America's Advice on Kashmir....

This blog post was mostly inspired by an op-ed from the Times of India two days ago. The article is incredible and I was completely shocked to see the reality of US foreign policy in regards to this issue. It seems that I was completely mistake in my previous article when I mentioned that news sources were reporting Obama would stay "silent" on the Kashmir "issue".

Instead, they're now supporting the "will of the people" in Kashmir, and advising both nations to create a demilitarized zone. This is incredibly obnoxious. I'm really surprised to hear such insensitivity out of the Obama administration.

What could the "will" of the Kashmiri people really be, when most of Kashmir residents are recent imports from either Pakistan or the Middle East? And I'm most shocked by once again, the insensitivity displayed by

Washington over Kashmiri Pandits and their exile from Kashmir. How can a plebicide be fair AFTER the departure of a large portion of the population due to terrorism. Also, a plebicide would also be inherently unfair to Kashmiri Hindus, who were always a minority in the region, but were still legitimate stakeholders in their state! That's like asking America to take a vote on whether or not people of British origin should stay here, where theye've lived for generations, or be deported to their country of origin.....

Maybe it's just ignorance....that's why I'd like to really commend my family friend Jeevan Uncle, along with his team, that travelled to DC for a briefing about the KP situation...but this clearly isn't enough. I have enough faith in Obama to be fair on this - but asking for a vote is handing Kashmir over to Pakistan. And demilitarizing the zone, as Obama has advocated for, functionally places the unhedged power with the terrorists (who are "stateless" and can NOT be officially demilitarized, unlike the Indo-Pak governments).

UGH! >.<

Israel compromises....or gets smart?

The Washington Post recently leaked that Netanyahu, Israel's conservative PM, will be delivering a speech on Sunday that yields on Palestinian sovereignty. I wasn't expecting this move so soon, especially from a member of the Likhud party. Although I've heard from various people (Gabe Weiner, who is currently in Israel, being one of them), that Obama's Jun 4th appeal to the Muslim world wasn't as poorly received in Israel and many perceive, I still am surprised that Netanyahu would concede so fast. I assumed that perhaps this is a result of Western-pandering that Israel knows it needs to do in order to gain political capital on the macrocosmic level. Or maybe Netanyahu is actually loosening his campaign promises in exchange for Obama-led pragmatism. Luckily, I was proven wrong when I saw the terms he outlined:

• Any Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without an air force, full-fledged army or heavy weapons.

• Palestinians may not sign treaties with powers hostile to Israel.

• A Palestinian state must allow Israeli civilian and military aircraft unfettered access to Palestinian airspace, allow Israel to retain control of the airwaves and to station Israeli troops on a future state's eastern and southern borders.

• Palestinians must accept Israel as a Jewish state, a nod to the hawkish side of Mr. Netanyahu's governing coalition that has raised concerns that the Palestinian Authority, which nominally governs the West Bank, does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Many liberal bloggers are saying that the Israeli PM is moving forward with agenda items that need much more foundation-building (and old-promise-fulfilling) to actualize. If this is true, then I say Netanyahu is doing exactly what he should be doing by appeasing to the relevant parties while still sticking true to his ideology. I don't necessarily think that Netanyahu is playing a political game as much as he is initiating a dialogue. I mean, let's be real....this is a strict (at best) set of demands, and its more symbolic than anything.

One interesting point in this is what many have been calling the "Obama Effect" and what part that may have played in the PM's decision to speak on this so soon. The Lebanese elections of this week, which brought to power a pro-Western coalition, along with the rise to prominence of presidential candidate Mousavi against the incumbent Ahmadinejad (the victory is claimed by both) indicates a new global pattern of Western acceptance, supposedly initiated by Obama's person and policy. (Whether or not I believe this is true is another thing.....sure, Obama is awesome and amazing, but I think the point here is that Bush was just THAT bad. Also, people should figure economics into it as well - with America not necessarily looming as an economic hegemon anymore, countries and diplomats might view its vulnerability sympathetically. For once, everyone (including America) is in the same boat, and so America need not be viewed as the threat it used to be). Indeed, imaginary borders have been deconstructed since Obama's election into office, and maybe Netanyahu's speech is a testament to this.

Regardless, I'm interested to see what the response will be from the Israeli right on this as well as from the American government. The PM's timing is impeccable - it'll be after the Iranian presidential victor is declared (so that its threat as a hostile nuclear power can be assessed and accommodated into the speech's content), and before any Arab nations have made a public speech on Israel-Palestine policy (correct me if I'm wrong?). I guess I'm also selfishly interested in this because it might dictate the tone Pakistan will take with India about Kashmir. Although Obama has said that he will not interfere with Kashmir, his handling of Israel and Palestinian "peace talks" will play a role in any decisions that may be made in Kashmir.

