crops grown in industrial monocultures are prone to pest infections- a threat that is suppressed by the use of pesticides leading to greater pest resistance to the pesticides and involving greater use of pesticides in a never-ending cycle. The excessive use of pesticides results in pesticide poisoning which afflicts nearly three million suffering every year leading to 2,50,000 deaths. The other problems that arise with mechanized tillage are that the soil is drained off its nutritive power. The quick fix in the form of technology is a mere illusion as more and more use of inputs serves to mask the problems while creating fresh ones, one of which is the increasing use of fresh water for agricultural purposes, which is becoming scarce and a flash point of conflict.

Hoof prints left by livestock

The increased meatification of diet offers fresh challenges to the eco-systems as the increased demand for consumption of meat products leads to large-scale supply from feedlots. There are also health problems associated with increased meat intake as it increases the risk of strokes and cardio-vascular diseases.

In the factory, the dense livestock population is the major consumer and polluter of water. It is calculated that in excess of 3000 litres of water go into producing a single kilogram of US beef while a factory farmed pig requires about 132 litres of water for drinking and flushing of its wastes. A typical slaughterhouse in US uses in a day the water used by 25000 people.

The faecal matter of the cattle and pigs creates problems of waste disposal, as it is a gigantic task to get rid of 1.4 billon tons of animal manure (US) without polluting the rivers and streams. Added to the problems of sink function, there are health hazards arising out of over crowding of poultry birds in production factories which exposes the public to the dangers of a virulent strain of H5N1 which is capable of mutating and jumping the species barrier to human beings. The WHO warning led to hundreds of millions of birds getting culled in China, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia. The feeding of neural tissues, bone meal and blood from cattle carcass to essentially herbivorous cattle created the mad cow disease (BSE), which could transmit to humans when they eat the infected meat. Thus the hoof prints left by livestock production leaves an intolerable burden on eco-systems and public health.

An Uneven Playing field

The human cost of the food economy is a heavy burden disproportionately resting on developing countries- where overwhelmingly large sections of the rural people depend on agriculture for livelihood. TNC Agri-businesses, which are subsidised by rich developed countries (especially US) flood the world market with cheap grains/ cereals, driving the poor farmers of the developing world out of the market leading to destitution and poverty. They are driven to cities in search of jobs in Urban areas, where they constitute the under class found in Urban ghettos living in abject poverty and filth. Most of the poorer countries are still trapped in neo-colonial relationship with centers of Metropolitan capital as they increasingly depend on cash crops grown for export to the affluent people of the world and face the daunting prospect of not able to feed themselves out of their dwindling export earnings. The producing countries simply do not control the international price for their commodities- they take what they get. The export earnings are insufficient to buy finished goods from the developed countries and they face the dreary prospect of increasing the volume of export of cash crops without increasing the value, which is just not enough to pay for the imports.

The author’s book is a sane and compassionate plea to reorder the global food economy to serve human needs and not the diktat of corporate agriculture with its obsession of profit maximization. In the last chapter of his book called the future of farming, he passionately calls for moving agricultural systems off the chemical and fossil energy treadmill and towards lower-input, labour-centered intensification and more bio-diverse agriculture. That this vision is not that of a Luddite who wants to turn the clock back to a romantic past, is borne out by the fact that there is an urgent need for agro-science to be shaped by more scientific research for more humane ends like empowering the small farmer and not for mindlessly enriching the corporate coffers of the few.

For people of India, especially the middle class, who are enthralled by the IT service economy, it may be a wake up call to know that even today two-thirds of its one billion plus population still depend on agriculture as source of income. The author’s book, which pleads for a socially just, ecologically rational and humane food economy, should find a place in our bookshelf.

Bardolatory - William Shakespeare's Legacy

C R Sridhar — Fri, 2 May 2008 00:41:13 EDT

"I am more easily bored with Shakespeare, and have suffered more ghastly evenings with him, than any dramatist I know."

Peter Brook

"Let's all raise a flagon of ale and wish a happy 444th to one of our favorite playwright and poet." said one of the admirers of Shakespeare. Indeed, as the BBC news reports, the crowds in Stratford-upon-Avon enjoyed street theatre, dancing, plays and music over the weekend marking his birth - believed to be 23 April 1564. Last week hundreds of people celebrated William Shakespeare’s 444th birth anniversary, including some wearing Elizabethan costumes, took part in the traditional procession on Saturday. A spokesperson for the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, said the weekend was "a celebration, not only of the world's greatest poet and playwright but also of tradition, the arts and Stratford-upon-Avon."¹

India was conspicuous by its absence at the 444th birth anniversary celebrations of The Bard of Avon at his birthplace. The reason for India’s absence was indeed strange as only last year former High Commissioner Kamalesh Sharma had raised the tricolour at Stratford-upon-Avon. “But the Indian diplomatic absence may be easily explained, if not easily understood.” says Rashmee Roshan Lall tetchily in her column ‘Shakespearewallah fails to show up.’² It appears that as the Indian High Commissioner and his diplomatic officials were preoccupied with the untidy events of the Maoists coming to power in Nepal, they could not participate in the anniversary festivities in the Bard’s birthplace. The columnist’s irritation was perhaps justified, as after 200 years of pillage and plunder, the enduring legacy of Britain to India has been Shakespeare and Cricket.

Shakespeare’s literary foes

The effusive praises for the Bard conceal some dissenting voices that have challenged the greatness of Shakespeare as a literary figure. His harshest critic was the Great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy who wrote such masterpieces as ‘War and Peace’ and ‘Anna Karenina’. Tolstoy marshaled his formidable creative power to fire a salvo at the Bard.

In Shakespeare and the Drama, published in 1906, Tolstoy declared that he had always experienced feelings of repulsion, weariness, and bewilderment on reading Shakespeare's plays. "Now," he says "before writing this article, as an old man of seventy-five wishing once more to check my conclusions, I have again read the whole of Shakespeare . . . and have experienced the same feelings still more strongly, no longer with perplexity but with a firm and unshakeable conviction that the undisputed fame Shakespeare enjoys as a great genius - which makes writers of our time imitate him, and readers and spectators, distorting their aesthetic and ethical sense, seek nonexistent qualities in him - is a great evil, as every falsehood is."³

Tolstoy stirred a bitter controversy in literary circles when he claimed “Shakespeare cannot be admitted to be either a writer of great genius or even an average one." He filleted the Bard by examining one of his critically acclaimed plays King Lear. Tolstoy found the play to be overrated and not meeting the basic standards of art. He argued that the play was filled with characters that were stilted, speaking a language that was affected, pretentious, pompous far removed from the real people of the World. The play had no sense of proportion, claimed Tolstoy, and the contents reflected a vulgar view of life, which fawned on the mighty and treated the poor with contempt. Tolstoy also controversially claimed that King Lear was a plagiarized version of a far superior play King Leir authored by an unknown playwright. Moreover, the Weltanschauung of the Bard was that of a status quo-ist without the humanitarian impulse of trying to change the order of an iniquitous society. All the major flaws found in King Lear, Tolstoy concluded, could be found in his other plays.

Tolstoy’s antipathy to Shakespeare rose from irreconcilable differences as to the purpose of Art. For Art to be a meaningful, said Tolstoy, it must be rooted in reason and conscience. Tolstoy passionately denounced the movements such as the Decadents and Symbolists, which idealized beauty, truth, and goodness. For Tolstoy a purely aesthetic appreciation of the holy Trinity symbolized by beauty, truth, and goodness represented the effusions of counterfeit Art. All great works of art, he contended, are great because they are accessible and comprehensible to everyone. As examples of great Art Tolstoy selected Schiller's 'The Robbers', Hugo's 'Les Miserables' and 'Les Pauvres Gens', Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities', 'A Christmas Carol', and 'The Chimes', Harriet Beecher Stowe's 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', Dostoevsky's 'The House of the Dead', and George Eliot's 'Adam Bede' as manifestations of love of God and man.

