two worlds...

Today ten americans, marines, were killed by a roadside bomb.

A few days ago i read an excerpt from a commander's recollection of an event in Iraq. I think it was in or around Basra. The market is usually busy and one can get anything at this market from western DVD players to a chinese trinket. The week before this commander's walk and interview a couple of soldiers got hit with a roadside bomb. The commander with the aid of other Iraqi guards and soldiers interviewed shop-owners about the attack. No one admits to knowing anything. He was frustrated. He says, all these people knew about that bomb -- because most of them closed down their shops early that day. He said, they were more afraid of retaliation from those creating these troubles than the Western soldiers. The occupied force leaves one day, but they have to live with those 'insurgents', the commander reasoned.

The commander got killed the following week, as I recall from my reading.

The soldiers keep walking on that market street looking to make sure that it is safe from insurgent attacks or roadside bombs. Their motive is 'to show' that there is normalcy restored to Iraq.

Another 'video' based report on CNN suggested western soldiers would go on patrol and take the Iraqi police/soldiers with them on this patrol. The Iraqi police do not wish to join in on this patrol. But the commanding officers insist that they go. So reluctantly they get in to vehicles and go to this market area to (a) show the strength (b) make sure no irritable elements take over the street, as stated objectives.

There was one other objective: that is to make sure the Iraqi police and soldiers learn from the example.

So, they drag these unwilling, somewhat lazy Iraqi police along with them in vehicles to patrol. Suddenly the commander stops the vehicle and gets out of the vehicle. He wants to walk. He wants those Iraqi policemen to also walk with him, alongside. They think he is crazy. In their mind, they are thinking, they have a vehicle that still runs. Their halfmoon behind is comfortable sitting on that new America supplied vehicle. But the commander wins again. They reluctantly walk and the vehicle meets them at the end of a few blocks.

Don Rumsfeld I am sure is looking at the same reports as I am. The entire American and British commanding officer legions are reading with no end to the same dilemmas as I am. They have no clue as to the origins of the lazy ness of an Iraqi. The phundits on the idiot box are asking, if a soldier in American army can be trained and commissioned in six weeks, why is it taking more than two years to train Iraqi army.

They do not understand because they are standing on an island of their fathers. They are in a different world. They have not paid attention to see the other side.

I do not agree that average Iraqi is a lazy person. The reasons are simple. Iraq (for that matter any country like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Egypt and places like those) can not sustain the level of enforcement America can. The per-capita spending on enforcement in America is far greater than that of any of these countries, even after adjusting for expense in local currency.

Therefore, these countries take the only next logical path possible. That is, to adapt a choice enforcement. They chose to ignore minor things such as robbery or assault on a small scale. These societies rely more on the mere threat of enforcement rather than on actually carrying out that threat.

For an average Iraqi, an Iraqi policeman on foot symbolizes nothing. A capable heavily armed Iraqi soldier standing on ground in two-feet would not scare him. Put a plumpy, incapable, laziest policeman without a single weapon, except for may be a small club, on a heavy Jeep, the average Iraqi gets terrified. The threat works like magic than the actually showing a way about how it works.

I recall a childhood conversation with a friend of mine. I can not be sure if it can be true, but he had witnessed a Police Sub-Inspector in our hometown telling his dad that they do not wish to take small time criminals to police station. They dish out the bashing for a small time crime quickly (like the spanking of a child) and makes him fear for the law. They did not wish him to take him up the stairs (most Indian police stations have atleast four or five steps to climb above ground level). The Sub-Inspector reasoned, once a criminal or a theif realizes that climbing up the stairs is not as fearsome (which he will find out if he ever did), then he won't stop at committing another crime. The threat works.

There is no chace that Americans or British soldiers will learn about the Iraqi psyche. History proved that the West failed miserably in learning the ways of the east. Middle-east is no exception. Vietnam could never be understood by the Harvard graduates. The Ivy-league pride would never let them understand it.

Local solutions to local problems -- in this case -- the cultural solution is a must in order to succeed. Until that time, we will keep hearing these heart breaking stories about roadside bombs killing Americans. I agree with Murtha's challenge to some extent that a repositioning is needed.

As I finish this, it just came back to me that I actually wanted to write about Pentagon paying Iraqis to plant good stories. Well, death of a soldier always takes a precedence over a scandal.

దేవుడా

దేవుడా
నన్ను వీళ్ళు రక్షిస్తున్నారు
గిడుగు భాషోద్యమాన్నించి
ఇంగ్లీషు చదువుల్నించి
ఇంటి భాషనుంచి
వెల్చేరు విప్లవాలనుంచి
తల తిక్క వాదాలనుంచి
తాళ్ళకు తాళ్ళు పేనుతూ
సాంస్కృతిక కరవాలాలతో
మాలలతో, భాషణ భూషణాలతో
తెలుగుదనంతో
నన్ను
వీళ్ళు రక్షిస్తున్నారు.

