Desicritics Author: Krishna

Book Review: Lies, Lies and More Lies

Krishna — Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:38:44 EST

Towards the end of 11th century A.D., Kashmir was under the rule of a Hindu king, Harsha. Harsha was widely considered an eccentric ruler who led an extravagant life, full of lust for gold and silver. He soon ran out of his finances and to continue his lavish lifestyle, began to loot and destroy temples, both Hindu and Buddhist. Contemporary accounts portray his acts of temple desecration as widespread and wanton. This and other acts of temple desecration by Hindu kings in history do not find mention in the interesting, but disturbing, book "Lies, Lies and More Lies" by Vivek.

There is a distinct inclination among middle-class, educated, urban, English speaking, mostly upper caste Hindus in India to look for a narrative of historical religious injustice leading to contemporary grievances. This inclination, not too infrequently, finds common cause with the political right in India for a variety of reasons and lends it a veneer of respectability. "Lies " is a another effort in this ongoing process.

Like all serious narratives, this one has a core of plausible contentions. It goes something like this: from ancient times Hindus have inhabited the land that is now India, a definite "Hindu identity" permeates this land and it has been under continuous threat since the time of foreign (beginning with Islamic) invasions to this day, and something needs to be done to counter this threat.

The central feature of this narrative then is lamenting various historical injustices directed at the hypothesized Hindu identity. "Lies" leaves no stone unturned in this endeavor. It deals with all the pet topics of your neighborhood Hindutva ideologue: temple desecration by Muslim rulers, the looming threat of a Muslim dominated India, the plight of Kashmiri Pandits, the Ayodhya temple question, a "dispassionate" view of Godhra and its aftermath, the myth of Muslim destitution in India, and the dark scheming of "Marxist" historians.

The primary purpose of the book, as suggested by its title, is to expose what the author deems are systematic attempts to subvert Hindu identity. Whether it is "Marxist" historians' propensity to question the existence of a uniform Hindu identity prior to foreign invasions, or the media's "biased" coverage of communal riots, or the pseudo-secular politicians' appeasement of Muslims, the author is certain that a major conspiracy is afoot against Hindutva.

To a large extent the arguments put forward by the author fail to convince.

Many serious issues are raised in the book, but the nature of discussion leaves a lot to be desired. One of these, which plays a major part in the overall argument of the book, is the temple desecration by Muslim rulers. The author devotes a chapter to this issue. The rhetoric advanced in this chapter is quite unsatisfactory and is, in fact, symptomatic of the dubious reasoning that pervades most of the book. The author seems to believe the matter of destruction of thousands of temples by Muslim rulers as settled beyond all doubt. All he does in the chapter is to make ad hominem attacks on people who question his belief.

While insisting that, "for anybody to claim that his or her interpretation of events is the gospel truth is shortsighted and narrow-minded", the author fails to explain why he himself is not following that advice. Apart from quotations from a couple of sources that suit his argument, the whole chapter has not a single piece of evidence to support his contention.

Throughout the book, the reader cannot escape the feeling that the author is genuinely convinced of his statements, while at the same time failing to see any decent evidence for them.

Some other issues raised in the book are positively disturbing. In one chapter, the author describes in detail the changing demographics of South Asia in general and India in particular. The main conclusion of this chapter is that in the next century, Muslims will come to dominate India. I am not making this up: according to the author:

the present democratic secular republic of India in its present format has a maximum lifespan of another 50 or 100 years. The boundaries of India will shrink further with the appearance of a greater Bangladesh in the east and the secession of Kashmir in the north. The twenty-second century will see the emergence of a full-fledged Islamic state comprising the major part of present-day India.

It is difficult to know where to even begin with this statement. According to a graph produced in the book the Muslim population of India will be around 27% in 2101 and cross 50% in 2201. It was around 13.4% in 2001. The author does quote a population calculator which he used to come up with this graph, but no further information is given as to how these figures come about. Simple arithmetic using growth rates is quite inadequate for reasonable predictions. For instance, such naive calculations show that the Indian population in 2101 will be around 336 crore with Muslims making up 82 of these. It is safe to say that if the Indian population becomes 336 crore, then a Muslim majority will not be the first concern for anyone.

The author does not seem to realize the profoundness of his prediction. He is predicting a huge geopolitical, demographic and sociological transformation and the casualness with which he makes that statement is quite appalling. Another disturbing, and insufficiently justified, implication was his equation of Islam with repressive politics and fundamentalist society. These are mere circumstantial assertions that might make sense in a coffee table banter, but in a book purportedly written for serious consumption, they are in poor taste.