A Shavian Salvo

Tolstoy’s criticism of Shakespeare and the credo Art for Art’s sake found sympathy in George Bernard Shaw who held the view that Great Art should be harnessed to the purpose of changing humankind for the better. On the so called Greatness of Shakespeare Shaw agreed with Tolstoy and said “ I have striven hard to open English eyes to the emptiness of Shakespeare’s philosophy, to the superficiality and second-handedness of his morality, to his weakness and his incoherence as a thinker, to his snobbery, his vulgar prejudices, his ignorance, his disqualifications of all sorts for the philosophic eminence claimed for him.” But Shaw disagreed with Tolstoy and said that the Bard had great literary power, which made him a great artist. ⁴

The Paradox

The popularity of Shakespeare remains a paradox, as he was never considered as a great playwright amongst his peers Beaumont, Fletcher, Ben Jonson and others during the Elizabethan Age. Until the end of the Eighteenth Century Shakespeare remained relatively obscure in England. It was Goethe who praised Shakespeare and later taken up by German Literary scholars who praised Shakespeare’s plays. As Tolstoy says his reputation “originated in Germany, and thence was transferred to England.” There were special circumstances favouring the Bard as German Drama was trapped in its mediocrity and French classical literature was ossified into a sterile rigidity. The Germans were captivated by Shakespeare’s clever development of scenes and his literary reputation grew steadily. The infatuation with Shakespeare has lasted ever since.⁵ Thus the spell of Shakespeare could be attributed to ‘epidemic suggestion’ induced by Germanic scholars whose enthusiasm for the Bard spread to England. The reputation of Shakespeare became solid during the Eighteenth Century as the Bard’s plays represented a return to safety before all the upheavals of the French Revolution and he symbolized solid English values such as Monarchy.

Porters of Colonial Legacy

When the British left India after 200 years of colonial rule, they left a dubious cultural legacy: Shakespeare. Gary Taylor in his irreverent book ‘Reinventing Shakespeare’ challenges the inherited assumption of Shakespeare’s greatness, preferring to see his current status as the fruit of centuries of public relations on the part of British Imperialism, “which propagated the English Language on every continent.”

In post-Independence India, Shakespeare and Rudyard Kipling, the icons of British imperialism became required reading in schools and Universities teaching English Literature. The upper middle classes of Indian society lapped up courses on Shakespeare creating divisions between high art and popular entertainment. The plays in vernacular languages and native cinema became popular with the masses. The uncomfortable questions raised by Tolstoy beg for our attention- Why not shape our literary consciousness by delving deeply into our folklore and the study of epics, which are part of our cultural milieu? Why not draw inspiration from diverse native tradition for our Art? What, if any, is the relevance of Shakespeare in India where many do not speak English?

For the porters of colonial legacy, these troubling questions cast long shadows on their path as they make their journey to a far of place called Stratford-upon-Avon.

Notes:
1. BBC News, 26 April 2008 12:20 UK
2. "View from London- Shakespearewallah fails to show up"- TOI-April 29, 2008.
3. "What is art? - Introduction to Tolstoy's writings"- Ernest J Simmons.
4. "New concerted attack on the fame of Shakespeare"- New York Times-December 9, 1906, Sunday.
5. "Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool"- George Orwell

Tibet - The Myth of Shangri-La

C R Sridhar — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:46:42 EDT

‘We ought not suffer ourselves to be deluded by unfounded theory or specious argument.’ -Abbe Felice Fontana.

The recent uprising in Tibet, which was crushed by China, reopened old wounds of the Tibetan struggle for independence from China. The international media was quick to highlight the traumatic events of the Chinese crackdown in 1959 in Tibet, which led to the exile of Dalai Lama to India. The international condemnation of the tough action taken on the Tibetan protesters was embarrassing to China as she was to play the host in the Beijing 2008 Olympics. The bad publicity came at an inopportune time and blunted the PR exercise mounted by China as an emerging Super Power.

The international coverage of the uprising was to a large extent uniform expressing moral outrage at the Chinese oppression but simplified the complex historical events of the Sino-Tibetan struggle. In the simplification lay the romantic notion that the Lamas (the priestly class) ruled wisely and with compassion. As the Dalai Lama himself stated that "the pervasive influence of Buddhism" in Tibet, "amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.”¹

Hollywood version of Tibet

The romantic notion of idyllic Tibet where men, women and children lived in perfect harmony was reinforced in the West by Hollywood movies produced by talented directors such as Bernardo Bertolucci's Little Buddha (1993) and Martin Scorsese's Kundun (1997) and Jean-Jacques Annaud’s Seven Years in Tibet. In these excellently directed and lavishly produced films there are powerful messages suggesting ‘exaggerated reverence, with heavy-handed depictions of Tibetans, especially Tibetan monks, as solemn, holy and kind instead of as ordinary people who quarrel and joke around.’ The Western World also idealized Tibetan culture as pure and otherworldly. As Jamyang Norbu, a Tibetan immigrant and writer living in Tennessee, said: ''In the West, the response to Tibetan culture is so worshipful and romantic. There are elements in Tibetan culture that have all this magical, medieval stuff that Westerners love. The New Age thing. The Tibetan thing has style -- the color, the costumes. To a great extent, we exist only in the imagination of Western fantasists.''²

The slavish adoration of all things Tibetan finds articulation in the novel Lost Horizon, written by James Hilton who popularized Shangri-La – a place of perfect serenity. The novel tells a story of some Englishmen whose plane crashed in the Himalayas found peace and tranquility in the company of lamas who engaged them with philosophical conversation over endless cups of tea. This myth of Tibet – a veritable Shangri-La - entered Western consciousness and struck a sympathetic chord. This impression of Tibet as a Utopian world untainted by greed or corruption excited the imagination of western people and formed the basis of public opinion supporting the Tibetan struggle against China.

Exploitative class structure

But did the popular opinion about Tibet as a Shangri-La have any basis in reality? Were there any historical records to support the claim that it was Shangri-La ruled by the wise lamas? A careful and scrupulous reading of Tibetan History reveals a radically different picture. Far from being a Shangri-La Tibet was crushed from within by a viciously exploitative class structure. “Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet,” writes Michael Parenti, “ most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. “³ Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that "a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches . . .. In addition, individual monks and lamas were able to accumulate great wealth through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending."⁴

In old Tibet, there were a number of small farmers who eked out a living under extremely difficult circumstances. These were the lucky ones as they were free peasants. The middle class was in the region of ten thousand comprising small traders, merchants, and shopkeepers. Thousands were beggars and some slaves who owned nothing. But staggering parts of the population - some 700000 out of 1250000 were serfs.⁵ The serfs and other poor peasants had no education or medical care. They slaved for the lama and the secular landed aristocracy. They had no rights and were subject to the whims of the lords. The plight of the serfs is chronicled in the Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet and also in other scholarly books such as Tom Grunfeld’s The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1996; Anna Louise Strong, Tibetan Interviews, Peking New World Press, 1929.

Hell on Earth

The exploitative regime of the Lamas was enforced through terror and wide spread use of torture. For runaway serfs and thieves the summary punishments were given such as eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation. Notes Parenti “ In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, and breaking off hands. There were instruments for slicing off kneecaps and heels, or hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling.”⁶ The testimonies of the victims of torture are heart rending as they are enduring chronicles of man’s inhumanity to man.

The religious teaching of Karma was used to keep the iniquitous social order in place. The pernicious doctrine taught that the poor had themselves to blame as they justly suffered for their sins committed in past lives. The rich enjoyed the affluence and prosperity as a reward for their virtuous deeds in the past. This religious dogma prevented any challenge to the social order and preserved a status quo for the benefit of the Lama elites.

Enter the Red Dragon

In 1950 the Chinese communists occupied Tibet and crushed the ill-equipped Tibetan army. In 1951 the Seventeen Point agreement was signed and Tibet was officially incorporated into the People's Republic of China. Dalai Lama was given self- government in Tibet with the Chinese government retaining control over military and foreign relations. In Eastern Kham and Amdo (Quingai) considered being outside the purview of the Tibetan Government, the Chinese initiated land reforms. Most lands there were taken away from noblemen and monasteries and re-distributed to serfs. This aroused resentment among the landed class in Tibet. The Chinese accusation was that Tibet under the Dalai Lama was regressive in nature and opposed all attempts to modernize a serf society. The Chinese abolished serfdom and introduced social reforms by reducing usurious interest rates and built hospitals and roads. “Contrary to popular belief in the West," writes Goldstein, the Chinese "took care to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion. No aristocratic or monastic property was confiscated, and feudal lords continued to reign over their hereditarily bound peasants.”⁷

Meanwhile the relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese communists worsened. In Eastern Kham and Amdo(Qinghai) the landed class with the monks started a rebellion in June 1956, which eventually spread to Lhasa. The Chinese crushed the Tibetan resistance with extreme violence in 1959. After the Lhasa rebellion in 1959, the Chinese government lowered the level of autonomy of Central Tibet, and implemented full-scale land redistribution in all areas of Tibet.