దేవుడా!
వీళ్ళకు రక్షించడమే పని.

దేవుడా!
నువ్విటు రాకు.
అంతగా టైముంటే
చేతులు మరీ ఖాళీగా ఉంటే
వెళ్ళి వేలూరి వంటకాలు తిను.
(పెసరట్లు ఆయన స్పెషాలిటీ.)
సిలికానాంధ్ర సైనికుల్లో కలువు.
ఇంకా తోచకపోతే
విప్లవ రచయితల్లో చేరు.
అంతే గానీ ఇటువైపు మటుకు రాకు.
నిన్నుకూడా
వీళ్ళు రక్షించేస్తారు.

-విప్లవ్
(రచయిత్రి రేవతీ దేవి had it right).

literature, politics, polemics

One can safely say dabbling in Art and Literature requires no entree fee.

If one has to produce something in any other field, scientific or religious, one may be required to spend time studying it. They need to make atleast some effort in learning the practice and take time to study how it is applied. In order for one to be critical of C programming language, one need to know the basics of a programming language, semantics and the jargon. Otherwise it would be too generic (applicable to most languages). If it were to stick to a particular religion, one needs to be conversant in that specific religion. They may have to, again, study it a bit more closely.

I read some place that when certain minimum physical comforts are satisfied, humans enquire into other areas for their satisfaction. Art, Literature fall into that category. These two require minimum skill and a low cost of entry. One need not understand the historical context, the meaning for the present generation or the future orientation of either the Art or Literature in order to become a critic. One could look at a master piece and say that 'these things are produced for millionaires' or the same person could take a different side under a different context to argue that 'art is not just for millionaires'. Both are valid views and a reasonable person can butt heads on either side without any preliminary knowledge of what the object is. The painter could be Jean-François Millet or Vincent Van Gogh, one does not need to know the subject in question, in order to consider and weigh on taking sides.

Literature also thusly lends itself to criticism by common folk. Citizen entry into literature is not limited. It does not mean that either Literature or Art changes in its form with ordinary people taking different sides. Art and Literature do not change based on people taking sides or their perceptions. Literature brings imagination to life from its creator and unveils a form unseen by the viewer or reader. Each piece has its face, many faces in fact, therefore many interpretations. The reader becomes a part of it at one time or the other, in both accepting it and rejecting it. Literature also knows no time. Each produced in different times endure other layers, in time. Literature in my opinion is the single most meaningful invention of mankind, a priceless gift to future generations. Humans must have, unconsciously I believe, decided to pass on their wisdom, playfulness, their fears, behavior and thoughts, and clearly their trials and tribulations to their patrons - future generations.

With such a vastly broad definition, as mentioned in the beginning, with very low cost entry into the field, literature is created sometimes unknowingly by the reader. It still does qualify to be literature, therefore, there are no barriers to not only read, understand and enjoy this creation but there are also no barriers to creating it.

I am no literataeur. I think that title need to be reserved for those whose creations are tested by time and reason. Therefore, I venture into politics.

Associating oneself with literature does not require group behavior. Group behavior alters individual's outlook with respect to literature. An individual is either completely devoid or partly modified of all his/her inclinations as a part of a specific group. One needs to, in order to have an unbiased view of a work in question, think from an individual perspective. The bias is introduced by the group one chooses to be a part of. Therefore, the personal view is foresaken atleast in part as a part of the group, by some or others at any given point of time.

The group imposes Zoon Politikon ideal (somewhat voluntarily from the individual perspective) and adds color to one's views. Aristotle may have other theories on this but the closest to human behavior currently relevant in 'right' and 'left' politics, Marx's observation, apparantly, that an individual's ability to behave independent of others is valued only as long as one is a part of a group. The group already modified the definition of individual with such an acceptance.

The political animal part plays huge with revisiting of a literary subject. Now, all of a sudden an individual is beginning to cede his ability to chose for himself or herself based on his/her convictions. The group's collective wisdom after some arguement, takes over for defining literature. By its very nature any group is after a near term objective. The politics is about near term (short-term).

A group's wish for future, mostly near term, clearly outweighs the idealistic, long-term views of an individual. Any group can elect to be indifferent to an individual taking the shape of 'an entity', that seeks to influence other individuals. Now the entity has a value in a democratic sphere. The politics of an individual, when reinforced by the object of a group, are no longer controlled by the literary taste of an individual. A literary group will be the dullest form of creation, it can not produce a long-term, time tested literature, even when critiquing.

