Friday, December 12, 2008

India: post the Mumbai tragedy

So what will come out of Mumbai for most Indians? In my opinion, not much.

The attacks on Mumbai tread on new political and symbolic ground: the strategic locations of each attack indicate a new sort of terrorism. The points of attack, if you look carefully, take the shape of a circle, as to indicate full control of South Mumbai - they got the city covered from all angles. The attacks on the Taj and Oberoi show a focus on upper-crust society and are ripe with symbolism - overcoming the rich oppressor, targeting the foreigners, and making social commentary throughout....it's all classic anti-establishment action that, IMO, makes an important point.

The face of terrorism is morphing and beginning to permeate into new territories. My question in this post, then, is, how will the Indian government respond?

Unfortunately, from what I understand of Indian politics (which is very little...), response will be too little, too late. As a matter of fact, the attacks seem to be used overwhelmingly as a campaign tool for the upcoming elections. BJP vows hard-line action against terrorist hubs in Pakistan, and Congress has been rushing to fulfill campaign promises that were ignored until now. It seems that public opinion is shifting towards the BJP.

Warmongering is easy (and popular) post-crisis (Afghanistan, Iraq?), but in this situation, taking a hardliner stance against Pakistan and possibly attacking is a horrible idea - it will be diplomatic and strategic suicide. Right now, India needs to build its relationship with Pakistan, assisting Pakistan to eliminate the terrorist hubs being bred within its borders and working to end what currently seems to be an unstoppable force. Politically, Pakistan needs to be viewed not as an aggressor state, but a failed state that is not promoting terrorism, but simply unable to end it.

I think Professor Manoj Mate from Boalt put it best. At a panel last week, he discussed that instead of looking outward, it's time for India to look within. Bureaucratic proceedings, unenforced anti-terrorism laws, unbounded and brazen corruption, and ill-trained commandos/police have cumulatively led to a security policy that is in shambles. (Israel criticized India's slow and inefficient response)

Before implementing a serious international agenda, India needs to start reconstructing the legal and political framework that is necessary for a proper implementation of its legislation. As of now, that's simply not happening. Mate argues that the laws are in place and the constitution is clear - it's a political restructuring is necessary in order for real change.

The attacks also become relevant in an economic perspective. In the past five years, the Indian economy has been growing at an annual average rate of 8.8%, boosted mostly by services and manufacturing. Recently, though, after the global credit crisis and attacks on Mumbai, the economy is taking a hit - the stock market has been sliding, capital is hard to come by, and foreign investor and consumer confidence has dipped to a recent low.

One of my older blog posts compared democratization to economic viability. Although that wasn't a technical analysis, it appears that India's democracy is starting to fail itself (For reference).

There's an interesting article in this week's Economist that touches on this issue. It brought up a lot of points that Prof. Mate discussed, but focused more on India's place in the economic superstructure of the global marketplace. It concludes by prescribing India to focus on, most importantly, implementation of its legislation.

Machiavelli said in "The Prince" that the two most essential foundations for any state are sound laws and a strong military. He did not foresee, however, the modern face of terrorism and the state failure that could ensue....before considering legal or military strength, a truly effective state needs to focus on transparency and enforceability.

Monday, September 29, 2008

A Discourse on Kashmir....

As of late, socio-political, religious, and ethnic underpinnings have been surrounding our campus. Whether it be through the Senate (where I've now grown accustomed to rhetorical extravagances) or actions of student organizations (the recent graffiti incidents), I've noticed that students' belief in their cultural identity encourages and prompts much of what they choose to do here at Berkeley and even afterwards. Sure, that's a fair strategy - I do believe that our own genealogical histories (rightfully) influence our views/actions today. But I also DON'T believe that those views should overwhelm our sense of righteousness, justice, or equity. So, basically, I call for perspective.

On the note of perspective, I'd like to take the time to engage in an analysis of what I believe to be an (undeservingly) underrepresented and ignored part of the world politik: Kashmir. I was prompted to write this article about a month ago because of a NYT op-ed (read this after your read my article pls: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27mishra.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) that showed immense ignorance about the other side of the story. Being a Senator and student gave me little time to begin....so this post has really been a long time coming.

The Op-Ed claims that the Indian government has functionally
sponsored terrorism in the Kashmir area by suppressing the nonviolent rebellion of Kashmiri Muslim demonstrators. The writer claims that the presence of increased Indian troops promotes fear and unrest amongst the 4 million Kashmiri Muslims that reside in Kashmir today.