Ultimately, the most disturbing aspect of these kind of assertions is the frame of mind that perceives increasing Muslim population as a serious problem. Of course, the discourse is sufficiently vague with regard to the solution so as to maintain respectability. The issues are raised and discussed in language designed to arouse specific mentalities. The author finds a convenient target in people encouraging uncontrolled immigration into India and chooses to read a comprehensive conspiracy in it to subvert the Hindu identity of India. But his real intentions in raising the issue remain in dark.

It is debatable if there is a distinct Hindu identity that identifies all Hindus. As the author himself suggests, Hinduism as a religion is vastly different from other religions. Indeed, it is fair to say that religion is merely a small part of the broader Hindu thought. It is a highly moot point whether all Hindus would feel a similar kind of kinship with any particular Hindu cause.

Again the author simply assumes certain things to be true without in any way supporting them with rational evidence. In a one page chapter entitled, "The Babri Masjid Controversy", he asserts that "Hindus believe that Babur...razed [an ancient temple built in honor of Sri Ram] to the ground and erected a mosque in its place. ..." This is an appalling assertion.

The issue here is not whether the assertion is true. He is making a quite unsubstantiated and potentially dangerous statement that Hindus believe it to be true. The only way to make this assertion meaningful is to make this belief a necessary condition for being a Hindu. This is exactly the sort of appropriation of Hindu identity that is a deeply disturbing trait of Hindutva ideologues. A similar and profoundly disturbing assertion in the same chapter is that "Hindus wish to build a temple dedicated to Sri Ram at this site".

This takes us to the crux of the ideology. While celebrating Hinduism's refusal to fit any straight jacket, it attempts to design its own straight jacket to encompass all Hinduism. This ideology's proponents believe that this feature of Hinduism is a nice little add-on that can be dispensed with. But they miss the point. This feature is the core of Hinduism and without it Hinduism loses its essence.

The fact is that Hinduism is uniquely unsuited for a centrally organized administration. That is its biggest strength. For those who want to attack Hinduism, there is no clear target. Hinduism resides in individual Hindus in their millions. No amount of destruction of physical structures will make a dent in the healthy body of Hinduism. By the same token, no amount of erection of physical structures will advance the cause of Hinduism. It is an ironic, but an undeniable, fact that this knowledge escapes the attention of those who claim to be the guardians of "Hindu pride."

It is tempting to end with the statement that this book is an example of an unconvincing argument for a questionable cause. But the issues are considerably more grave than that summary suggests.

Religion has a latent tendency to bring to the surface the most irrational and animalistic urges in human beings. Hinduism is not above such tendencies and an endeavor should be to negate them. But the ideology that guides "Lies" has exactly the opposite intention. While there is reason to believe that the inherent flux at the core of Hinduism will ensure the ultimate failure of all such ideologies, there is no room for complacency.

India's Twenty20 Triumph - An Analysis

Krishna — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:07:27 EDT

India did well enough to win the final. Sport can be so cruel sometimes, and one feels sad for the Pakistanis. Still it must be said that India deserved better to win. They kept taking wickets and controlled the middle part well and really had only two bad overs (17th and 18th by Harbhajan and Sreesanth). Anyway this is sport and in the end India will have the happier memories.

I am not a big fan of Twenty20 cricket. Even putting aside this personal taste, I find the reception in India way out of proportion. Granted this is a "World Cup"; granted Twenty20 may be the thing for the future. Still, I find any comparison to 1983 world cup triumph quite silly, to be honest. The surrounding atmosphere, the level of intensity of the teams, the prestige attached to this world cup are all nothing compared to the "real" World Cup of 50-overs. While this remains a creditable performance from a young and inexperienced team under a bold captain, there is no need to magnify the credit. Indeed, the current tendency of the TV channels to endlessly telecast images of ecstatic fans celebrating India's "great win" and screaming that "they are proud to be Indians" has the same roots as their tendency of six months ago to continuously telecast images of "irate fans" destroying Dhoni's house and burning Yuvraj's effigies. The space for balanced and sober journalism is fast shrinking in India.

This is a truly significant win for India for its showcasing of the future possibilities. For the most of the last decade and half, it is fair to say that India was carried on the shoulders of Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and Anil Kumble. They all served the team skillfully and it will be hard to produce more entertaining and dominating cricketers. However, with the first three hovering around 35 and the last just shy of 37, time has certainly come to think ahead. Indeed, this was a major thing on any serious Indian fan's mind. It is in this context that this triumph is significant.

