"The New Kashmir"

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/07/08/the-new-kashmir-anger/


This blogger here attributes Kashmiri unrest to economic concerns. Really, blogger, really??

Even if we did, in a distorted and hypothetical world, accept this premise, what exactly do we think LED to the economic devastation of the valley? A few things off the top of my distracted and multitasking head: the flight of hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris because of religious persecution; trade routes being cut off by regional interests; oh, I don't know, maybe even the terrorist training camps set up by the LET and Al Qaeda.

Sick of the misinformation spreading about Kashmir. Scholastic/academic views much too often trivialize the tribulations of all Kashmiris and most importantly, their disinterested analysis does no one any good. Let's be real - Kashmiris need to be more politically involved (through LEGITIMATE MEANS) if there is to ever be a solution. Kashmiris themselves have given up on government advocacy and lobbying -- something that is putting us all very behind. Losing faith in the system has only hurt the KP community.

Before there can be a solution, the problem needs to be truthfully identified. And it seems like way too many people need help with that.

More info on the Russian spies

http://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-49744420100629

Such an interesting story. Had been followed them for years but the US decides to come down on them NOW, amidst US-Russia talks and joint

Obama-Medvedev appearances (he was in Cupertino last week!). Wonder what this means for relations and for our spies in Russia!

Meghana Dhar
Sent from my iPhone

Kal Penn vs. Joel Stein

Joel Stein's article in the latest Time describes the demographic shift in Edison, New Jersey and in the process, highlights ethnic norms and pokes fun at racial stereotypes. He references the "dot-heads" and mentions gods with multiple arms and an elephant nose. He discusses his past in Edison and compares it with the current, Indian-ized town. 

In a word, Stein engages in socio-cultural satire. 

Unfortunately, that's not how Indians across the country have taken it. 

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) has issued a public statement and online petition condemning Stein's words. Specifically, it reads, "most offensive is his remarkably blasé tone about the discrimination and hate crimes that targeted the New Jersey South Asian Community during the 1980s." 

Similarly, Kal Penn wrote a sarcastic piece in a HuffPo earlier today that essentially calls Stein a racist and is defensive in its tone. I'll be the first to admit that I've grown up with a crush on Kal Penn (since "American  Desi"...) and I'm a huge fan, but his article was a huge blow to his persona for me. If Kal claims himself to be an intellectual, then why isn't he deconstructing the essence of the post and instead dwelling in the superficial nonsense that Stein usually spews (I've read his columns for years now, and they are all emphasized by his slapstick sarcasm and bizarre cultural or social references). 

Here's my point. All of that stuff is true. Stein doesn't lie nor does he display the race in a negative way. Instead, he references terms and facts that have been construed as negative or offensive. Penn's narrative functionally asks you as the reader to condemn any references to the dot-busting incidents of the 80's (which are IMO of vital importance to the diaspora of the South Asian in America) and chooses miniscule battles of Stein's wordings and references instead of seeing the bigger picture. 

To take it a step further, I find Stein's rhetoric as oddly space-making and emancipatory for the race. Why can't we as South Asians embrace our immigrant history, our assigned stereotypes to create and revolutionize our identities as South Asian Americans? Instead, why are we becoming sensitive to our racial positionings, or even worse, taking it in the wrong way? This hinders our progress and distracts us from the bigger questions and the path of racial and cultural understanding within the American framework. 

As a matter of fact, Kal Penn is the last person to be criticizing racial stereotypes. As Taj Badalandabad in Van Wilder (remember that?) he played on EVERY SINGLE Indian stereotype in the book for his role; he's presented himself as the normative "South Asian" in almost every role he's had (from 24, to NYPD Blues, the Namesake) and built his career off of the ethnicizing of the South Asian. 

I stray from my point though: I think there IS racial and cultural space within American society for the South Asian. Although Kal Penn may not know this, he's one of the figures that has played ping-pong with his media-racial identity, and I think it's ended well for him and for us. Characters are portrayed in the media now as mainstream more than foreign (for example, compare Apoo from the Simpsons who was the stereotypical Indian with his thick accent and funny name, to Aziz Ansari's Tom Haverford in Parks and Rec, who is known first for his quirky character and only much later in the series, as being a South Asian). Stein's playful references, however interpreted, are actually a sign of South Asians becoming relevant to American society and an integral part of its ethnographic array. I think, therefore, that a lot of this anger is misplaced and that we as a culture/race/ethnicity need appreciate these public mentions as forums through which we are "normalized" and simultaneously accepted for our cultural quirks. 