These facts I cannot
deny - indeed, Indian troop presence is high, and currently, the state of Kashmir is somewhat comparable to Lacan's idea of the perpetual State of Emergency; excuses are constantly being made to maintain military control over Kashmir and this causes unrest and vocalized calls for an Independent Kashmir. But claiming that the Indian government is helping breed terrorism is a whole different ballgame. Making such radical claims without a true understanding of the history of Kashmir and Kashmiri Hindus makes the argument too empty and historically inept to mean anything at all.

Kashmiri Hindus (aka Kashmiri Pandits) are not a loud voice in the impact
calculus of the state because, frankly, most of them have been killed. In 1989, terrorists began moving into Kashmir and radicalizing the Muslim population there, breeding divide amongst the religions. In the past, the Hindu-Muslim split was peaceful, if anything, and the religious differences were overcome by cultural similarities. With ample funding and weaponry, however, terrorists got a grip on the region and began pogroms against the Hindu minority - women were raped, men were hanged in their front yards, and children were killed on the spot. 350,000 Kashmiri Hindus fled their home of thousands of years and dispersed amongst India....a vast majority of them, wielding no financial or political power outside of Kashmir, were left helpless and eventually placed in Refugee Camps in Jammu, India. Most of these refugees still live in the camps, as their ancestral property and businesses have been seized. The diaspora of Kashmiri Hindus to the rest of the world is evident of a forced evacuation. Of these evacuees, my extended family members were present. My parents' ancestral home was sold under duress for pennies....they were considered lucky - most Pandit property was seized and claimed by terrorists.

I've come to terms with not ever being able to see where I'm truly from because o
f my religion....it's something I, and my family, have to accept. Kashmir is not safe for Hindus anymore, and it won't be for a long time to come. But it hurts all the more when people misconstrue the facts and ignore the history that so definitively impacts me and those important to me.

The author also refers to Hindus living in Kashmir (currently, about 20 families remain...and are alive only because of HEAVY Indian troop protection) as "occupation." The historical misconstruction here is unbelievable. In 1948 (after India's independence), the King of Kashmir (Maharaja Hari Singh) signed an agreement to join India, and this was verified by the United Nations. The Hindus that still live in Kashmir can in no way be seen as occupying....the use of that word undermines the entire history of Kashmiri Pandits in the first place.

The Jihad in Kashmir isn't growing because of Indian involvement (as Mishra claims) - the Jihad in Kashmir has already grown and conquered. The genocide of the Kashmiri Pandits and the fleeing from their homeland is what I see as a success for the Jihadis. I can personally attest to it.

But I also believe that sitting and shifting blame can get us nowhere. India and Pakistan aren't at fault - terrorists are, and this is a fact that the whole world is dealing with right now. Solutions to the Kashmir issue need to engage in bilateral communication and talks. Kashmiri Hindus need to have a say in the ultimate decision on the political status of Kashmir, regardless of their (now) reduced numbers. They are as Kashmiri as the others. And who's to say that granting Kashmir total independence won't foster even more terrorism in general, and brutalities against Kashmiri Hindus specifically?

These are the questions I wished to pose and the information I sought to put out there for you to read. I think this is something people need to be made aware about, and so I hope that this blog post will serve as educational; I hope you will be interested in the plight of Kashmiri Hindus or Kashmir in general - and I'd encourage you to go online and read more about it. At the same time, I want to reemphasize perspective. This history is something that is part of my perspective; but is NOT my only perspective. It's one of the many realities that I take into account when analyzing situations, politics, people, places. Worth a share, IMO.

Your thoughts?

Oh, and I wrote an Op-Ed to the NYT in response to Mishra's article. If you care to see it, let me know; I'll email it to you.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Cold War II?

"This is not 1968... where[a country] can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government, and get away with it. Things have changed." - Condoleezza Rice (8/13/08) commenting on the Russia-Georgia conflict

“We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War." -Dimitri Medvedev

With Russian troops still occupying Georgia and both Russia and the US threatening each other with a war of actions (think: Poland missile planting) and words (see above), I begin to wonder how much is "all talk" (as claimed by most political analysts) and how much is realpolitik.