The oldest member of the 15 for this world cup is Agarkar at 29 and the average age is 23.86. Among the eleven players who played the final, the oldest is Harbhajan at 27 and the average age is 23.72. Clearly this is the team for the future. At 18, 21, 22 and 24, Piyush Chawla, RP Singh, Irfan Pathan and Sreesanth respectively are the bowlers for the future. At 20, 21, 22, 26, 26, and 26, Rohit Sharma, Robin Uthappa, Dinesh Karthik, Yuvraj Singh, MS Dhoni, Gautam Gambhir are the batsmen for the future. It is not an exaggeration to say that selectors have their hands full figuring out which three to drop to accommodate Sachin, Sourav and Rahul against Australia.

A final word about Dhoni, the captain. He was impressive. It is dangerous to pass judgements immediately after a close win. But I believe that close win owed as much to Dhoni's smart on-field captaincy as to happy jelling of every part. He did not shy away from running down to bowlers to have a word or two after they were hit for sixes and on the whole carried himself with a serene confidence.

A run of four victories in do-or-die matches, three of them against the very best, laced with spectacular batting, efficient bowling, and uncharacteristically tidy fielding, ends with India as champions. Their greatest triumph? No. But possibly a setting stage for one.

Is Judiciary Really Independent of Electoral Politics?

Krishna — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:06:15 EDT

The US Supreme Court yesterday delivered a judgement which is being seen as a form of resegregation. The case at hand was two programs in the cities of Louisville and Seattle that were designed to maintain racial diversity in their public schools.

The program in Louisville worked by ensuring a certain ratio of black/white students whereas in Seattle, it was only used as a "tie breaker". Basically, if you were a parent, you did not have complete choice as to which school your child can attend. All over the country such programs are in place in several school districts, and these particular programs are in the news only because they happened to reach the Supreme Court.

The US, of course, had a long and violent history with segregation, and things began to change for the better only in the last few decades. There is reason to believe that at least part of this change is directed by the judiciary. This was especially true when it came to school segregation. The landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 set the tone for more reform in later years.

This is a thorny issue. Sooner or later everything boils down to one's value judgements. Should parents have complete freedom to choose schools for their children? Does the government have the mandate to interfere to ensure a racially integrated class room? If governments think they have that mandate, should the courts rule against them? Should courts themselves interfere to ensure racial diversity? These are all difficult questions. They are sure to elicit diagonally opposite, yet passionate, answers.

Needless to say, I too have opinions on these matters. What fascinates me more, however, is the role of electoral politics in all this. A Constitution is just a collection of papers with splashes of ink on it. It has no meaning whatsoever until someone comes along and interprets it. In any form of governance, but particularly in a democracy, its official interpretation is bound to change in time.

There is an episode of Seinfeld (The Couch) in which Elaine says that the Supreme Court gave her the right to abortion. She doesn't say that the constitution gave her the right, though that is obviously implied. And she is right, because really the Supreme Court alone gave her the right and it can take it away. Indeed, later in the episode, Elaine's date, much to her dismay, expresses the hope that one day he would have enough judges on the Supreme Court to do precisely that. Maybe his time has come!

So the ordinary citizen's recourse to the constitution is through the courts (primarily, the Supreme Court). And this is where the interesting stuff happens. How the Supreme Court views the constitution is largely a matter of who is on it. And that is decided by the president and ratified by the Congress, both being elected by people.

I know that anyone who ends up on the Supreme Court is incredibly erudite and sophisticated. They are bound to have well considered, rational opinions on all matters. But here's the nub. Oftentimes, when it comes to a judgment, it is a simple black and white thing. And all the nuanced scholarship in the world must lead finally to a Yes or No. And this final answer is very often predictable.

Once Bush was able to get confirmations for his two nominees, Roberts and Alito, from a friendly Congress, these decisions were on the card. On the other hand, if Kerry had won in 2004, most definitely these two would not now be sitting on the court, and it is fair to say that the decision yesterday would have been different.

So it all boils down to this: if more Americans wanted Kerry to be the president in 2004, the programs in Louisville and Seattle would have been constitutional. Now they are not. This is either charmingly refreshing or gloomily depressing, depending on what kind of person you are.

Cricket World Cup 2007: Looking Forward to the Super 8

Krishna — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 01:30:21 EDT

Though my interest was momentarily dulled by India's defeat, I am very excited now about the Super 8. It will begin tomorrow with the very interesting Aus-WI game.

When the tournament began, I predicted the four semi-finalists to be India, Australia, SA, WI. I am horribly off the mark about India. Not many will doubt that Aus and SA will be there. So there are two more spots, for which the serious contenders will be Sri Lanka, WI, England and New Zealand. Ireland and Bangladesh will struggle to win even one match, and are very unlikely to be in the semis.