Tibet as a pawn in the Cold War

The American involvement in the Tibetan struggle arose due to geopolitical concerns about the ideology of communism that was hostile to interests of capitalism. American foreign policy strategists, less inspired by thoughts of benevolence, saw a golden opportunity to halt the spread of communism by actively supporting Dalai Lama. The CIA involvement with the bands of Tibetan fighters dates back to 1956 when the Tibetan fighters attacked the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army. The CIA gave this group military training, support camps in Nepal and supply of arms. A propaganda unit called the American Society for a Free Asia – a CIA front- espoused the cause of free Tibet.

The Dalai Lama’s eldest brother, Thubtan Norbu, played an active role in this society.⁸ The CIA bankrolled the exiled Tibetan community throughout the sixties to the tune of $1.7 million a year according to the documents released by the State Department in 1998. The CIA also gave the Dalai Lama annual payments of $186000. These facts were reported in the Los Angeles Times (15-9-1998) and also in New York Times (1-10-1998) by the publication of the article ‘CIA Gave Aid to Tibetan Exiles in '60s, Files Show’ written by Jim Mann. The documents released by the State Department are also analysed in a book written by Morrison titled The CIA's Secret War in Tibet.

The armed resistance movement petered out in 1972 when the CIA abruptly withdrew support. Both President Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger saw that rapprochement with China served US geopolitical interests. The Tibetans were left high and dry. There is another important reason, not discussed in mainstream media, why the resistance failed: because large sections of Tibetan society who were serfs did not join the armed struggle against the Chinese. Unlike other liberation struggles against imperial invasions, the Tibetan resistance was confined to the land owning aristocracy and monks who lost the most during the Chinese occupation. The non- involvement of the class of peasants/ serfs spelt the death knell of the resistance.⁹

The bitterness of the 14th Dalai Lama was evident, as he knew that the US involvement in Tibet was a game to thwart the expansion of Communist China. It had nothing to do with the plight of the Tibetan people. While thanking the CIA for its support in the Tibetan struggle he told John Kenneth Knaus, an ex-CIA official, that “the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a cold war tactic to challenge the Chinese.''

Today the financial support for Dalai Lama flows from the National Endowment for Democracy and other conduits. The US Congress has allotted annually a sum of $2 million for Tibetans in India with additional budget of millions for the democratic activities for the Tibetan Exile Community. Heather Cottin, in "George Soros, Imperial Wizard," CovertAction Quarterly no. 74 (Fall 2002) has also alleged that the Dalai Lama also gets money from financier George Soros, who now runs the CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other institutes.

Writing on the Wall

Beneath the smiling face of the 14th Dalai Lama that we see on TV interviews and at public functions there is a worried man. The worries of Dalai Lama are founded on painful realities confronting Tibet. In recent times the Han Chinese constituting 95% of the immense Chinese population have settled in large numbers dominating the Tibetan economy. The Han Chinese views the Tibetans with contempt. The economic levers are in the hands of the Chinese, which has aroused the antagonism of the local Tibetans. The culture of Tibet is in danger of being effaced by the demographic shift in favour of the Han Chinese.

The dark shadow cast by China as an emerging super power has blunted the bargaining power of Tibet in her quest for independence. In recent times China has meshed with the globalised economy as a supplier of low cost goods to US and the world. With US slipping into recession and real wages declining, the flood of cheap goods to meet declining purchasing power in US may stem the consumer protest in that country. Hence, apart from posturing and making rhetorical speeches, the US establishment may find no reason to rock the Chinese boat. The US occupation of Iraq against international law, which has cost precious lives, has turned public opinion against military intervention in general. Moreover, the financial crisis in US and declining dollar has limited the capacity of US to militarily intervene in Tibet. The Government in exile of Dalai Lama has no support in US to overthrow the Chinese from Tibet and risk the prospect of a third world war.

The option of Dalai Lama is restricted to negotiate with China for autonomy while being a part of China. The conciliatory efforts made by the Dalai Lama to the Chinese leadership in Beijing would be the best step forward to ensure that the freedom of worship and human rights are restored in the best traditions of democracy.

“For every complicated problem,” said Mencken, “there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable, and wrong.” For the people who support the Free Tibet movement the myth of the Shangri-La must be laid to rest and there must be international pressure to model Tibet as a democracy. Few Tibetans would like the return of the corrupt aristocratic clans who fled with the Dalai Lama in 1959. Many Tibetan farmers would not like to give up the land distributed to them during the Chinese land reforms. Slaves who suffered terribly under the feudal overlords would not like the return to slavery. These voices must be heard and respected. Otherwise the freedom loving people of Tibet would be replacing the yoke of Chinese Occupation with the yoke of theocratic despotism of the Lamas. A fate that must be avoided at any cost.

----------

1 Dalai Lama quoted in Donald Lopez Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1998), 205.

2 Tibet (Hold the Shangri-La)- BARBARA STEWART Published: March 19, 2000- the New York Times.

3 Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth- Michael Parenti.

4 Pradyumna P. Karan, The Changing Face of Tibet: The Impact of Chinese Communist Ideology on the Landscape (Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1976), 64.

5 Stuart Gelder and Roma Gelder, The Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1964) page 110.

6 Anna Louise Strong, Tibetan Interviews (Peking: New World Press, 1929) quoted in Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth.

7 Melvyn C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), page 52.

8 Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2002); 9 Hugh Deane, "The Cold War in Tibet," CovertAction Quarterly (Winter 1987).

Lead India - A Corporate-Sponsored Circus

C R Sridhar — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:54:02 EST

Splashed on the front page of the Times of India (11th Feb 2008) is the photograph of the winner of the Lead India contest R.K. Misra playing a drum and surrounded by his friends, relatives and admirers. Gushed TOI, an English daily, known for its unabashed support for Corporate India ‘Misra emerged winner after overcoming 63 other contestants and 10 gruelling rounds of scrutiny. Besides winning the favour of most voters, he got 6 of 7 jury votes.’ Implicit in the report was the subliminal message that the sternest natural selection was at work in the Lead India Contest weeding out the weak and the inefficient contestants and selecting the brightest and the best as political leaders for India.

The euphoria generated by the glitzy media event attended by corporate honchos, opinion makers and politicians was heady and infectious. It smacked of a closely held private club whose members swore by the ideals of meritocracy and sound governance. Spotted in the distinguished gathering was the CEO of a private bank, which had the dubious distinction of using goons to collect debts. Whether such practices constituted good corporate governance is a matter of opinion argue the corporate class beguiled by the seduction of moral relativism. Recently the Apex court declared such methods as illegal awarding exemplary damages against the bank.

Squeaky-clean leadership

The assumption of Lead India that Corporate India provides examples of squeaky-clean leadership requires a leap of faith and dollops of naivety. And it is not borne out by facts. While it is tempting for the middle class to lament about the bad corrupt politicians and the parasitic government servants who thwart the developmental goals of the nation, such a view is far from truth. For in the equation of corruption lies the role of big business. The nexus of big business with corrupt government officials and politicians offers us a vantage view of the complexity of Indian corruption. Mr. Shanti Bhusan, former law minister, in a foreword to the book Reliance - The Real Natwar written by Arun Agrawal, admirably sums up the position not only with respect to Reliance but the corporate sector as a whole, ‘It is the thesis of Arun Agarwal that all political parties get huge financial help from Reliance which is why they remain silent even at the most egregious violations of law by Reliance.’ Further Mr. Bhusan adds significantly, ‘Bulk of the media too compromises and remains silent.’

Other examples such as collapse of banks like Global Trust and the stock market scams by Harshad Mehta involving big private banks explodes the myth that lays the blame entirely on the Government. We must forcibly remind ourselves that the loot of public money is a collaborative effort of Big business and Government. The corporate sector as providing clean no nonsense leaders is mere fantasy as it is a part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The myth of superior governance of the corporate sector is again a self-perpetuating illusion spread by TOI and the financial daily Economic Times. Dinned into our collective consciousness is the mantra of efficiency of the private sector over public sector. The pages of the Economic Times are replete with instances of corporate honchos making rather overblown claims that they offer far superior leadership to the moribund public sector. This received wisdom that is bandied about freely in corporate dominated media deserves scrutiny. ‘One assumption underlying the dogma,’ says T.T. Ram Mohan who teaches at IIM (Ahmedabad) ‘that public sector enterprises are doomed to inefficiency, and that competitive market forces can be relied on to make firms more efficient once they are privatized.’ (Privatization in India - Going Beyond Economic Orthodoxy)

But is this really true?