Anyways, on the whole, a job well-done, Netanyahu. Let's see what the future will bring. And more importantly, which, if any points, are even going to be put forth in the final compromise!

GM and the government

This is a little dated, but it's a topic I brought up on my twitter as it came out.

I'm extremely interested in the recent GM situation. Check out this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01auto.html?_r=2&hp.

In order to save GM, Obama took a 60% stake in the company. Although he assures critics that the government will take a silent backseat when it comes to corporate decision-making, the fact remains, that GM has been virtually "nationalized".

Is this a slippery slope, as conservatives are calling it? I wouldn't take it that far. But it certainly questions the face of capitalism and government-involved as undertaken specifically by Obama (yes, the bailouts began under Bush, but direct stakes in companies only began this year). Michael Useem, a professor of management at Wharton says in the article that this decision would "mean a new chapter in the history books on American capitalism." Indeed, silent backseat or not, we're facing heavy government involvement....maybe in a place that we don't want or need it.

As Robert Reich, a noted liberal economist, Professor at Berkeley, and the Secretary of Labor under Clinton, has said, this bailout is a waste of taxpayer money and pointless. (Ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-reich-the-gm-bailout-is-a-waste-we-need-a-post-manufacturing-economy-2009-6). This is somewhat true. Although GM, in its new strings of advertisements, are assuring potential consumers that it's being reborn, simple research is proving otherwise. One research group estimated that GM's market share is going to go down to 17% from a slipping 19% (GM predicted a healthy 18.5% in its own research). GM automobiles have more breakdowns and have a higher MPG usage than any Japanese car. Young consumers go straight to Japanese dealerships now instead of even considering American cars.

So, what kind of precedent does the government's involvement in GM set for corporate responsibility and financial strength? And, more importantly, are we trespassing a fine line that American capitalism was not set up to transgress?

Hmm. Political economy at its finest. Thoughts?

My final speech in the ASUC Senate

I haven't quite been keeping up to date with the blog. But, I'm done with school for the summer, and will be better about updating more often. I'll begin by providing below the speech I closed off my term as an ASUC Senator with. The speech is important to me because the Senate has been a life-changing activity that has made me believe stronger in some of my ideologies, and question many others.

The ASUC Senate is split into the two major parties, with some independents. You run for the position the year before, with your party and its executive cabinet candidates (President, Executive VP, Academic Affairs VP, and External Affairs VP). I ran with the party "Student Action" (see: http://www.studentaction.org/), a party committed to student initiatives and real results

for all students at all times. This past year, students voted for an interesting breakdown for the Senate - 8 Student Action senators, 8 of the opposing party, and 4 independents (making a total of 20). This meant an unbelievable deadlock in terms of votes - the 4 independents split up evenly: 2 for the opposition, and 2 for Student Action. (The 2 opposition "independents", as we soon learned, we actually members of the opposite party - 1 was almost slated to run with them, and the other was going to run for Executive Vice President with that party this year).

Anyhow, because of the breakdown of the Senate, we as senators, had to learn an incredible amount of deal-making and bargaining. It took us a long time - meetings often lasted from 7pm to 7 or 8am, because votes would be in absolute deadlock. Both parties were unwilling to budge on their ideals and insults and demeaning words were thrown around constantly.

The experience was rough, but it was still one in which I truly got the opportunity to develop myself - many times I used to leave Senate meetings upset at the illogical and victim-playing nature of the opposing party (which was a "progressive" party based on pockets of ethnic communities. When I voted down a bill that was financially irresponsible, I was called a racist and a sexist. My groups were attacked, I was insulted, and at times, I was scared for my life. Because I spoke up for my beliefs, interest groups would post videos and blogs about me as a person and a Senator; my identity as a Kashmiri Hindu was used to paint me as an "extremist"; and some even tried stalking me by getting my parents' home address.

But through the experience, I gained a few valuable things:

1). Developing my principles and ideologies.....and sticking with them in times of deep moral question.

2). Loyalty to the people of my party and my groups. If it wasn't for this, I would have no reason to pull through the long hours and hurtful words.

3). Conflict-resolution - Although I ended up being a controversial senator for my frank speeches and bold moves, I learned the value of listening to the other side and coming to a compromise (which is defined by NEITHER side being completely happy, as stated by Eddie once)

4). Being strong. Enough said. I've become invincible in my ideology and am unscathed through petty means such as insults, videos, blogs, or other propaganda used against me or my party.