If we make the safe assumption that all the above six teams are going to win if they play with either Bangladesh or Ireland (I say "if" because SL and WI will not play against BD and Ire), then the points distribution will look something like this, before we count the important matches:

Aus 6
NZ 6
SA 4
WI 4
SL 4
Eng 4

Apart from this, Aus, SA, NZ and Eng will play four matches each while WI and SL will play five matches each. There will be 13 matches in all. So 26 points are at stake. Together with the 28 points above, there will be a total of 54 points divided among 6 teams. 12 points will mean a certain spot in the semis. Anyone with 10 points will almost certainly be in the top four. 8 points should give a pretty good chance of making it to the top four.

Aus and NZ have the advantage of six points, and SL and WI have the advantage of playing 5 matches. Eng and SA have only four points and play only four matches.

I think that England are the weakest team and will not make it to semi final. Of their four matches I expect them to win at most one. I also think Australia and SA will either win all their matches or at least three. I do not see them both losing many matches. Their match on 24th March tells me that they are way ahead of others.

So if I am correct, then the contest for the remaining two spots will be between SL, WI and NZ.

NZ will have six points, so they have a definite advantage. But SL and WI will play against Eng and if they win they will be on par with NZ. So it might all come down to what happens in the three matches between these three teams. Of course any victory against Aus or SA will be huge.

Predictions are always tricky. However, I am going to make them.

Aus and SA will surely be in the semi finals, and most likely in the top two slots. I have a feeling that WI is going to be also there. I think that home advantage will be important and in close matches I think WI will be better.

Between SL and NZ, I will say NZ. I know SL are favorites now for many people, but I just feel that they have not been tested really. Their batting looks susceptible against quality bowling. Also Muralitharan is their only bowling threat against better batting. NZ look good now, though they have some injury worries. Their general efficiency coupled with very good bowling should see them through.

In any case, all is set for an exciting Super 8 stage, with at least 13 great matches to look forward to.

Cricket World Cup 2007: India's Loss to Sri Lanka - What Now for Indian Cricket?

Krishna — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:48:55 EDT

India's World Cup 2007 run all but ended today after the convincing victory by Sri Lanka. Barring a highly unlikely victory of Bermuda over Bangladesh two days from now, India are out.

Before the match Rahul Dravid was asked what would happen to India if they lost. He answered that they were not even thinking of the possibility. Now he needs to think about it. Many others will also need to look for some answers.

From the time colored clothes made their debut in the World Cup in 1992, this is probably India's worst World Cup, though the seventh place finish in 1992 would be a close contender. I say this is the worst considering the expectations and the supposed caliber of this team. A look at India's performances in the last four World Cups reveals a very interesting picture.

In many ways, the 1992 World Cup was transformational. Soon after 1992, many long and successful careers ended and a significant regrouping took place within the Indian team with Sachin Tendulkar becoming the batting backbone and Azharuddin consolidating his captaincy. In 1996 though we reached the Semi-Final, it was considered a disappointment given that India was a big favorite playing at home. This also resulted in some changes, most significant being the emergence of Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly, and Tendulkar's captaincy. The 1999 world cup was largely dull though we managed to reach the Super 6 phase. Major changes resulted after that with a foreign coach (John Wright) taking charge for the first time and Sourav Ganguly becoming the captain. This brought about a fresh dynamism in the Indian team and the one-day team with Rahul Dravid as the wicket keeper looked solid. As a consequence, 2003 was clearly the best world cup we had after 1983 and India was only second to a flawless Australia.

Now this!

What now for the Indian players? I suspect this debacle will usher in some important changes. Senior players will need to introspect. This is especially true for Sachin Tendulkar. It pains me to write this, but he is fast becoming a liability to the team. Maybe there is still time for a graceful exit. Dravid and Ganguly have surely some cricket left in them, though I doubt Dravid will continue as captain. Maybe it's a good time for Yuvraj. I surely think that a change of guard has to take place with management and administration handed to the next generation. Greg Chappell will almost certainly go. It's probably time for an Indian coach.

Painful as this early exit is, there is a part of me which senses some good coming out of it. In the last two or three years Indian cricket is being successfully and rapidly morphed by various vested interests into a sort of sensational marketing machine. The BCCI has become a lucrative body with high profile politicians throwing in all their might to control it. Media, with its constant look out for sensationalist talking points, also played a big role by coining terms like "Team India" and "Men in Blue". As a result a realistic connection between team's performances and fans' expectations was destroyed.