Politics are not to be confused with literature. For an ordinary joe on the street it could be hard to distinguish between the two. There are vast amount of works, infact, I would not be surprised if the majority of the works are in the grey area between these two spheres. In capitalistic societies individuals write to sell their ideas. For a political perspective, 'grey area' sounds good, literateur would not have said such a thing. There are those who might say literature denying politics in itself is political in nature. That may be true, I am happy with that idea, except that politics in itself does not constitute literature. There needs a product, a time tested one at that, to show.

In short, literature defines the longer term view of an individual. Politics represent a shorter course of survival of the group. Both are equally important. Politics influence literature of the time. Literature also modifies political nature of a human being. However closely these two are related neither should be confused with the other in that one is a beauty itself and the other is a reflection based on the beholder.

How can one tell which is which? Are you confused? You are the right candidate for politics. It requires no entry and will not be a hindrance to any claim-to-be a part of literary scene. What more, one can always claim to be in a grey area like this writer and escape the wrath of others. And you will be in majority by doing so.

To those who are confused just like I am on occassion, I offer the following single test:

1. Does this work seek to make a case, an appeal to form a public opinion?

2. With or without public's opinion as in Democracy, does the character of this question change? {To elaborate, if there is a question, in order for it to qualify as a literary question, it must have such a merit regardless of the public opinion.}

3. Can the question be made redundant once people take a vote on it?

If the answer is yes to all of the above three questions, I conclude that the question/work falls in the 'grey area' or if you pay me to be more specific: it is a political question.

PS. Needless to say perhaps, but the above thought is influenced by what DTLC as a literary club went through recently, in losing a couple of individual voices from itself over a political matter.

ceding moral highground

The fear, infact the only fear, I contemplate in an argument is the fear of ceding moral high ground. It truly does not matter whether I am on the losing side or the winning side. A winnable argument can be rendered useless by a questionable morality. It also accelarates losses further down the road, for a losing side.

No outsider or outside of self would contribute to such a threat as much as self.

In the movie, Gandhi, one among a few scenes I remember from has to do with the danDi maarch. It is a scene about non-cooperation movement by satyaagrahi's who defy the orders to make salt in a coastal village named danDi in Gujrat (a NW state in India). The scene is described in many texts. As a batch of satyagrahi's walked over to the site in a row with the intention of picking salt from ground, police charge on these unarmed villagers. The batch falls to the ground and a number of women wokers rush to the scene to treat them or pull them aside. Second batch moves forward. These batches keep coming. They keep taking the beating with no resistance. The saga goes on till dusk.

There is a NY Times reporter, Vincent Walker (played by Martin Sheen) to witness on site and as shown in the movie to be rushing to a nearest phone. His dictates a telegram to Times: After today, the west can no longer claim the moral high ground. It did not take long after that for British to seek an exit from India.

Indians were no better than Britishers. British saw an opportunity and held India as a captive. Capable Indians did that to their own people. Such comparisons were unnecessary until the point of relative greatness on the part of Indian and in great numbers in which it is practiced was made evident to the world. The political masterminds of the time understood that & the British had no choice but exit.

The aggressor is seen always as beginning at a low point from any vantage. Saddam Hussain was seen as having no moral ground to begin with when he rolled into Kuwait. Current President Bush is seen across the world as not having such a ground either. These positions are not comparable however similar they might look from a moral stand point. Not withstanding that, it provides neither consolation nor comfort for a world citizen that America is a liberator of Iraqis.

America has shed nearly two-thousand soldiers thus far in Iraq. When is the war going to be too expensive (in deaths)? No-one would ask a losing side how many of their people died. Iraq is a losing side, so far. As the time wears out, if Saddam is forgotten, America would stand on the losing edge. That is a point when people in the world would begin to not notice or count the number of American deaths.

World offered essentially a blank check to America after 9-11. An incident of that magnitude can change the world. The terrorists funded by Bin Laden fell to the lowest point after 9-11. While those terror seeking organizations continue to self-destroy themselves, the civilized nations can not afford to fall into that trap.

That is a place America can not afford to be in. Moral high ground is the only thing that will come to rescue. The equation is a real simple one at this point. The complexities of cold war are literally under water in Atlantic. World will forget Abu Graib. World will forget WMD. World will forget civilian deaths in Iraq. If America plays a visible role with the following: Africa must be rescued. Middle-east must be settled. Arms in the world should go down. Environmental treaties honored. Fight the disease in the world. Leave Iraq to UN. Offer mea culpa on intelligence (to no one in particular). Get Bin Laden. Curse the French for abandoning friends in difficult times. (I have been a supporter of getting rid of Saddam by what ever means it took, and there is no change in that position -- this is about moving forward). Moral ground's only purpose is to stay afloat above the water and not sink. It's purpose is to protect the interests of future generations.