5). Teamwork. I've built the best team of my life with some of the most intelligent, respectable people on Cal's campus. I'm honored to be their friend and colleague, and these are the people I hope to stay in touch with for the rest of my life. Quick shoutout: Will Smelko (for his calm and shrewd intelligence; and being one of my closest friends who I will always trust), Tara Raffi (for her passion and determination), Sheila Chen (for her meticulous perfection and diplomacy), Tu Tran (for being the most genuine and sincere soul I know till date....and being a robot), Yishi Zuo (for his to-the-point, no-nonsense attitude and his ability to be liked for it) , Eddie Nahabet (for being always being a friend when I needed it), and Sarah Cho (for being an unbelievable peacemaker and sticking to her principles when it was the hardest). I'd also like to make a quick reference to my friend and colleague John Moghtader (formerly of the Squelch party), who, although enduring a controversial term, was always there for me and taught me a lot about real politics and being resilient. I've seen all 8 of these people at their strongest and their weakest moments in the senate - and my respect for their demeanor and conviction has only increased. Love you guys :)

Anyways, this year proved to be a difficult one, but one that I am proud of and will never forget. Here is my final speech to the Senate that aptly conveys my sentiments:

Nothing short of a sermon can recapitulate the series of events that took place this year in the ASUC Senate. But amidst the petty bickering, party politics, and misplaced blame, there are a lot of lessons to be learned, that I hope the future senators here will take note of.

This year, I (along with other senators here) have been called elitist, over-privileged, racist, amongst other things. We’ve all felt upset, insulted, and demeaned at various times. Over-privileged? My parents left their homes in India and came to this country in ABJECT poverty; they worked, they studied, and they succeeded.

I’m privileged, yes, I’m lucky that my family got the opportunity here in America that they would have never had back in their home. I’m privileged to be happy and be getting a world class education here at Berkeley, just like everyone in the room. Instead of focusing on what holds us back, I wish we would look forward and thank everything that got us here, to where we are and where we will be.

Racist? Just because I ran with a certain party or cut funding for a financially irresponsible group, I am not a racist; actually, I am offended at how loosely that word has been thrown around this year. Actually, I’m much more conscious about that issue than many people may imagine.

As many of you know (and some of you have tried to use against me personally), I am a Kashmiri Hindu, a displaced minority in India.

In 1989, Kashmiri Hindus (who were a minority in the region) were forced to leave their home f thousands of years because of their religion – militants from across the border and within Kashmir sent notices to every Kashmiri Hindu family telling them to leave or be killed. Thousands were murdered in cold blood, also called a “soft ethnic cleansing”, there are now .09% Hindus left in their homeland, all the others were killed, fled, or now live in refugee camps across India. omen were raped, men were taken hostage to be tortured and made an example of, and families left their ancestral homes with nothing in their hands – 400,000 Kashmiri Hindus were killed or exiled that year.

As a minority myself, of a population that was ethnically cleansed out of their homes in Kashmir because they were Hindu – who now are .09% of Kashmir and have fled their homes to either out of India or to refugee camps – trust me, I know.

I will most probably, in my lifetime, not be able to see the place where ancestors lived. My ethnic history is so much deeper than many people assume and my OUR identity should not be tossed around, as it has, for political reasons by some people in this room. That’s wrong, mean, and insulting to my and our communities.

So, to the senators, to the people listening, but most importantly, to the future ASUC members, please remember to learn from our mistakes. Next year will be an opportunity for you to grow immensely and please use it to that effect. Do what you’re here to do- serve your communities, but most importantly, the entire cal campus. Sometimes, while we fought our partisan battles, we forgot to realize how inspirational, revolutionary, and unique each of the 20 of us in this room are. So next year, future Senators, appreciate the person sitting next to you, but also the person sitting across from you. Remember how hard all of you worked to get here and what that means in the grander scheme of Berkeley and life. Think before you speak; be thoughtful, be strong; but be wise and patient. Remember your first job is to help the campus, and what can be better to do that together, in unity. Thank you all for a great year.

Some pictures from the year:

The eight of us

Yishi, Sarah, Eddie, Sheila, and I with the Chancellor

With Tara

With Will

John, Tara, Will, and I with the Chancellor at his banquet

Celebrating at tabulations, when our party won the executive seats (Will won ASUC President)

The Student Action Senators before a Senate meeting in the Senate Chambers

Pakistan lets Hafiz Mohammad Saeed loose

The mastermind behind the 11/26 attacks on Mumbai, India, has been freed by the Pakistani government. I don't understand how there isn't more outrage over this. While the government is seeing the real effects of terrorism on its people with the Taliban in the NW frontier (students being kidnapped, amongst other incidents), how a known and convicted terrorist can be set free is beyond my imagination. 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=ecb9d665-fd48-4983-9423-d01627b461fb&Headline=Mumbai+attack+mastermind+Hafiz+Saeed+released+in+Pakistan