Ground realities being disregarded, desires, passions, and emotions were exploited. It looked as if people were cashing in while the going was still good. Widely covered stories in the media of people shaving their heads, offering prayers for the team, naturally led to the ridiculous reactions to the loss. Now a national calamity will be declared and a multitude of theories will be offered as explanations. Much has been written about the financial disaster that will befall if India fails to reach Super 8. I see that as one bright spot in this gloom. It might bring in some much needed balance to cricket following in India.

The fact of course is it's not a calamity. Indian cricket team just failed to do well in a World Cup. Surely a very disappointing experience, but by no stretch of imagination a calamity. The obsession with the cricket team's fortunes to the exclusion of all sensible thought is a dangerous national malaise. Maybe this disaster will remedy it.

Cricket World Cup 2007: India vs. Sri Lanka Preview

Krishna — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:29:37 EDT

After Sri Lanka's big win over Bangladesh today, the equation is pretty straightforward for India on Friday: win and qualify and carry two points to the Super 8. It is all but impossible for Bangladesh to qualify if India wins on Friday.

A quick calculation: India scored 191 + 413 = 604 in 100 overs and gave away 192 + 156 in 98.3 overs. So they are +256 in terms of runs. If they beat Sri Lanka, their net will be at least +257.

Bangladesh scored 192 + 112 = 304 in 94.3 overs and gave away 191 + 312 = 503 in 96 overs (today's match came to SL, with Bangladesh's target revised to 311 in 46 overs). This gives Bangladesh a net score of -199. This means Bangladesh will need to win the Bermuda game by just below 199 + 250 = 449. We can safely assume it's not going to happen.

So India just needs to win against Sri Lanka. In the recent past we had a good record over SL, with a 6-1 win in 2005 and a 2-1 win just before the World Cup. But things are different now. India will be under immense pressure. SL are on a high.

Common perception is that SL prefer to have BD in Super 8, as in that case they would carry 2 points. But the problem then is: it will mean all the other teams in Super 8 (other than Ireland) are virtually guaranteed 2 points. Of course, SL also have those two points. But teams carrying two points from other groups will have an advantage. These will be New Zealand, AUS/SA, WI/Ire.

Frankly, NZ and AUS/SA are virtually guaranteed semi-final spots with two matches against Bangladesh and Ireland. So SL will end up fighting for one of the remaining two spots with WI and AUS/SA. It might be better for them to have India in Super 8, so that no spot in SF is certain, even at the cost of two points. This is not to suggest that SL will do anything less than 100% on Friday. But they might just be tempted to try out some reserve players.

Anyway for India, it's the proverbial do or die. On March 23 four years ago they had a bad day. But that was the final. Now they are in danger of a knock out in the group stage. (An Indian loss on Friday won't technically knock them out. They might still pray for a Bermuda win over Bangladesh, which is surely highly unlikely. Given their good run rate, India will qualify after a 3-way tie between Bangladesh, Bermuda and India.)

As for us fans, let's hope that we will have a good match while praying that India will win. But let us also remember that it's only a game.

Book Review: Palestine: Peace not Apartheid - Jimmy Carter

Krishna — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:10:56 EST

The nation of Israel was created in 1948 in historic Palestine. In the process, at least 700,000 native inhabitants were driven away from their homes of centuries. The justification for this massive "collateral" damage was sought from two historical facts: the sacking of Jews from Palestine, hitherto their home, in the second century A.D; and the constant persecution of Jews in Europe, culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust. It was thought that the latter stressed the need for a separate Jewish home land and the former provided one.

Forgotten in this eloquent rationale was the plight of the 700,000 original refugees and their millions of descendants today. Any trace of moral outrage for this nakba (Arabic for disaster) has been successfully effaced from collective memory in the past half-decade. Today the respected disagreement is only over the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem which began only in 1967.

One school of thought has it that the world has come to terms with the unfortunate, but necessary, events of 1948. There is also a debatable view that if only the later events did not take the ugly turns all would have been well now. This is the view taken by Jimmy Carter in his honest book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.

The Truman administration recognized (de facto) the State of Israel 11 minutes after its establishment. Since then America has been the strongest and most faithful ally of Israel. Ironically this support has increased significantly since the inception of Israeli occupation. While it is not rare to come across voices highly critical of Israeli policies and American role in them, it is fair to say that American society remains largely supportive of Israel. Indeed it has been said that a much more serious debate on the conflict takes place in Israel. In this context it is a welcome change that a former president comes out with a suggestion of being critical of Israel.

Palestine is essentially a personal account which covers the history of the conflict, especially after Carter's presidency during 1977-80. It talks about his personal visits to the region, his personal chemistry with dramatis personae, and his perspective on what went wrong and how to fix it.