There is substantial reason for a second Cold War and Russia now has the monetary underpinnings to support the economics of a Cold War. Putin, who still drives Russian fopo, has been setting this up, IMO, for years. The question is, will political will overtake 2 decades of foreign policy building that was so fundamentally based anti-Cold War political and economic development? Too much of the international status quo is based on the aftermath of the Cold War. Well, of Cold War II actually happening, I'm not sure. But I'm sure that Russia is ready:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4615158.ece



With not much to lose, and int'l hegemony to reassert, I don't see what there is to stop it from happening.

Thoughts?

Oh, and the Condoleezza quote is to be taken ironically......the double standards are unbelievable.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

China - the winner or loser in 2008?


As we all witnessed this past Friday (08.08.08 at 8:08pm), the opening ceremony to the Olympics in Beijing, China, was a spectacle uncontested in its beauty, technology, and showmanship. Coming out of the newly built, energy efficient flower-shaped stadium, China showed to the world its new face and claimed its stake in the run to become a big player in international politics. With an economic growth rate of 7% (the highest in the world), China has proven to the world that economic development can come through an unusual political institution (in this case, a highly repressive, undemocratic one), throwing aside the theories of political economists that have been developing for the past century or so.

My question is this: can all of these theorists be THAT wrong? At what cost does China's political repression help it, and what consequences does it hold for the country? Is it worth the tradeoff?

I don't know much. But from what I've read and understood, China is on a dangerous path of destruction. I know this isn't what you're used to hearing about - every news channel, political scientist, and economist is claiming that China and India are the new world giants. But I have to concur with the papers I've read on this issue to say this: political institutions DO matter, and a repressive regime cannot go far without finally taking blame for its human rights violations and making right its dozens of wrongs. I don't know how long China will continue with its economic boom

A cause that I feel very strongly about is that of Tibet. For the past 50 odd years, Tibet has been facing what the Dalai Lama called "cultural genocide" by the Chinese. After the PCR staked its "claim" on Tibet based on ancient land holdings, Tibet has been torn by Chinese control and domination. Sure, the Chinese have worked on modernizing an otherwise backwards Tibet, but they've done this highly strategically: they've built malls and centers that are run by ethnic Chinese, created job opportunities for the educated (i.e., the Chinese), and created a modern railway line between Tibet and China which functionally only brings people from China into Tibet (the numbers are amazing - the train is virtually empty on its way to China, and EVERY car is filled coming into Tibet). As native Tibetan culture is slowly eradicated by the influx of immigrants, more and more Tibetans flee to India and Southeast Asia.

The biggest tragedy lays with the Buddhist monks, though. When the Dalai Lama had to flee under disguise to Dharamsala, India because he was considered a political enemy, thousands of monks left with him to India. Those that stayed behind are subject to torture, random imprisonment, and sometimes death. Chinese officials force monks to disavow their allegiance to the Dalai Lama and pledge it only to the Chinese state. When they refuse, they are beaten, tortured, or killed.

The Tibetan cause is a small one, but one that is very symbolic to me. How can we, as a global populace, be supporting and encouraging the growth and development of a nation so against everything that we supposedly stand for? (after the Afghanistan and Iraq, though, who knows what we stand for...) It frightens me that the Tibetan voice is so readily suppressed by the Chinese state and the the population is coming closer to eradication by a country that has no legal stake over its land. At this point, Tibetans have given up the hope of a free nation, but only ask for the freedom of cultural expression. As the Dalai Lama said in 2007, "what we demand from the Chinese authority is more autonomy for Tibetans to protect their culture."

As the world looks towards China in the next few weeks during the Olympics, I hope you will join me in looking away. Think about the voices that are unheard, the censorship of Chinese press, the oppressive regime that continues to kill thousands who speak up against the government and has put in place an institution that may not be far away from Stalinist policies. Tibet's Olympic team wasn't allow to participate in the Olympics this year, because it isn't recognized by the Chinese government as a sovereign nation.

The economic prosperity of China is one thing, but its politics of repression and autocracy is a whole different thing. So, again, the question remains if this nascent economic power will have the political strength to support its current developmental capabilities as the Chinese population becomes more educated, aware, and desirous for change.

Thoughts?


EDIT: ok, so let me provide you with a more technical analysis of this, based on some of the comments I've gotten. I believe that the Chinese state doesn't have the institutions to allow all groups representation (a la PEIS 101). So basically, Chinese tools are largely repressive, and it's only up to a certain point that you can use them and maintain social peace.