Combining rigorous data analysis with case studies to provide a balanced evaluation of the process of deregulation and privatization within the overall context of economic reforms, the author demonstrates, remarkably, that, contrary to the prevailing view, private sector firms do not outperform public sector firms across all sectors.

Apples to horses

Moreover, the assertion made in the contest that people who manage their business well can also be good in government service is an extremely shaky proposition. It is like comparing apples to horses. Government service calls for different priorities such as public good while business aims at profits. Public good is often described as an unruly horse, which involves complex decision making for the public servant to satisfy the stakeholders with unequal purchasing power who cannot be turned away on the ground that they cannot pay.

In areas such as Health and Education the infusion of the profit motive can be dangerous as it can drive out vulnerable sections of society from seeking education and health facilities. Do we view patients coming for health care as consumers driving business revenue? Do we cut off travel to the poor on the ground that they cannot pay? These are the challenges confronting the government and the mantra of profit and profitability so enamored by the private sector would lead to profitable enterprises not serving the people at large.

Corporate-friendly leaders

The covert agenda of campaigns like Lead India is to spawn corporate friendly leaders who spread the gospel of neo-liberalism. The so-called free market with the invisible hand of demand and supply guiding the destiny of the nation is a figment of corporate fantasy. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winner for economics, points that for public good to be realized there must be a strong government enforcement of anti-trust and consumer laws to foster competition and protection of consumer interest. Without strict enforcement of the government private sector would run amuck mulcting the people. Adam Smith who is endlessly quoted by the corporate class was not such a great devotee of greed and self interest as made out to be. In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, he points out virtue and not greed was the most important standard in social life. Adam Smith was quick to point that society should be alive and vigilant to the dangers of ruthless profiteers from holding the society to ransom.

The battle for leadership in India would be fought on the dusty plains of Indian villages. Here majority of the poor Indians live who were betrayed by the state which neglected to deliver them food, shelter and protection from disease. It is this India that would make and break the politicians who failed to deliver them social justice. Here the sound bites of corporate sponsored leaders would have no resonance. The tall claims of the corporate sector that its animal magnetism would be unleashed for the good of the poor would fall on deaf ears and receive the contempt it deserves. It is this Republic of India steeped in ancient inequities that carries both hope and despair in the difficult years to come.

Torture - The Monstrous Deception

C R Sridhar — Sat, 9 Feb 2008 00:18:23 EST

Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself. - James Anthony Froude. (English Historian)

The barbaric ritual of torture is clinically precise. The interrogators lead the suspect to a cold dank room, which is euphemistically called the detention facility. Here the suspect is subjected to the extreme psychological stress of a long wait, allowing him to wallow in his own fear of the uncertain fate that awaits him at the hand of his captors. Then he is asked questions. If the suspect does not crack or if he does not disclose the information required by his interrogators, he experiences sudden and excruciating pain. There is no God for the damned in this room. The walls of the room echo with the shrill and irregular screams of the tortured and the pain never stops unless the suspect breaks down and confesses.

Torture techniques

The mode of torture varies. Even in Western liberal democracies known to espouse humane treatment of prisoners, human rights groups have documented instances of gross abuse of prisoner’s rights under detention. In Northern Ireland a particularly vicious campaign was unleashed against IRA suspects by the British army with the help of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Catholics suspected of being IRA sympathizers were rounded up by the army and subjected to the five techniques. This meant that the suspect would be hooded, made to stand against the wall and assume stressful positions. In addition the suspect would be subject to random loud noises and not allowed to sleep. He was also fed on bread and water. Though the five techniques avoid intense beating of suspects and are believed not to leave physical marks on the body, it was described as a unique and terrifying experience by the victims, which left psychological scars on them for a long time to come.

The US, which is known to aggressively promote human right issues from International forums, has been accused of using torture against Iraqis and Al Qaeda in the notorious Abu Ghraib (Iraq), Bagram and Khandar facilities in Afghanistan. The method of interrogation was simple brutal and terrifying: The suspects were stripped naked in front of their captors and their personal belonging removed heightening the shock of capture, humiliation and fear. ‘ The point is,’ explains the CIA’s KUBARK interrogation manual, ‘that man’s sense of identity depends upon a continuity in his surroundings, habits, appearance…etc. Detention permits the interrogator to cut through these links and throw the interrogatee back upon his own unaided resources.’1 The tactic was to wear down the suspect by keeping him tired and despondent, which was achieved by sensory deprivation (hooding), sleep deprivation and noise (shouting). On many occasions the prisoners were kneed and fisted.

A bizarre and sexually explicit form of humiliation was devised for the inmates of Abu Ghraib prison, where the male prisoners stripped naked were made to crawl on all fours before female guards who held them on leash. Sometimes the inmates were asked to assume degrading sexual positions before the female guards. The aim of this treatment was consistent: to shame and heighten the stress levels of the suspects to break them in interrogations to follow. Other controversial methods included water boarding which Amy Zalman notes as a ‘form of torture in which a bound, gagged prisoner is forced to breathe in water. There are several techniques: a prisoner is strapped to a board, or submerged, or held down and forced to breathe through a water-soaked cloth held over his mouth. All water boarding produces the physical sensation of drowning and a psychological sensation of panic, fear and loss of control.’²

In other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka - to name a few countries - the use of torture is endemic. Egypt was reported by the US State department to hang prisoners from the ceiling and beat them with whips and metal rods. Jordan was accused of beating the prisoners on the soles of their feet and hanging the prisoners in contorted positions. In Saudi Arabia the suspects had their teeth removed without anesthesia. In Bangladesh a nine-year-old boy had his thumb crushed with pliers by the police who were investigating a case of theft of a mobile handset. Notes Jessica Williams with alarm ‘more than 150 countries allowed torture to be carried out in their countries. That’s two-thirds of the countries of the world.’³

Though the methods of torture vary from physical beating, administration of electric shocks and use of psychotropic and other chemicals to induce pain and suffering in the victims of torture, there appears to be consensus that the aim of torture is ‘(a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless person; (b) the intentional, substantial curtailment of the exercise of the person's autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will.’⁴

No wonder torture is called as the rape of the mind.

An enduring legacy

Viewed from a historical perspective torture is rooted in the chronicles of the past. As George Ryley Scott says ‘Torture, an enduring and seemingly not declining aspect of man's relationship to his fellow man, is an enduring thread through human history.’ ‘Whether it be practiced by primitive people,’ writes Scott ‘ the ancient Greeks or the Catholic Church, whether it be ancient China, Japan, 1930's Germany, or Northern Ireland today, torture is alarmingly systematic and consistent in its methods. Impaling, burning, rack or wheel, mutilation, drawing and quartering, burning or hanging alive in chains.’⁵ This is historically true. For instance, the techniques involving sleep deprivation, prolonged standing, and isolation are not freshly invented barbarisms of the Americans or Russians in recent times as they date back to the barbarism practiced by the church in the thirteenth century.

The earliest handbook on torture titled Directorium Inquisitorum recorded by the Grand Inquisitor Nicolas of Eymeric in the fourteenth-century and another treatise Malleus Malleficarum (The Hammer of the Witches, 1486) written by Sprenger and Kramer became standard textbooks of torture used on witches and heretics in order to obtain confessions from them for the next two hundred years. In these texts all the stress techniques later employed by the Americans after nearly seven hundred years on Al Qaeda suspects featured. A sixteenth-century lawyer Hippolytus de Marsiliis is credited with the invention of sleep deprivation as interrogation technique. He suggested that as soon the prisoner fell asleep out of exhaustion he should be awakened with violent pricks of the needle.⁶ Tormentum Insomniae became standard technique used in interrogating the Al Qaeda prisoners by American personnel in the war against terror.

The international law against the use of torture is contained in Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN on 10th December 1948. Article 5 of the declaration states ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ Since then two important international treaties have been adopted to prohibit the use of torture. These are the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions III & IV.