The book begins with Carter's first visit to Israel in 1973. The dominant belief at the time was that Israel's occupation (six years old) was temporary and would end, pending some agreements with the neighbors. The total number of Jewish settlers at the time was only 1500 (the number now is almost 450,000). However he also recalls encounters which suggest a deeper problem. Sure enough, four months after his visit the appearance of peace was shattered with the attack of Egypt and Syria on Israel. Israel recovered after early setbacks (thanks to timely American help) to register victory.

Carter then spends some time discussing the Camp David Accords of 1978 which produced a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. These Accords are widely seen as successful and remain models for future treaties. However Carter emphasizes the very important point that a crucial component of the Accords was Israel's commitment to implement UN Security Council (unanimous) resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) which declared that "Israel's acquisition of territory by force is illegal and that Israel must withdraw from occupied territories". The fact that Israel never really moved toward this commitment is conveniently forgotten today. Carter writes, "[f]or Menachem Begin, the peace treaty with Egypt was the significant act for Israel, while solemn promises regarding the West Bank and Palestinians would be finessed or deliberately violated."(italics mine)

This point is repeated again and again: Israel's failure to follow up on its promises. Carter is convinced that changing this attitude is key to any just solution.

The key to the future of Israel will not be found outside the country but within. It is not likely that any combination of Arab powers or even the powerful influence of the United States could force decisions on Israel concerning East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Palestinian rights, or the occupied territories of Syria.

Carter is up front on many occasions (particularly toward the end of the book) criticizing Israel's actions. For instance he says:

Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens - and honor its own previous commitments - by accepting its legal borders.

It does sound refreshingly honest. But it is hard to escape the feeling that Carter is walking a political tight rope here. For various reasons he does not want to appear genuinely critical of Israel. Nor does he wish to be dishonest with himself. This balancing act means there is not much chance of this book fulfilling the purpose Carter had in mind: produce a blueprint for "peace with justice in this small and unique portion of the world".

It is all very well to say that Israel must fulfill its promises. But this impotent call for peace does not take into account the ground realities. All of Carter's ideas require Israel to be nice without presenting a solid political case for why Israel will need to be nice. He fails to seriously analyze the record of Israeli actions of last 40 years.

Key leaders of Israel during the occupation era came from the "1948 generation", and Tanya Reinhart writes that they "were raised on the myth of 'redemption of land'". This is the idea that the land that once belonged (two thousand years ago) to the Jewish people should be "taken back". Unlikely as it may sound to an outsider, leaders from both poles of Israeli politics (Labor and Likud) were animated by this idea. They differed only tactically: with Labor (Rabin, Peres) supporting negotiations to annex as much of the West Bank as possible (usual figure is 35 - 40%) and Likud (Sharon) supporting more aggressive military moves. Israel also never pretended to aspire for a diverse society where Jews and Arabs might live peacefully together. This led them to create an apartheid system where the Palestinians live like second-class citizens in the occupied territories.

Without penetrative analysis going into such issues Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid does not add a whole lot to the ongoing debate and doesn't produce any illuminating ideas. It does however provide a refreshing re-look at the conflict from a humane view point.

The Power of Words

Krishna — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:03:27 EST

What are words? In a sense, they are mere shortcuts to express elaborate feelings, phenomenon, concepts etc. Instead of saying "linguistic units with phonetic content and used in speech to convey certain meaning" we simply say "word".

There must be a highly sophisticated layered structure to the development of words: with first words describing simple concepts and more complex words created out of old words as time went on. Studying this development is an enormously complex task and constitutes the object of various fields of study like linguistics and anthropology.

A particularly interesting aspect of this study is understanding how words enter into mass consciousness. Here I am not talking about common words like "good", "table", "run" etc. For these kind of words, the question is easy and/or uninteresting. It is lot more interesting and hard to understand how a word like "communism", for instance, caught on.

The most intriguing question for me is - how much does the very emergence of the word "communism" contribute to the effects of the ideology it represents?. Though ill-equipped to even begin to answer that question, I am inclined to believe the answer is not a little. Articulation is an extremely important part of any scientific endeavor. As we pursue long chains of thought and contemplation, effective articulation is necessary to organize those thoughts.

In the realm of politics this role of articulation takes on added importance. Often the ability to find and popularize words to describe a political stand is the key to its success. We all know how much politicians long for a "winning slogan". This might sound a little cynical with the suggestion that the mere creation of clever phrases is enough to succeed. Of course that is not the case. To a large extent the inherent worth of an idea is what determines its success.