They don't have the political institutions to deal with social unrest. As of now, they've channeled all their social tensions into nationalism (think: OLYMPICS) to hold together groups split by the experience of industrialization. The real question is, then, how long can that last.

A historical example comes to mind: the Soviet Union post 1970s. Between 1928 and 1970, the USSR faced economic hypertrophy, where it was growing at huge proportions to transition from an agrarian to an industrial society. After the 1970s, however, they didn't know where to go. Social unrest was increasing, there were diminishing marginal returns on their capital (they had picked all the easy economic fruits), and they weren't innovating because of the population stagnation. Could this happen with China as it finally outgrows itself?

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Notes from the I-House

So I decided to venture to the I-House (international house) for the first time the other day to get some studying done. I started writing this post, so clearly, that didn't happen. Here is what came to mind when sitting there:


What happened to the intellectualism of Berkeley?! What happened to the eclectic liberalism that defined [and arguably, continues to define] our campus? What happened to Berkeley as the world once knew it?

Whenever I enter the library or a coffee shop, the only thing I see are laptops, readers, or MCAT prep books. Rarely do I notice that lone intellectual, smoking a cigarette and reading philosophy, or debating about politics with a friend. Instead, I see masses of pre-proffessionals, fightings the curves and beating the system. I don't see real protests on Upper Sproul anymore; I see organized time allocations from 12-1pm for people to express their concerns. The spirit of Berkeley is withering away as academia prevails and education retreats.

Somewhere in me, the intellectual screams out and I want to join that dying minority. After all, it's why I came here. I had gotten into plenty of other schools, but it was the idea of Berkeley, being amidst the political core of perhaps the nation, and experiencing firsthand the revolution that supposedly resides within its students that made me want to come to the university (sure, the prospect of job positioning post-graduation didn't hurt either). That very quickly changed after my first semester here. Instead of rediscovering the love for knowledge and education that I had encountered with my friends and teachers at my high school, I was weighed down with textbooks, petty assignments, overwhelming competition, and little regard for the pursuit of a real education. I was too busy to care and too bent on getting an A to worry about appreciating my readings or understanding a certain historical context. Sometimes I feel that the conversations I had in high school had more meaning than they do anymore....so is my propensity to engage in education dying here then? I certainly hope not.

I don't mean to critique Berkeley in a vacuum - I know for a fact that it's just as bad [if not worse] at other universities. What I do mean to point out is that I hold my school to a higher standard of intellectual fitness. I want the revolution back in Berkeley, and I'm worried that as time goes on and I become a professional, I'll be co-opted by the residual stream of pragmatism; something I don't think I'm ready for yet, and I don't think college students should have to face....a questioning of that pragmatism is what defines, IMO, the true elite students in a university.

It saddens me that I didn't realize this earlier. We often get so caught up with our friends, our social events, and our "education", that we lose track of the truly defining moments that can only be placed within our college experience. I certainly fell victim to that. My social and academic life defined my entire experience here and that is something I'm going work on for the upcoming school year.

Take a step back. Notice the people around you and how much you can learn from them. Sitting here in the I-House, I discovered a whole new side to Berkeley, where I am inspired by the diversity of the people who walk through the doors, and simultaneously excited to take in as much as I can from them and their experiences. Just sitting in the FSM reminds me of the University that I came here for....and the University I want to take away when I graduate.

One of the reasons I ran for Senate last year was because I wanted to be a part of the spirit of Berkeley....I can't wait to leave my mark in a history that is so rich and so inspiring to me. And fuck school....I'm going work very hard on getting my education next year.

[EDIT: ok, not exactly. i still need > 3.7. but you know, with some Marx on the side.]

Saturday, July 12, 2008

The shifting interpretations of Barack Obama

So, we all know that Barack Obama is the harbinger of progressivism, change, hope, and everything else pink and pretty in this world. Of late, however, there's been a lot of talk about him being a hypocrite / a neo-Bush.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Read up:
  1. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/barack_w_bush.html
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13liberal.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Then of course, there's the infamous Jesse Jackson scandal. During an interview in which he threw his full support behind Obama and his policies, Jackson was caught whispering to his co-speaker that Obama "talks down to black folk" and that Jacksons wants to "cut his nuts off." Take a look:



The ideas that Obama is not a true progressive, is regressing into standard Washington hard-line politics, and is antagonizing his voter base are circulating amongst voters and people are threatening to vote McCain or Green.