Ticking bomb

Post 9/11, in the war on terror the United States administration under George Bush resorted to semantic quibbling on the issue of torture. The US government took the position that water boarding was not torture and other stress techniques used by US military personnel were defended as Torture lite and not amounting to torture. Some commentators, notably, Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor, ‘have argued that legalised torture could be justified, if the torture in question was restricted to extreme emergency situations and subjected to appropriate accountability mechanisms. Specifically, he has argued for torture warrants of the kind introduced for a time in Israel.’8 As Dershowitz says, "I would talk about non-lethal torture, say, a sterilized needle underneath the nail, which would violate the Geneva accords, but you know that countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly…if we ever came close to doing it, I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite."

Taking a cue from Dershowitz's justification of the use of torture in one off emergency situations, security experts have put forth a ticking bomb theory seeking to drive home the point that the use of torture is morally justified as it prevents the greater evil of the terrorists from taking innocent lives. Should we not use force to extract valuable information quickly from the terrorist as to where the bomb is located? Should precious time be lost in legally sectioned interrogation methods?

The ticking bomb theory seems reasonable on the face of it but a deeper examination shows that it is mere sophistry.

Firstly, it is by no means certain that information extracted by torture is reliable. In 1764, the Italian philosopher Ceasare Beccaria warned that under extreme torture the detainee would be compelled to tell lies in order to stop the pain and confess to crimes that the captors wanted to hear. Experienced and trained interrogators have challenged the efficacy of brutal tortures to obtain intelligence information. Maj. Gen. Geoffery D Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations, stated "a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence.’ Others point out that despite administration claims that water boarding has "disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks", no one has come up with a single documented example of lives saved thanks to torture.’ The failure of justice in the case of Birmingham six calls into question whether confessions obtained under duress are reliable. In this case the suspects were beaten by the police and made to confess for crimes they did not commit. After years of imprisonment the suspects were cleared of any wrong doing when fresh evidence appeared that they were innocent.

Secondly, it is by no means certain that a committed terrorist would confess within a short period of time for the police to diffuse the ticking bomb. A case in point is that of a bomb maker Abdul Hakim Murad who was arrested by the police in Manila and subjected to brutal treatment: his ribs were broken, the police burned him with cigarettes and forced water down his throat. Murad broke after sixty-seven days. It raises doubts about the ticking bomb theory that assumes torture is a sure fire method to extract information in the shortest possible time.

Thirdly, most trained intelligence operatives rarely use violent methods of interrogations to elicit information from the suspect. One of the most successful interrogators in Nazi Germany was Hanns Joachim Scharff Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe. As Maj. Anthony F. Milavic, USMC (Ret) says ‘This German interrogator purportedly gleaned information from every one of the American and British fighter pilots he interrogated without ever resorting to violence. This is not surprising when you consider… that direct questioning 'works 90 to 95 percent of the time.'

Lastly, the legalization of torture under emergency situations opens the Pandora’s box and raises ethical concerns whether torture would then become institutionalised and self-perpetuating over time and that what was once used for emergency purposes finds more reason to justify its wider use. This has real implication for citizens whose freedom could be endangered by the repressive apparatus of the state.

Monstrous deception

At the heart of the monstrous deception is the belief that the end justifies the means. That a little torture is good as it saves lives and promotes the greater good of the society. But time and again history has shown that violence and repression is often counter productive. The Romans put the early Christian martyrs to the sword and inflicted unspeakable atrocities on the followers of Christianity. The Romans thought that the preservation of the Roman Empire constituted the greater good. Thousands of persecuted Christians chose death and died true to their beliefs. Finally, Rome retreated and Christianity triumphed.

By a sad fate of history, Christianity repeated the same mistakes as Rome and cruelly persecuted the heretics and tortured the witches in a despicable manner. The justification of the Church was that a little burning was good as it saved the soul from eternal damnation. Thousands were senselessly slaughtered. The same madness continues in the present war on terror engaged by the most powerful Christian nation in the world against Islam. The moral justification for torture is again based on the monstrous deception that the best interests of liberal democracies are served by causing a little pain. History, it is said, has a strange way of preserving the ignoble ingenuity of human kind in perpetually deluding itself. Nowhere is this more evident than in the enduring and shameful history of humankind breaking its own on the wheel of pain.

----------
1 Brainwash, Dominic Streatfield page 371.
2 Amy Zalman, Terrorism Issues.
3 50 facts that should change the world, Jessica Williams
4 Torture, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy-7th Feb 2006.
5 The History of Torture throughout the Ages, George Ryley Scott.
6 Brainwash, Dominic Streatfield page-373-374.

The End of Dollar Hegemony

C R Sridhar — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:06:48 EDT

The headlines of an Indian newspaper told the story of the weakening dollar ‘Re at new high: 39.9/$.’ The news report said ‘Dollar inflows have been rising in recent years. Earlier, RBI made sure this did not lead to rapid appreciation of the rupee, since that would hurt the exporters.’1 With increasing fears of inflation being a threat to the economy, the Reserve Bank has thought it fit not to buy dollars, as the rupees would be pumped into the economy fueling inflationary pressures. Forex experts predict that the dollar may plunge to 35/$ by the end of the year if RBI does not intervene and rescue the dollar.

Behind the bamboo curtain, the top Chinese leadership is also anxious about the dollar slump. In a tense meeting with the US Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, the Chinese leaders politely expressed their grave concern of the dollar being a worthless currency. They indicated that in the near future they would diversify their reserves into gold, military hardware and other currencies such as euros. The nervous Chinese reaction to the sinking dollar is understandable as they hold close to $1.3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, 80 percent of which is held in U.S. dollar assets, the largest amount of foreign exchange currency ever held by any country in the world.2

A closely held secret

It is to the credit of the economist Michael Hudson who in his book, Super Imperialism exposed the fault lines on which the entire edifice of Dollar Hegemony was built. He explains that when the dollar was forced off gold in 1971, it led to new pressures in the international financial system in which the world’s central banks were obliged to finance the U.S. balance of payments deficit by using their surplus dollars to buy US Treasury Bonds. ‘The larger America’s balance of payment becomes,’ says Hudson, ‘the more dollars end up in the hands of European, Asian and Near Eastern central banks, and the more money they must recycle back to the United States by buying U.S. Treasury bonds.’3 The American savers or investors have been net sellers of Treasury Bonds and they have invested their money in the stock market and real estate.

The central banks do not buy stocks, real estate or other tangible assets. In 1972 when Saudi Arabia and Iran proposed to buy American companies out of the oil dollars, they were warned by U.S. officials to back off, as any move to buy American Companies would be considered as an act of war. The central banks could only hold one asset, namely, low yielding U.S. Treasury Bonds. Thus, the Americans could pay for their oil imports in their own currency and not in gold or any other money of the world. So also other imports such as autos from Germany and Japan were paid for in paper dollars, which could be printed in the press ad infinitum.

Dollar as the world currency

From a historical perspective the dollar became a standard currency of the world when U.S. emerged as the most powerful country in the world as large parts of Europe including Britain lay in ruins after the Second World War. In 1944 the Western nations met at Bretton Woods to agree on establishing the dollar as the world currency, which marked a watershed in the history of U.S. as a world power. Officially, it was decided that the dollar standard replaces the gold standard. The value of the dollar was pegged to gold at $35 to the ounce, and the world’s currencies were fixed to the dollar.4 The U.S. officials also put in place the Marshall Plan with the ostensible purpose of initiating the recovery of Europe from the ravages of the war. The real purpose was ingenious which was to ensure that once Europe recovered its currencies would be tied to the dollar forcing them to buy American goods benefiting the economy of United States.

The United States retained its preeminent status as a world power by virtue of her being a creditor to the world. She enforced the payment of the arms debt and other military expenditures incurred by Britain and other countries by real output and selling off their companies. U.S. squeezed these debtor countries by blocking their efforts to pay the war debts by trade. U.S. prevented European countries from exporting their goods and paying off the debts by erecting protective trade barriers. This forced the world economy after the First World War, especially, Europe to become inward, eschew foreign trade becoming nationalistic units unable to pay the U.S. debts. Post Second World War U.S. propagated the free market economics with private enterprise as an engine for economic growth. U.S. applied pressure in Europe to open their markets for American exports and established institutions as IMF and World Bank to further her hegemonic aims.