We go from the international circles and conundrums to the local issues to the state of Andhra Pradesh. Virasam (the self-proclaimed revolutionary writers association in AP) may not have gained much in its literary status with the imposition of ban on them by the AP State Government. They may treat the present ban as a feather in their cap. They have no clue about revolution, the government is the one that acted as a revolutionary in the true spirit of not ceding one inch in strategy and never showing their cards in public. Everyone would only guess what the Government would do next as everyone else's position is very well fixed. That gives an added advantage to the establishment.

Moral highground is never fixed. It shifts with people. It seeks to attract majority to its side. If minority is repelled by it, it shifts with the unexpected swiftness. The establishments will continue to be ruined because they are either too slow to recognize such shifts or because they are too lazy to act on such signs. The Governement of AP should release the so-called virasaM from its list of banned organizations while continuing to pursue every legal case on each individual, if there is sufficient evidence to support any other banned organization. Governement can not afford to test its own limits. MLA Narsi Reddy's murder on Independence day along with ten other people offered a blank check to the establishment by the majority. That has happened once before with the cold-blooded murders in Vempenta by the so-called maoists. These incidents require a measured response from the perspective of public while following through the most rigorous course on the inside. Establishment in Andhra Pradesh gets high marks on this while virasaM gets a zero.

One last thought on this:

Moral authority is never retained by any attempt to hold on to it. It comes without seeking and is retained without effort. - Mohandas Gandhi

But Gandhi lived in different times & it is hard to believe that he once walked on this earth. Today, retaining Moral authority requires considerable, visibile effort. If no effort provides the evidence of such in populace, one must seek it with more effort.

two americas

There needs no more pronounced truth and verification of the truth than the Katrina Aftermath. There is estimate of 10,000 dead from the preliminary forecast. The number could be less than that. In any event, if the number were to rise up to 10,000 humans, I believe it is not inconceivable to think that, of those 9,900 would be poor and they would be African-American.

{By that I do not mean everyone who was left to dry! in New Orleans was African American and Poor. Some educated professionals with money in the bank chose to stay back as well. But the ratio of dead vs. survivors in the aftermath speaks volumes about the group that is left to welfare in America.}

If that does not strike you as the other America, I do not know what would. It is true that most of the world is about have's and have-not's. The American Ideal and the much cherished freedom is sold in various bottles across the world as the most equitable and just. It is not so, Katrina disaster took the veil off. It could also be that the king never had clothes.

This is not to critique the Government's response or to do Monday morning quarterbacking. It is not to support entirely the John Edwards' lines alone. It is not to show that President Bush does not know or care about this other side of America.

It is to make a point about the verification of the existence of America's other side. It is sad that such a verification comes at a price. The price paid in human toll with this hurricane disaster should serve as a remineder going forward to both the Americas. To be poor is sufficient enough to end up at the receiving end of a disaster. The racial dimension of this tragedy to me appears to be unavoidable. Impoverished other side is not in the interest of affluent America.

Consider this: If the same hurricane were to hit Haiti, who would be at risk, the most ? Blacks and poor. If a cyclone hit the East India, whose numbers would be more? People belonging to poor, old and underprevileged and marginalized sections.

New Orleans was over 70% black. More than 30% lived below poverty line. The hurricane could not have picked a better spot to show us the existence of naked second America. This second America is not fed properly, does not get necessary (who cares about sufficient) medical help, and it most likely is only going down in standards with no future to look forward to.

America is no different than any other nation in this respect. In that sense, America is not unique. America is also apparantly vulnerable to these tragedies. To go hungry in America is more painful perhaps than anyother place in the world, because this is a place where crackers come in three hundred different packages, and chips in more flavors than one could care to notice. This is the land of wheat and honey. This is the basket that feeds the hungriest in the world. And yet, there are those who will not get enough education to make a decent living.

Saving an American from poverty is to save several more in the third world. Because, it is more expensive to keep one on the welfare in America than keeping several in other parts of the world. There will be people who fall through the cracks but no-one perhaps expected to see it in such a vast manner as in New Orleans. No-one expected the crack to be so much wide, rivaling the grand-canyon. This truth should have been more evident among the Black leadership, more than any other place.