Relaxxxxx, morons. Yes, Obama rejected public financing and yes, supported the SC's 2nd amendment decision (which, IMO, was constitutionally sound....don't hate me?), but YES, he's running to be the PRESIDENT. Its important that progressive voters keep in mind that his voting record has been consistent and his ideals unchanging. As November approaches, it's only natural for Obama to try and paint himself as the more moderate and central politician that undecided or independent voters will support. When people seriously threaten to vote Green, I worry for their sanity. How can you sleep at night knowing you supported the biggest freakshow of them all, Ralph Nader?

Not to digress. There was also the issue that Obama supported Bush's FISA bill, which key democrats like Hillary Clinton opposed in the senate. Don't be misguided by the little information that Fox News provided you with. The bill obviously supports the Bush administration's wiretapping capabilities, but it is still a compromise bill that advocates a decrease in personal liberty intervention. IMO, Obama's support for the bill shows nascent bridge-building capabilities. We all know that Clinton would have had superior political capital over the legislative bodies as president; I think that Obama is working very hard to do that too, and that's apparent through this vote. FISA is fundamentally an anti-terrorism bill, and Obama also has to show himself as tough on terror because that is a Republican stronghold.

Finally, I believe that Obama's label as a solely "Black" president needs to be dimmed, if not removed altogether. Jesse Jackson's comments come at a very bad time for Obama's campaign and his already disunited Black base has another reason to question their vote. Let me put it bluntly. I agree that voting on principle defines one's morality or political equanimity....but a vote for Nader is a throwaway and a vote for McCain makes no sense for a liberal. Who better to support progressive and liberal ideals than Obama? Let's not be too quick to judge him based on headlines and think about the trend that he'll set and the doors he'll open for real change.

The point is, true progressive voice won't be immediately heard in Washington, if ever in the near future. Removing support from Obama only ensure more failure for a true liberal agenda - the voice would be sent very quickly to the Guantanamo of free speech if McCain wins the election. Recently, some extreme leftists put about $100,000 in an escrow fund for Obama, claiming to give him the money only if he stays true to his liberality. Is that money worth the hundreds of thousands of votes and dollars he could get from centrists? Or is it more important for him to stick with his loudest and previously most supportive base?

Many say that Obama's campaign has been one clashing idealism with policy-making. Here, Obama has to make a very big decision on how he wishes to proceed with his campaign to secure the Oval Office come November. This is the tone that will certainly be overseeing his presidential term as well.

And ultimately, this is a question we all have to ask ourselves as well. When do you stop sticking to your principles and start pursuing ambition? Are both necessarily mutually exclusive?

As an idealist, I believe that principles are the core that define and promote your ambition. What do your successes and failures mean if they can't be put into a framework of typological meaning for yourself? Success may come and go, but its character that keeps you in perspective.

Something to think about.....

Sunday, July 6, 2008

A modern take on Gandhi....



"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


This summer, I've been trying to educate myself. It's something I like to do when I feel my intellect to be writhing under the weight of mathematical formulae and dates of historical power structures. Academia has the amazing ability of numbing your intellectual curiosity. So ya, my brain needs a little jump-start sometimes. I've been reading history books, classic literature and poetry, modern reflections, and counternarrative tales. I spend hours on Wikipedia reading about people, places, politics, and perceptions. I'm halfway through the Bhagawad Gita and I'm surprised that I called myself a Hindu without ever reading the text that virtually encapsulates its spirituality (BTW - it's an amazing and enlightening read. I would recommend it if you have about a year or so on your hands). Hopefully, this will all pay off and I will one day be able to legitimately call myself somewhat knowledgeable about the world - at least that will justify (or just solidify) all my opinions.

One book that has especially moved me is Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography, titled "My Experiments with Truth." Exploring the life of one of the most historic (and IMO, spiritually elite) men from his own perspective is a really unbelievable experience. Obviously, I was already familiar with Gandhi's interpretation of ahimsa, the principal of nonviolence that sets the tone of a lot of Hindu/Indian culture. And there was the idea of satyagraha, the "passive resistance" movements. But I picked up a lot more from Gandhi's narration; I'm going to share what I found relevant and inspiring because I believe that these principles applied to life and living are something worth taking note of. The quote at the top of the post, to me, sums up a lot about this philosophy: take a step back sometimes, and think. Don't get blind-sighted by your success or demoralized by your failures. Perspective.