From creditor to debtor

The shift of U.S. from that of a creditor to debtor came about in her pursuit of fighting expensive wars in Korea and Vietnam and the arms race with USSR. ‘In the Korean War,’ notes Peter Hudis, ‘the U.S. shifted from a creditor to a debtor nation, largely due to military expenditures. The situation became permanent with the Vietnam War. Since the 1980s, the U.S.'s debtor status as a net importer of surplus capital has been a central feature of the world economy. U.S. indebtedness has by now reached phenomenal levels. This is no sign of strength. It is a sign of WEAKNESS.’ To finance these enormous deficits the U.S. is forced to tap the resources of foreign capitalists by getting them to buy U.S. treasury bonds and various securities. The U.S. is importing far more than it is exporting and it's going deeper and deeper into debt. The U.S. is now more dependent on foreign capital than at any time in the past 50 years.5 Rolling off the Gold Standard

Even during the Vietnam War, the U.S. allowed certain countries such as France to convert dollars for gold, which ultimately led to her gold reserves depleting rapidly. There were added pressures from foreign central banks that perceived the dollar as a weak currency and preferred to convert dollar to gold. In August 1971 President Nixon declared that U.S. would no longer redeem dollars in gold. Thus, ‘after 1971, the dollar was no longer fixed to an ounce of gold, something measurable,’ as Livergood wryly observes, ‘it was fixed only to the printing press of the Federal Reserve System.’ The mighty U.S. dollar morphed into a 900 pound Gorilla daintily seated on a flimsy stool.

A tsunami of deficit dollars

The ability of the gold standard to check the balance of payments deficit disappeared, enabling the U.S. Treasury to print dollar notes at will. This move had far reaching repercussions in the financial world. ‘When the US was still on the Bretton Woods gold standard, between 1945 and 1965, total supply of dollars increased only some 55%. The world experienced low inflation and stable growth, but’ says Livergood, ‘After Nixon's break with gold, dollars expanded by more than 2,000% between 1970 and 2001!’ The central banks of the world are awash with a tsunami of deficit dollar bills and invested in IOU’s of U.S., which is practically worthless, and yields negligible to negative returns. The net impact is that in the words of Hudson ‘America has found a way to make the rest of the world pay for its imports, and indeed pay for its takeover of foreign companies, and most imminently to pay for its war in the Middle East.’

The key to understanding the dollar standard is to see it as a debt standard based on U.S. Treasury IOUs, and not one based on gold bullion.

By a strange twist of history, U.S. has been to able to absorb the payment surpluses of the world without reciprocation, ‘governing financially through its debtor position, not through its creditor status.’ ‘As dollar debts have replaced gold as the backing for central bank reserves, and hence for the world’s credit supply, the entire system would be threatened if questions into its intrinsic unfairness were re-opened.’5

That task would not be easy as the 900-pound Gorilla has the military might to silence the skeptics or it may threaten to destroy the financial system by throwing its hands in the air pleading bankruptcy. There is an old joke which is popular among bankers, ‘When you owe the bank $1,000,000, you have a major problem. When you owe the bank $100,000,000, the bank has a major problem.’ Saddled with the U.S. Treasury bills of doubtful value the officials of the central banks may be forced to admit that there was a grim point in the joke after all.

A daunting task is not an impossible one as there are winds of change. Chavez has thrown the gauntlet and Putin has asserted his will to chart Russia away from the dollar world. In the Middle East, there have been concerns about the weakening dollar and there are moves afoot to change to Euro. Saddam took the gamble and paid for his life. Iraq was bombed to the stone ages. Iran has changed its oil dealings to Euro. There are dark clouds of war over Tehran and the battle for dollar supremacy has already begun.

1 Times of India- 21-09-2007.

2 Worldnetdaily- 13-09-2007.

3 Super Imperialism- Michael Hudson- 2nd edition 2003.

4 Dollar Imperialism- Norman. D. Livergood.

5"What is new in today's imperialism," from News & Letters, November 2003- Peter Hudis.

5 Michael Hudson.

The Construction of Synthetic Terror

C R Sridhar — Wed, 5 Sep 2007 04:37:14 EDT

“Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State."
James Jesus Angleton, Head of CIA Counter Intelligence 1954-1974.

Implicit in the strident rhetoric on the War against Terror is a Manichean struggle between Good and Evil symbolized by the clash between Western Democracies espousing liberal values and Islamic totalitarianism representing obscurantist religious dogmas. The simplification of the issue of terrorism was evident when George Bush in his address to the National Endowment for Democracy said ‘some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.’ The whipped up frenzy of al Quaeda and the shadowy figure of utmost evil Osama Bin Laden is standard fare in most media reinforcing the mass hysteria about terrorism.

Post 9/11; there have been growing voices of dissent that the demonisation of Islam as a prime agent of terrorism is an artificial construct to suit the interests of a narrow oligarchy in the US government linked to the powerful oil lobby. ‘ We must stress the idea, unfamiliar and suppressed as it is,’ says W.G. Tarpley, a Fulbright Scholar and an expert on terrorism, ‘that the vast majority of international terrorism conducted on a spectacular scale is indeed state-sponsored terrorism.’ ‘The Arab who feels sympathy,’ he continues, ‘for al Qaeda needs to be forcefully reminded that al Quaeda was created by CIA and continues to be steered by the CIA, through various intermediaries and cut-outs, or discreet go-betweens.’ Terrorism in the modern era is the means adopted by Oligarchies to wage war against its own members of society when its power is threatened.1 Such terror is synthetic in nature as it is artificially created, shaped and guided by a shadowy government for its own ends embedded within a legally constituted government and whose power is not subject to any constitutionally approved checks and balances.

State–sponsored terrorism

The theoretical basis for Synthetic terror was provided by an Italian intellectual Gianfranco Sanguinetti who published in 1979 a remarkable treatise on terrorism titled ‘Del Terrorismo E Dello Stato: La teoria e la practica del terrisomo per la prima volta divulgat’ which was partly translated as ‘On Terrorism and the State’. The publication of this book caused a major scandal in Italy as Sanguinetti boldly asserted that when the state is in crisis, it resorts to acts of terrorism against its own citizens with the terrorism emanating from the parallel structures within the state. Thus, the secret police infiltrates subversive militant organization, substitutes itself at the top of the command structure by arresting or killing the leaders of such groups in encounters with the police. With the infiltrated elements of the secret police within the militant organization, it becomes easy to guide the organization to suit the purposes of the state. As Sanguinetti wryly observes2

‘From then on, the parallel services of the State find they have, at their disposal, a perfectly efficient organism to do as they please with, composed of naive or fanatical militants, which asks for nothing other than to be directed. The original little terrorist group, born of the mirages of its militants about the possibilities of realizing an effective strategic offensive, changes strategists and becomes nothing other than a defensive appendage of the State, which manoeuvres it with the utmost agility and ease, according to its own necessities of the moment, or what it believes to be its own necessities.’

Whenever state power is confronted by social upheavals such as worker strikes, communist movements and demands for distributive justice and if oligarchic interests perceive such threats as grave enough to upset status quo, it swings into action by committing terrorist outrages against its own citizens and blaming them on extremist terrorist organization. As Sanguinetti puts it ‘The outrages that are accomplished directly by the detached corps and parallel services of the State are not usually claimed by anybody, but are each time, imputed or attributed to some or other convenient culprit’ or scapegoat.

The object of such state-sponsored terrorism, in Sanguinetti’s words, ‘is to make the whole population, who, nowadays, can no longer suffer, or is struggling against, this State, believe that it has at least an enemy in common with this State, and from which this State defends it on the condition that it is no longer called into question by anyone.’ By creating the monster of terrorism and blaming it on infiltrated terrorist outfits, the state is able to ward off any threats to its existence. Again as Sanguinetti sums up ‘The population, which is generally hostile to terrorism, and not without reason, must then agree that, at least in this, it needs the State, to which it must thus delegate the widest powers so that it might confront with vigour the arduous task of the common defence against an obscure, mysterious, perfidious, merciless, and, in a word, chimeric, enemy.’

The extraordinary observation of Sanguinetti on state-sponsored terrorism was based on his experience of seemingly inexplicable and bizarre acts of terrorism, which rocked Italy from the mid sixties to the late seventies. Elsewhere in other parts of Europe like Germany and France also witnessed similar acts of terrorism, assassinations, and electoral subversion. The acts of terrorism in Italy ranged from train bombing, random killing of policemen, bombing of a bank at Piazza Fontana to the sensational kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro- a prominent politician belonging to the Italian Christian Democratic Party who wanted the communists to join the government. Though these acts of terrorism were blamed on anarchists, Red Brigade and other left groups, Sanguinetti exposed that the Italian state was behind the outrages planned and executed by neo-fascist and extreme right-wing groups. Sanguinetti astutely perceived that the state-sponsored terrorism was a diabolical ruse to break the back of striking workers and Communist movements in Italy.