Most importantly, Stein ends his article by ironically drawing lines of similarities between young Indians and the more established Italians from the area (by again drawing on another racial stereotype of the "Guido): "gold chains, gelled hair, unbuttoned shirts. In fact, they are called Guindians." Yes, I can be petty and talk about how hurt I am, along with the nation of Italy. But honestly, I think of this as a full circle for Stein - he sees things changing superficially, but ultimately, sees the similarities in the EDISON culture that DEFIES racial lines. 

Penn compares Stein's remarks to Jewish or African American jokes and hints that they should be treated just as gravely as racial attacks. Kal, in the article, Stein also alludes to being a transvestite hooker....

Yea.

PS: there go my chances with Kal Penn. <3 <3 <3 :(

dammit! 


PS: I understand that a lot of Indians/South Asians disagree with my points, and I'm happy to hear your views. 

Food for thought.

A source in BP says it may need to raise $50 billion go cover costs related to the disaster according to Businessweek. This means BP might have to consider selling some of it's assets, which work in favor of the US' geopolitics. (for ex: energy resources from strategically important regions such as Azerbaijan). This is something the US hasn't been able to do itself. Selling could very seriously jeopardize strategically sensitive energy assets.
So is destroying BP both in the public opinion and in their bank rolls REALLY in our national interest? Something to consider.

Meghana Dhar
Sent from my iPhone

Where Israel Stands with Turkey

After the flotilla incident, Turkey has definitively begun facing eastward. We see in previous years that Turkey wanted to join the EU and become part of the Western culture of politics. After it was grouped out and denied membership, and specifically after the Gaza raid, Turkey started talking more to the Middle East and establishing its power there. Eight Turks were killed in the Gaza incident and without claiming state sponsorship of the flotilla, Turkey is responding severely and deliberately.

Turkey shut down its airspace to Israeli military flights and has condemned Israeli brutality and the blockade. As a secular, representative democracy with a 99% Muslim population, Turkey is placed in a very interesting position geopolitically.

 Apparently the two met yesterday for secret talks, pressured by Obama. I'm interested to see which side Turkey lands up on.

(The map shows Israel's attack paths to Iran and what countries it has to go through)

McChrystal, COIN, and Pakistan

None of us can forget the tell-all Rolling Stone article  in which McChrystal deployed the unwise military tactic known as shooting oneself in the foot. Besides displaying insubordination and a definitive lack of PR tact, McChrystal also highlighted through the interview a fundamental problem that existed under his command. Self-absorbed and war-hawkish, he proved to us that he could not be a capable leader of the Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan (known as COIN).


The original intent of COIN was to develop a symbiotic relationship between the military and non-military organizations, underscoring the importance of social, political, and economic functions in the re-stabilization process. If McChrystal can't hold his mouth about his political counterparts such as Joe Biden, there is absolutely no way he is working effectively with them to instate COIN and stabilize the region. Fareed Zakaria points out that Petreus always made public appearances with the Ambassador and respected his civilian counterparts. At the end of the day, both McChrystal and Petreus were calling the shots in their respective regions -- McChrystal's inability to "play the game" indicates that he truly wasn't willing to diminish military control in an effort to actually save Afghanistan.


COIN as a military strategy also needs to be revised for Afghanistan. The country has less money and a longer history of war than Iraq, and most importantly, its insurgency is homegrown. Pashtuns are 50% of the population and 100% of the insurgency - pulling a McChrystal and trying to kill or eliminate these people is an unwise and unattainable goal. Instead, Petreus needs to redirect McChrystal's war efforts with the Pashtuns and begin making deals. Like the Good Friday agreement of 1988 in which the British established the Northern Ireland Assembly  and essentially got the insurgents to lay down their weapons for a seat on the political table, Petreus needs to work on bringing insurgents into the folds of government before and tactical change will be effective.


Finally, this brings me to my last point. Last week, the London School of Economics published a paper in which researchers discovered that the Afghani Taliban is funded and trained by the Pakistani ISI (equivalent of our CIA). Although this was assumed for a very long time, by finding verification amongst Taliban leaders, the LSE provides invaluable insight for Petreus to plan his next steps. We now know that the problem doesn't stop at Afghanistan and that Pakistan has a vested interest in seeing its neighbors unstable. Pakistani intelligent remains the world's biggest threat today. 