Anyways, don't want to preach, so here: Gandhi, applied....

1. The truth. So this is one of Gandhi's favorites. This is what he lived his life by. Solely the truth. Now, I wish we could all do that - but when it comes to counting how may shots of tequila we took that one night or fluffing your resume up for that Deloitte internship, truth dissolves and fiction/lies/exaggeration take control. But we're all human, and to a certain extent, can't change that. IMO, perfectly adhering to the truth is impractical for most of us but Gandhi himself. My Interpretation: Be real. Be real about (and to) yourself, your friends, your activities, and your relationships. And the hardest part about that is knowing and understanding yourself and telling yourself the truth. I struggle with it all the time, but I think trying this is the biggest potential accomplishment. Approach everything you do with sincerity and legitimately try to put all you've got into it; it'll make you feel a lot better about the results. If you start telling yourself the truth about your intentions, capabilities, and goals, you'll be on the way to a less conflicted mentality and healthier relationships with people around you.

2. Lead by example. Gandhi's message rested upon him willing to act on all of his principles and rhetoric; he always meant exactly what he said and was willing to do what it took to prove that. When the lower castes of India were being denied the opportunity to vote alongside the rest of the Indian public even after massive political movements spearheaded by Indian leaders, Gandhi resorted to a 21-day fast that proved successful. The only reason his movements of simplicity and boycotts worked, was because he himself lived and acted upon these ideals to the fullest. My Interpretation: Being a leader means living by your philosophy. There's no room for screwing up or being a hypocrite. It's your responsibility to motivate and encourage the people who believe in you, and make sure that their faith in you is justifiable. If any of you have read Dale Carnegie, you know where this comes from: don't criticize or condemn; an effective leader motivates by being the person that everyone wants to be and living the ideals that they strive to have. I've been in EXTREMELY demanding leadership positions this past year itself, and I've learned how important it is to be an admirable leader. I've had a fair amount of success, but don't get me wrong - I've messed up a lot. A lot. And most of that stemmed from my cockiness and unwillingness to see my faults. But that's a whole different story.....

3. Grassroots movements. Gandhi originally was not known for his work on the national level (surprise, right?); rather, he started in South Africa, working for a rich merchant who had financial issues with his brother. From there, he became active within the Indian community because of the high level of segregation and discrimination prominent amongst South Africans at the time. He began organizing the Indians in South Africa (they had been there for generations, but hadn't taken agency) and created the first Indian orgnization in South Africa. Actually, even when he moved back to India, he started small too - he went to the tiny area of Champaran to work with peasants who were being overtaxed by their British landlords. My Interpretation: I want to do huge things in life; we all do. But don't forget that everything big starts with everything small. For real and well-earned success, you always have to start at the bottom, and that's an admirable thing to do. Don't get caught up with the big picture when there's a long ladder to climb. Find the communities, people, and ideas that mean the most to you, and do something for them. Do it because you believe that it's the right thing to do and because you have the ability to do it. It might be small and it might go unnoticed by the majority of people, but if you did something that you believe was good and right, you did the best thing that you might ever do in your life.

4. Discipline. Gandhi, although born a vegetarian, at one point started eating meat under the influence of his friends. He soon stopped again because of his religion and his parents, and eventually became a Fruitarian, eating only raw fruits an nuts. He did this in an effort to reduce sensory gratification and focus only on bodily need. He also took a vow of celibacy to effectively end what he called "carnal desire." He exercised daily and slept minimally. He was a reeealllyyy disciplined man. My Interpretation: You've all heard it before: we live in a consumptive society and we're voracious for everything and anything.....it's true. I can't get enough of the mall, or Taco Bell, or my iPhone. But keeping control over your decisions and actions can mean a lot. Think about living without something that you are absolutely addicted to - and then do it. I'm a HUGE meat-eater - and so is my family and all ethnically Kashmiri people. After reading the book, I decided to go vegetarian. Just for the hell of it. And it's been really hard, but the concept of sticking to a decision for the sake of discipline is both rewarding and protein-deficient, I guess. Wake up an hour earlier every day to read or go to the gym, start making schedules, and prioritize your tasks. See your productivity boom. And you'll be a lot happier.