Swordplay.

The stand of Sanguinetti was vindicated by a bizarre twist of circumstances. In 1990 Prime minister Giulio Andreotti (member of the Italian Christian Democratic Party) publicly recognized the existence of Gladio. This sensational disclosure was followed by Parliamentary Committee reports, which investigated the unsolved acts of terrorism in various parts of Europe and slowly pieced together the frightening duplicity of Western Intelligence Agencies, namely, CIA and MI6, which cynically planned the terrorist acts in collusion with neo-fascists groups, ex-nazis, neo-fascist P-2 Masonic lodge and extreme right wing groups with the tacit support of the Military Intelligence/ Secret services of Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Norway, Denmark , Finland and Greece.

Operation Gladio (from Latin Gladius, meaning sword) was, in the words of Chris Floyd, ‘a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West -- against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks -- on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices, which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents.’3

The strategy of tension.

An ex-agent of Gladio, Vincenzo Vinciguerra who in his sworn testimony revealed that the objective of the entire operation was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders -- and their elitist cronies. As he said ‘you had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.’ The CIA, for the purpose of frightening the national political classes into adopting US policies, used the strategy of tension.4

The strategy of tension was used by US and its Western allies in its hegemonic quest for world domination. As Mark Curtis says ‘Mutual Anglo-American support in ordering the affairs of key nations and regions, often with violence, to their design has been a consistent feature of the era that followed the Second World War…’5 The compelling reason, according to Director of Research of the California-based Institute for Economic Democracy (IED), Dr. J. W. Smith was, ‘All [Western] intelligence agencies have been, and are still in, the business of destabilizing undeveloped countries to maintain their dependency and the flow of the world’s natural wealth to powerful nations’ industries at a low price and to provide markets for those industries at a high price.’6

More importantly, the consent of the American public had to be obtained by raising the bogey of the Soviet threat and the ogre of Communism. As Michael Parenti says ‘Anti-communism and the Soviet threat seem less a source for policy than a propaganda ploy to frighten the American public and rally support for overseas commitments.’7 After the ending of the cold war new threats to American Freedom had to be reinvented. The bogey of Islamic terrorism came handy to manage public opinion for the war in Afghanistan and later Iraq.

Puppet on a string

The terror of al Qaeda - a chimerical monster of evil with its mastermind Osama Bin Laden - could well be an artificial construct for US to conduct outrageous terror acts in its name. That this view is not as fanciful as it sounds could be collaborated by the testimony of Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence, who said ‘The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.’ In December 2001, a secret French military court convicted Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel for passing classified documents.

Even Hamas, the arch rival of Israel, says Paul Joseph Watson, ‘was founded and funded by Israel’s dominant Likud party and continues to be bankrolled to this day by political bodies pushing a one-world government system. It is a documented fact reported on by mainstream news outlets and admitted by respected individuals within the US and Israeli governments and intelligence agencies.’8 The same is the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was encouraged by Shin Bet (Israeli Intelligence Service) to wage a fratricidal war against secular and progressive groups in the Arab world and liquidate them. The plan was diabolically clever as secular and progressive intellectuals posed a greater threat to US interests and its ally the State of Israel than the Kalashnikov-wielding masked militants.9

The present war on terror against Islamic extremism is a continuation of the geopolitical goal of preserving Anglo- American domination of oil. The strategy of synthetic terrorism is useful to weaken countries like Russia, China and even India. The oligarchic interests see the weakening of the Dollar, as a cause for concern for it is a shock to the system. Synthetic terrorism, as history has shown time and again, could be useful in consolidating US control over oil and other strategic metals by weakening or destabilizing other rival claimants

Distorted images, Distorting mirrors.

In the shadowy world of secret service and military intelligence there are double agents, agent provocateurs, and false flag terror operations. With the controlled media dispensing news about Terrorism, new monsters are created to guide public opinion for the benefit of the few. We see distorted images of terrorism from distorting mirrors. The custodians of law parade patsy Islamic militants accused of horrific terrorist crimes before us. Then they are produced before the court to be sentenced and punished. Platitudes then get written in the press about the horrors of terrorism asking parliament to pass draconian laws to curb it. But the terrible moment of truth arrives sooner or later and when it does- disturbing questions assail our soul- Are they the true terrorists? Or they mere puppets in a synthetic spectacle controlled by someone else? Can we ever see the Puppeteers or the Ringmasters above them?

It is then we hear the mocking laughter of Sanguinetti and see him pointing his finger at the drawn sword of the state.

Notes:
1. 9/11 Synthetic Terror- Made in USA-W.G.Tarpley.
2. On Terrorism and the State- Gianfranco Sanguinetti.
3. Sword Play: Attacking Civilians to Justify "Greater Security”- Chris Floyd | February 29 2005
4. Informationliberation- Operation Gladio.
5. The Ambiguities of Power, Mark Curtis.
6. Economic Democracy- Dr. J. W. Smith.
7. Against Empire- Michael Parenti.
8. Puppet On A String: Hamas Dances To Israel’s Tune- Paul Joseph Watson.
9. Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam - Robert Dreyfuss

-------

Is India a Prisoner of the Nuclear Dream?

C R Sridhar — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:34:59 EDT

The political crisis of the Manmohan Singh government over the nuclear deal was luridly and graphically presented today on the front page of a mainstream English national paper. It showed the crisply turbaned Prime Minister in a vice like grip of the hammer and sickle.

With the CPM threatening to withdraw support to the UPA Government over the N-deal, the Congress is widely perceived as being stabbed in the back by the left parties. This perception is incorrect, as the BJP has also voiced its misgivings about the implications of the deal and denounced the agreement as compromising national security interests of the country. The opposition to the Indo-US agreement has unwittingly united both the left and right spectrum of Indian politics in a coalition of the unwilling. That this coalition is temporary, transient and uneasy could be gleaned by the fact that both the parties have expressed their differing perspectives on the deal, with eyes on the mid term poll, should the UPA government fall. The left parties, for instance, see the agreement as flawed as it paves way for a strategic alliance with US and the danger of India becoming a mere pawn in the great game of US foreign policy. The BJP, while offering stiff opposition to the deal, sees the dark shadow of the Hyde Act falling on the agreement nullifying the Indo-US cooperation if India explodes a nuclear device.

To add to the discomfiture of the Congress led Government; there has been a chorus of dissent from nuclear scientists who expressed their dismay that once India signs the deal she would be at the mercy of the US and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. As P.K. Iyengar, the former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, points out 'where they err is in not understanding that the nuclear deal will not achieve this goal, that we will lose more than we gain through the deal. For one, we are getting neither nuclear fuel nor reactors for free or at a low cost but at the prevailing market price, and this is definitely more than the cost of indigenous nuclear power. Secondly, the promise of nuclear technology rings hollow- it comes too late and offers too little. Today, we are quite self-sufficient in the technology of heavy-water reactors, and are world leaders in the technology of fast-breeder reactors.'

There appears to be consensus on the issue that the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement is essentially about providing additional nuclear generation capability to India. As Dr. Sethi, a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi, says 'the agreement holds the relatively immediate promise of making nuclear fuel available to India from the international market, thereby enabling it to expand its nuclear programme.' Thus, if India wants to achieve development and growth for its teeming millions, safeguarding energy is a strategic priority.

But fundamental doubts do persist about the false assumptions underlying the use of nuclear power for economic development. Perhaps, the most erudite dissent emerged from Late Amulya K N Reddy who was a Professor at the Indian Institute of Science. In his brilliant critique 'False Assumption of Nuclear Deal', Prof Reddy challenged the basic assumptions driving the need for nuclear power and nuclear weapons that underlie India's enthusiasm to seek US cooperation in this field. (False Assumptions of Nuclear Deal- Amulya K N Reddy- EPW- August 27, 2005)

Firstly, there is an erroneous assumption that Nuclear Power is important to India's electricity sector. As Prof Reddy points out, 'this bias is strange because Nuclear Power accounts today a trivial 3% of India's power, i.e., 3,310MW, out of 110000 MW.' 'In fact,' argues Prof Reddy, ' Nuclear Power does not even contribute as much as the 3,595 MW of wind power.' More ominously Prof Reddy concludes, 'the reason why renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, small hydro and biomass) and efficiency improvements are not part of the agreement is probably because they are not backed by lobbies as powerful as the nuclear establishment.' 'It is also possible,' continues Prof Reddy, 'that the real reason for the discrimination in favour of Nuclear Power is its weapons implications.'