But it must be noted that the availability of common words is very often a huge advantage. One classic example is the word "anti-semitism". Historically various forms of racial and religious prejudices existed, but no other specific prejudice is as easily identifiable as anti-semitism. To be sure, to a large extent this is because this particular prejudice took on extreme forms for lengthy periods. But to a small extent, the recognizability of this prejudice has to do with the existence of a convenient word like "anti-semitism". In any case it accords a huge advantage to some people.

Let us look at an example. Alan Dershowitz immediately labels anyone criticizing Israeli policies anti-semite. Given the negative intonations of that word, this labeling gives Dershowitz a huge advantage before any discussion can take place. On the other hand, the target of Dershowitz's attack does not initially have the terminological facility to counter the accusations against him. What can you call someone who is apt to use the word anti-semite at the drop of a hat. Any criticism is bound to take a couple of sentences at least and thereby lose the terminological battle.

As another example, it will be interesting to see the development of the word "Islamophobia" in the years to come. This word has caught on in the aftermath of 9/11 with many people prone to look suspiciously at Muslims. Obviously the inherent generalization was problematic and this word began to be used to denote this problem. However it has not yet attained the same level of guilt associated to anti-semitism. Still the existence of the word itself indicates some level of recognition of the problem.

One can't stress enough the importance of words in any aspect of human life, and particularly in political discourse.

Democratic Race for Nomination in 2008 Heats Up.

Krishna — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:45:28 EST

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination for '08 heated up today with Hillary Clinton announcing her widely anticipated decision to run. Her main rival is expected to be the Illinois Senator Barack Obama who is set to announce his own candidacy on February 10. Thus the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination represent two electorates which had a long history of suppression and denial of voting rights. Indeed they had unimpeded voting rights for less than a century in America.

(Women were permitted vote only after the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Though black males enjoyed complete voting rights briefly at the end of the civil war, they were soon subjected to various forms of restrictions. Blacks began to exercise unhindered voting rights only after the Voting Rights Act of 1965.)

It will be amiss to rule out 2004 vice-presidential nominee John Edwards who is said to be making serious efforts for his nomination. It makes for a highly interesting three-way campaign over the next 18 months or so, though it is fair to say at this point that Clinton and Obama hold the aces.

Hillary Clinton definitely starts ahead with her name recognition and long public career. Obama is a novice and does not have any experience in national campaigns. But he is highly charismatic and captured the imagination of Democratic base since he entered the Senate in 2004. The immediate task for Obama would be to lure many major donors away from Clinton. There are a number of people who are unable to decide between them or having second thoughts about Clinton. George Soros seems to be moving toward Obama, according to this article in New York Times. So are influential Hollywood producers such as Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

It is debatable whether money wins elections. However the first clues as to who is leading will come when we know who is leading the money stakes. The donors are shrewd and their decisions are based on well-informed assessments on who is more likely to win. So if Obama or Clinton is receiving more money it must mean that he or she is perceived to be more likely to win. Whether money is a cause of winning or not, it surely is a fairly reliable indicator. Though Clinton has the edge (with already $14 million in bank), it is only because Obama started much later than her.

With the contest for nomination likely to be confined largely to Democrats (most of the primaries are closed, meaning open to registered Democrats only), it is not clear if there is much to choose between the two. Obama's freshness could be an advantage: he did not vote for Iraq war (he wasn't in the Senate then) and he has been consistently against the war. Clinton voted for the war and has a tortuous record on it. On the other hand, the same freshness could work against Obama: he is inexperienced and could fall behind Clinton in convincing the voters of his caliber. Quite possibly his freshness will have a mixed effect and it is not easy to predict how these things turn out.

A major factor on the minds of Democrats will be who is more electable. Democrats are fed up more than usual with the Republican White House of eight years and there is bound to be a passionate desire to have their man/woman back there. This will be the unifying theme for the next year or so. Most Democrats will be happy to throw their support behind anyone who can take the White House back. Behind all the rhetoric about who is better for the country will be calculations as to who is more likely to win. Consequently the candidate who more successfully prove his/her electability will win the nomination.

It may be a stretch to read too much into this emergence of woman and black candidates for Democratic nomination. Surely this represents a sea change from the electoral scene of only 40 years ago when blacks suffered discrimination via literacy tests and gerrymandering to minimize effects of black voting. And the election of Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker of the House of Representatives confirms that Clinton's rise is not an isolated event. However, I am more inclined to attribute this to instances of individual charisma and favorable circumstances than to any deep-rooted transformations in the electoral scene. That's what makes me pessimistic about the ultimate odds of success of either of these candidates against charismatic and mainstream candidates like John McCain or Rudolph Giuliani.