Black leadership in America must seize on the moment to educate more poor African-Americans. The paternalistic attitude does not serve any purpose. They must know that America or for that matter any civiliztion is defined by the way the country treats its hungriest and the most vulnerable. There is plenty of blame to go around. There needs perspective on this nakedness.

I hope this lesson in verification serves some purpose in the policy circles for a long time.

the phundit

then there are phundits.

I define a 'phundit' as someone who seeks to benefit materially or otherwise from the knoweledge base he has built over time either specific to a subject or in general context *and* is unafraid to share it with others so as to influence the opinion that ultimately suits his clients or who pays his bills.

For example if you were to listen to FOX news or CNN, they may have guests on it who portray each and every policy in a certain light. I have no issue with those unless they are being compensated with a self-serving exposure just because their view suits the particular audience. One day they will be writing a book from the half truths they told (even when they knew the full truth). One day they will be writing a policy paper on the subject they talked about (again telling only a half of the story).

A quality that distinguishes these phundits from others is that they 'reach' and 'grab' answers that are outside of their experience and knowledge. They do that first when prompted. And they do it as a rule afterwards -- because they would already have mentioned it before, now their Phunditry passes as Punditry.

The Phundits also have some fun looking at their well dressed mannerisms in full-length mirrors. They are the used-car salesmen of the intelligentsia. They tell you what you like to hear. They cash in on you when the time is right. They push you and prod you toward a maximum utility point on the curve where you and he/she benefits most, "together". Your own utility value is of concern only to the extent that he makes that 'sale'.

You are of some value to the Phundit. He has to make that sale. He has to guide your ill-informed and clumsy soul toward a point of sale for his idea. He has you by the balls after he convinces you that he is the Phundit -- you both together are going to have fun.

The lectures on Economics, Morals, Philosophy and especially about humans at war -- and specifically if it involved Arabs and Jews; Iraqis wanting to stand for their freedoms and the tribal leaders for their fiefdoms; Pakistanis and Indians going to the brink of a war and oscillating back to peace; home grown terrorism in England; the so-called revolutionary maoists in Andhra Pradesh -- they spare nothing. They are experts at everything. I heard a columnist on C-SPAN of all things, that India and Pakistan were within a 15 second timeframe to begin a nuclear war. He said the war could come that quickly. He writes for DAWN, a Pakistani Newspaper. He is not worth the mention on this blog. It is the reader who must make a distinction -- whether to trust a columnist, ever. I would say, never.

Every columnist is a Phundit, to some degree. I am not outside of that sphere as well. It is easier when you are one among them to write about and speak about.

I have other updates to the blog coming up. Thanks for reading.

Responding to the blog: Ramarao Kanneganti

If I had more time, I would have written a more thoughtful response to the blog that Viplav wrote. Of course, I was confused as to how torespond. I could respond as Ramarao Kanneganti about the inaccuracies inportrayal (for example, I did lift bricks and so on). Or fallacies inlogic (Does truth depend on whether I covet a BMW, or struggling to payfor health care bills?) But then, it could have been ego satisfying, butnot particularly interesting.

I could have responded as a "new intellectual", but the definition proved much elusive. The post has a bunch of statements about "newintellectual", with only some of the statements demonstrably valid forme. In any case, the only statement that resonated with me is that I am depending on limited amount of information to make pronouncements. The rest are either red herrings or plain fantastic.

If I am accused of coming to a decision with little information thanavailable, I agree. But then, it is the process of decision making aidedby statistical inferencing, monotonic reasoning, and backed by an incremental weltanschauung. There is a strong precedence for it. Infact, if there is anything I am an authority on, it would be that -- my PhD thesis is about such models and reasoning.

Lest you all should think I am too smug, I am constantly aware that that my model is incremental (at times, parts of it invalidated throughlearning), and work to incorporate any new knowledge into my world view.Through my experiences I am aware that more information does not always been different judgment. Or, information can provide different "wisdom"in different people.

In any case, there is a name for what I do, or what I am: it is called"intellectual gadfly". I am not an intellectual. I am so painfully awarehow people mistake my playful, ahem, brilliance with intellectual discourse.

I would have very much liked if he had written how I am much mistaken about virasam Ban. At least it could have been an illuminatingdiscussion. I could have said why I did not condemn the arrest of NVenugopal or Vara vara Rao or Kalyan Rao. I could have said why "choice"is not the motivating factor, if any. I could have said lot of otherthings.

Instead, this analysis leaves me in an unenviable position: defend myself and come across as a egotistical blow hard; not defend myself andappear as all that I am accused to be. Ignoring it is the easiest optionthat anybody would advocate, but somehow I could not do it, perhaps outof past impression of the author:-).

--
Rama