Secondly, it is incorrect to assume that India's sluggish contribution of Nuclear power would have been higher had it not been handicapped by material constraints such as non-availability of indigenous cheap uranium for heavy water reactors, the unavailability of enriched uranium for its light water reactors and the inadequacy of heavy water for heavy reactors. Though these factors are important, the real constraint is financial. As Prof Reddy explains, 'Nuclear Power is more expensive, compared to coal based thermal plants for electricity generation.' Thus, even if the material constraints are removed by the Nuke deal, it remains extremely doubtful that India's Nuclear would leap to 20,000 MW in 2020 as planned.

Thirdly, apart from costs other issues militate against the use of Nuclear Power such as safety, toxic nuclear waste disposal, and vulnerability to terrorist hijacking of nuclear material.

Fourthly, the assumption that Nuclear Power is clean environmentally is not valid, as studies have indicated that as an energy tool for decarbonising the power sector, it is limited. There are two points to counter the decarbonisation mantra. It must be borne in mind that carbon emissions come from the power sector (around 45%- in 2000) and emissions from non-power sectors including transport (55%). Thus, even if one were to eliminate carbon emissions from the power sector there would be still significant amount of carbon emissions in the environment. Moreover, even the nuclear route leads to carbon emissions from the nuclear fuel cycles. Thus, a study by Kalipada Chatterjee (Equity and Climate change) indicates that even if the plans for nuclear expansion is successful, the extent of decarbonisation of the power sector remains limited.

Lastly, the perception that India's security is guaranteed by the State becoming nuclear through the possession of nuclear weaponry is hollow, as several authors including Amartya Sen have shown that the security has in fact decreased. Post Pokhran II the demonstration of the bomb has not increased her security vis a vis Pakistan in any real sense, as Pakistan is already a nuclear state. Moreover, any wrong cues sent to Pakistan would start a nuclear race with Pakistan seeking the help of China. There are reports suggesting that China has offered her support to Pakistan to counter the threat posed by India through the nuclear pact with US. Instead of the bomb to enhance her status in the world community, India could profitably exploit her enormous progress in the BPO/software IT sector to leverage the situation to her advantage as she forms a formidable strategic alliance by providing IT back up to major US and European corporations.

India's nuclear ambition is intimately fused with her quest for the great power status in the sub- continent. Increasingly, the bomb lobby- a strategic core group comprising ideologues of Right wing political parties, key scientocrats heading important government departments like DAE and DRDO and strategic experts belonging to think tank foundations- has stridently called for reshaping of India's nuclear policy by aligning the nation to US geopolitical interests. The semantics of the debate on nuclear issues has also altered in favour of 'forming strategic partnership with the world's now incontestably dominant power' and to a more adventurous nuclear armed India which must be different from the self-shackling past. [Unravelling the Self- Image of the Indian Bomb Lobby - Achin Vanaik- EPW-November 20, 2004.]

The terrible tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has cast its long shadows on us as we debate our nuclear future. In the photo archives of Hiroshima there is a photograph of a Japanese lady whose back is completely burnt and with the flesh hanging from her back. This picture tells us more than a thousand words that unethical use of Nuclear power is a Faustian pact with the devil himself.

The Benevolence of Bill Gates

C R Sridhar — Mon, 6 Aug 2007 00:05:36 EDT

He is one of those wise philanthropists who, in a time of famine, would vote for nothing but a supply of toothpicks.
Douglas Jerrold- English humorist and playwright.

An aura of invincible altruism surrounds the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Even the New York Times, not immune from the aura emanating from benevolent Billy, carried in its front pages an article titled ‘Bill Gates is no ordinary philanthropist.’

In this article Stephanie Strom, a Times reporter, diligently narrates the good deeds of benevolent Billy especially his concern for AIDS victims in Africa by providing drugs to the millions suffering from AIDS at cheaper and affordable prices. Last year, the Foundation announced that it would invest $287 million in the development of a vaccine for the AIDS virus.

The halo around Bill Gates appears resplendent in saintly hues as the Times article concludes with the gushing words of Ms Strom who said ‘Those who think of Mr. Gates as a ruthless billionaire monopolist may find it hard to reconcile that image with one of a humorously self-deprecating philanthropist.’

The behemoth

To be fair to Ms Strom, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is truly impressive in terms of its money power and is awe-inspiring to mere mortals who would genuflect before the Software Czar.

Founded in 2000 by Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and his extremely attractive and media savvy wife Melinda Gates, the foundation has an asset base of $65.95 billion, which places it (on the basis of asset ranking to national GDP - 2005 figures) at 56 out of 177 countries. In 2006 Warren Buffet (third richest man in the world in 2006) pledged to give the foundation approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares (worth US$30.7 billion on June 23, 2006) spread over multiple years through annual contributions exponentially increasing the funds of the foundation.

The foundation focuses on education, healthcare and ending poverty globally by giving donations and grants. To maintain its charitable status it has to donate 5% of its assets and the balance of 95% of the funds are invested in diversified corporate portfolios to maximize return on investment. The funds brought in by Bill Gates are tax exempt and therefore cannot be construed as his personal funds. (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)

The right arm not knowing what the left arm is doing.

In recent months the Gates Foundation came in for sharp criticism over its investment policies. In a carefully researched article ‘Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation’ the Los Angeles Times asked awkward questions about the foundation investing in ‘many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.’

More damning was the evidence that

‘the Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio and measles immunization and research worldwide, including in the Niger Delta. At the same time that the foundation was funding inoculations to protect health, it has invested $423 million in Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France — the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the delta with pollution’

and causing respiratory diseases.

Equally disturbing was the revelation that the Gates foundation had holdings in big Pharmaceutical companies that priced drugs beyond the reach of poor AIDS patients in Africa the foundation was trying to treat. (‘Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation’ the Los Angeles Times-January 7, 2007). Summing up the piquant situation of the foundation pursuing investment policies, which harmed its charitable objects Allison. H. Fine says

‘Investing millions of dollars in companies like British Petroleum that pollutes the air and land, and Abbott Laboratories that makes AIDS vaccinations that are unaffordable for Africans is diametrically opposed to the foundation's programmatic goals of improving health outcomes of residents of these same countries.’

Paw in Claw

More controversially, the investigative reporter Greg Palast darkly hinted that the Gates foundation was merely a cloak to defuse the challenge posed to the patent regime to allow cheap generic drugs from entering the third world markets. As he acidly comments,

‘Gates knows darn well that the "intellectual property rights" laws such as TRIPS - which keep him and Melinda richer than Saddam and the Mafia combined -- are under attack by Nelson Mandela and front-line doctors trying to get cheap drugs to the 23 million Africans sick with the AIDS virus. Gate's brilliant and self-serving solution: he's spending an itsy-bitsy part of his monopoly profits (the $6 billion spent by Gates' foundation is less than 2% of his net worth) to buy some drugs for a fraction for the dying. The bully billionaire's "philanthropic" organization is currently working paw-in-claw with the big pharmaceutical companies in support of the blockade on cheap drug shipments. Gates' game is given away by the fact that his Foundation has invested $200 million in the very drug companies stopping the shipment of low-cost AIDS drugs to Africa.’

(Bill Gates: Killing Africans For Profit & Mr. Bush’s Bogus Aids Offer - Greg Palast).

The ethical dilemma posed by the critics that the investment strategy adopted by the foundation is contrary to its avowed charitable objectives is deeply troubling one for it erodes the confidence of the public in philanthropic institutions. As Allison Fine aptly says

‘The Gates Foundation isn't Microsoft, just in the business of making money. Foundations that are the size of Kuwait should be in the business of making the world a safer, cleaner, healthier place to live -- that's why their money has gone into the foundation's coffers and not the public's coffers at the IRS.’ Otherwise, ‘all philanthropy’, in the words Ellen Key, would be ‘only a savory fumigation burning at the mouth of a sewer. This incense offering makes the air more endurable to passers-by, but does not hinder the infection in the sewer from spreading.’