My opinion? Enough is enough. America needs to take a hard stance against the two-faced game we're seeing from Pakistan and superficial negotiations like this one can't cut it. Without Pakistan as a committed partner, the ridiculous war we're in doesn't have a full stop.


Petreus has a long and hard job ahead of him.


....back to the books. Ciao.

Stop shifting the oil-blame

With the Gulf oil spill hogging headlines and dictating domestic (and apparently, foreign) policy, everyone is looking for a scapegoat. In last week’s BP congressional hearings, America found one: the cherry-cheeked, sharp-tongued CEO, Tony Hayward. While Democrats and Republicans threw away partisan battles and united in their shared victory over the alleged gruesome malfeasances of British Petroleum, a thought couldn’t help but cross my mind: are we being a little hasty? With midterm elections coming up and each side looking to prove a point and exploit a national crisis, I began to wonder where the line between proper investigation and McCarthy-style blame-shifting was blurred and when America could take responsibility for a disaster that it, too, was responsible for.

To be frank, the media coverage surrounding the spill has seemed absurd and misguided to me. The undue pressure on Obama to “show more emotion” and take a strong national (read: federal) stance has put the president in an awkward place where he is forced to shift priorities and show face in front of a disaster over which he has no control or expertise. He cancelled his long-awaited trip to Indonesia because of nationalist cries for him to remain at home. In an interview, he stated he’s looking for “ass” to “kick” in order to find a culprit in the oil crisis. The office of the President is NOT Chuck Norris and forcing Obama to take a Bible-belt ass-kicking mean-mugging bad boy position against corporations is not the solution – specifically, it is part of the problem. More importantly, this is not part of the executive duty. Obama should not be focused on creating a façade of control in the domestic crisis over which he and his office have little ot no control over (nor should they). He should not be sacrificing foreign policy over the oil spill and he definitely should not be wasting his time trying to kick BP’s ass.

In no way do I support BP’s careless actions (including their copy-pasted disaster guide which was clearly not tailored for the Gulf) or the total natural destruction that has happened as a result of their profiteering. But to me, this is a simple example of political economy at play. Specifically, the effect of for-profit capitalism working in hand with big government aimed to regulate.

To understand my framework, you have to accept that it is a corporation’s goal and natural inclination to maximize revenue and minimize costs; this, of course, being done to the extent to which externalities do not outweigh profit. That would obviously be capitalism in a sentence. But, the key factor in my opinion, isn’t BP’s profit-chasing; rather, it’s the Federal Government (specifically, the Minerals Management Service) that is responsible for LETTING BP get away with this case of marine murder.  

In September 2008, reports were released by the Inspector General of the Interior Department that implicated over a dozen MMS officials of unethical and criminal conduct while performing their duties. They were having sex with energy company representatives and using recreational drugs with them at parties.  In May 2010, another investigation revealed that MMS had allowed BP officials to fill in the inspection reports in pencil, over which the regulators would trace in pen before submitting. MMS officials accepted meals, sporting event tickets, and gifts from oil companies. As the New York Times put it, the MMS was "a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere” since it was put in place during the Bush-era.

If the regulatory agency itself fails, why are we holding BP solely responsible for the larger and inevitable failings of capitalism? After all, it’s BP’s simple market objective to maximize its earnings – in its corporate framework, it IS a zero-sum game. And, it’s the simple job of the (very large) government we have to regulate that game. If the government fails, it’s natural for BP to take advantage and play off the books. Our system is meant to work because there is oversight, and it’s the comfort of that oversight within which we reconcile our hesitations about corporations to begin with.

I’m not blaming Obama – if anything, it was Bush who started the MMS and his legacy which perpetuates in its culture. I am, however, criticizing American government for failing to accepting its own mistakes and refusing to step off its perch of moral hierarchy. Yes, BP screwed up, big time. But no, Tony Hayward should not be allowed to become the political Satan of America because that will prevent the government from looking inwards and making regulatory reform. Mindless scapegoating and media pressure on Obama to keep the face that they want will continue to hurt the government and blindfold Americans only further.