Of course there is still a long long way to go, and nothing is more fraught with danger and uncertainty than guessing which way elections can go, particularly elections which are almost two years away! Let us wait and see.

Book Review: Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

Krishna — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:28:26 EST

People usually believe things that they best understand. As John Galbraith wrote, "economic and social behaviour are complex, and to comprehend their character is mentally tiring". So we "adhere, as though to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding." This engenders "conventional wisdom". "The hallmark of the conventional wisdom", wrote Galbraith, "is acceptability." Conventional wisdom then is widely accepted. It does not follow however that it is correct too.

Any attempt to sift through conventional wisdom and establish truth is "mentally tiring", and its result is likely to be unpopular. Undaunted, the authors of the interesting little book Freakonomics, set about examining conventional wisdom in a chosen set of issues. More often than not, they find that conventional wisdom is wrong, or in the very least, irrelevant. Sure enough, their conclusions are provocative, dismaying, disturbing and provide lot of food for thought.

Steven Levitt, a brilliant young economist and Stephen Dubner, an enterprising journalist met when the latter was working on an article about the former for New York Times Magazine in 2003. Levitt's work (empirical research in microeconomics) is of a nature which could appeal to lay readers. Dubner's background had given him a great ability to write beautifully and persuasively. Together, they began to work on the book.

The choice of topics was determined by Levitt's earlier research. All the topics are widely discussed and are loaded with conflicting opinions and mindsets. Some of the topics are the role of parents, the reasons behind the dramatic fall in crime in America during the 90s, the drug dealers, and the possibility of cheating by school teachers, etc. Any position on these topics is bound to annoy someone. But this book is particularly provocative because of its haughty dismissal of "experts" and its explicit mission to trash conventional wisdom.

Crime rose alarmingly in America during the 80s and there were not a few experts predicting apocalypse. Indeed, as the 90s began everyone agreed that worse was yet to come. But quite strangely, and for a while inexplicably, crime began to fall. And drastically. Soon the same experts who were predicting apocalypse began to explain the reasons for this unexpected fall. All the standard theories were offered: strong economy, increased and stricter prison terms, innovative police measures and more police, restrictions on guns, decreased supply of crack cocaine, increased use of capital punishment etc. Levitt and Dubner even mention the number of articles in major newspapers that cite each of these reasons from 1991 to 2001. It serves to dramatize their own explanation for the drop in crime. After dismissing many of the above as highly unlikely or marginal (strong economy, gun control, death sentence, innovative police measures) and admitting a moderate impact of others (more police personnel, decreased supply of cocaine, stricter prison terms), they claim that one of the major reasons for the crime-drop of 90s was the lack of criminals. In 1973 US Supreme Court legalized abortion and this meant hundreds of thousands of unwanted children were not born (around 1.6 million annually). The authors cite numerous studies to the effect that children of teenage, poor, unmarried women are highly likely to have criminal lives. So the fact that millions of people who would have reached their peak criminal phase (late teens) around early 90s were simply not born was a huge factor in the crime-drop. Surely this is a highly controversial claim with its intrusion into lots of touchy areas. Still, as the authors claim, this is what the data reveal.

The whole book is liberally filled with equally controversial conclusions (what parents do doesn't really matter to the child's future, real-estate agents do not necessarily ensure that their clients get the best deal, many school teachers and Sumo wrestlers cheat, money does not win elections, drug dealing is not such a lucrative business for most of its practitioners).

The most serious shortcoming of the book, in my view, is that it is essentially an elaborate and slightly repetitive plug for all the relevant research papers of Levitt. It only cites various studies, and does not offer many critical arguments or incisive analysis. All the conclusions are derived using a black box (various studies they cite) and the reader is required to simply trust that black box. Or, one can go and look into the box by studying the relevant research papers.

Most of the arguments in the book follow this pattern:

Let us study event X. The conventional wisdom has it that the reasons/consequences of X are A,B,C,D,.....But in fact the study S1 and/or S2 and/or S3 has confirmed that the real reason/consequences are only A,C,... and more importantly 1,2,...

Except for some incidentally logical passages and very little serious argument, the book has nothing more to offer in the form of scientific thought.

The authors admit right at the beginning that the book has no "unifying theme" and that it follows a "sort of treasure-hunt approach". This absence of unifying theme jars the reader throughout the book. It becomes particularly troubling toward the end when the reader is bombarded with pages after pages of useless data (which one forgets as soon as the page is turned) but in the end retains very little substance.

Aside from a few pointers to the correct way of thinking (need for a more critical study of data, importance of the difference between causality and correlation) the book is just an ad hoc collection of interesting information.