5. Make your voice heard. Gandhi always made sure that his opinion was heard. When he was disrespected at a train station in South Africa, he wrote to the manager expressing his dismay and call to action. When he was kicked off a horse carriage because he wasn't white, he sent a letter to the person in charge demanding reimbursement. He kept in touch with writers whom he admired and activists around the world. He even started his own newspapers when he was a mere attorney in South Africa, and later, in Gujurat (where he started voicing the national opinion). My Interpretation: We so often fall prey to notion that we are insignificant and can't create any substantial change. To a certain degree, that true. But being active and voicing your opinons/experiences is crucial to bringing social progress and real input to overwhelmingly mechanized systems. When you see something wrong, make that heard. Don't let laziness or fear or approbations deter your voice from being heard. It's the only we can hope for social awareness.

6. Nonviolence. We all know about Gandhi's passive resistance movements that led to Indian independence. Let's cut to My Interpretation: Ok, so clearly we can't passively resist facts of life. The other day, my roommate got an angry call from our landlord demanding a late fee for my late rent payment. Being in the middle of the book, I decided to passively resist this "clearly unjust" decision by simply not paying the fee. I think my landlord thinks I'm crazy and has stopped asking me for it. But really, I'm being incredibly stupid, and this is going to catch up with me sooner or later. How do I apply satyagraha to real life, then? First, having a fair and balanced (oh...I definitely just quoted Fox....) version of right from wrong. It may sound easy, but adequately developing your moral compass is one of the hardest things you'll do in your life and something you may die without accomplishing. But try. Once this is estimated, stick to what is right and don't get mad about what is wrong. Just try to fix it. Try and control your anger; it won't get you anywhere but further way from your friends and the people you love. Oh, and try going vegetarian. Some of those PETA ads are hot, and I'll take you shopping in Trader Joe's for veggie meat.

7. Humility. Gandhi never once forgot the people who helped him along the way. His brother, whose idea it was to send Gandhi to England to become a Barrister (because he had failed college entrance exams), received money from Gandhi for his family all along. Gandhi remained in touch which people from England and South Africa, and never forgot names. He even prefaced his book by saying:

If anything that I write in these pages should strike the reader as being touched with pride, then he must take it that there is something wrong with my quest, and that my glimpses are no more than a mirage. Let hundreds like me perish, but let truth prevail. Let us not reduce the standards of truth even by a hair's breadth for judging erring mortals like myself. (XII)

Unbelievable. My Interpretation: Don't get caught up in your success or cocky about your future. Remember that you are wherever you are only because of the dozens of people that helped you get there. I have lived this mistake most of life, and I'm trying to change myself. Be appreciative of everyone around you, your friends, your family, and the bitchy GSI that decides to give you an A. Smile at people you walk by. Be a pleasant person that listens to other people and engages in intelligent and thought-provoking conversations. Care about the people that love you and show that. Never forget that you are nothing without your friends and family. The mark you leave is only as good as those that helped you make it.

I posted these so that everyone who reads this could have an idea of what I strive to do and what is important to me and maybe, to you. Also, I felt that Gandhi’s philosophy has been highly watered down and degraded of its meaning - it deserved a revisiting.

So, all of this is highly loaded stuff. At the same time, I want to make my intentions clear: I believe that living strictly by Gandhi’s philosophy is neither practical nor desirable to people like me. That’s because Gandhi’s philosophy requires a total retreat from social constructs and disavowing of social practices and principles. Being a functional and active part of society (to a certain degree), makes us too easily co-opted to do Gandhi justice. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.

Another thing I learned from Gandhi’s history is to repel blind following - that’s just dogma, condensed. Following Gandhi blindly can’t do very much for us now, and if anything, could hurt us. Politically, Gandhi was not astute, and his belief in the truth made him overly trusting and thus, gullible.

And that’s another thing that is highly important and can’t be underestimated: being shrewd. Another thing I need to work on. Make you decisions according to the principles above, but never leave your business acumen behind or get overly caught up in ideals. We live in the real world, and the consequences are real. Unfortunately.

That's all. Till the next time I am bored of watching CNN's "best political team" cover no international or national politics but Obama and Mccain's salad preferences....
[Does no one care about the human rights crisis in Zimbabwe that the AU virtually condoned? South Korean rioting? Mongolia's state of emergency? Hezbollah? ]