followup + link

Firstly, if in the previous post, I want to be clear that violent actions promoting religious isolationism has been highly bidirectional with guilty parties on all sides. Read this Wiki entry on the 2002 riots in Gujurat if you are not convinced (a bloody event that many are convinced was at least partially the motivation for the attacks in Mumbai).

Secondly, I plan on returning to pontificating on domestic issues TONIGHT, but in the meantime, a wonderful op-ed from the New York Times on Mumbai that says it much better, obviously, than I did.

On Mumbai

Hi, I'm pre-empting my overdue post on domestic issues to talk about Mumbai, and more importantly, the Indian and Pakistani response to the Mumbai attacks.

Obviously, as an Indian and a Hindu, I'm very sympathetic to feelings of betrayal and exploitation by the 80% Hindu population in India. I'm well aware of the cynical and growing belief amongst the citizenry that this exploitation comes from a desire by elected government officials in India to appease/retain the minority vote in order to stay in office. I'm sure that as a result of attacks such as the one this week, an increasing number of Hindus in India want to see India declared a Hindu state, open to people of all religious faiths but transparent in seeking as its primary objective to protect Hindus from what must appear to be increasingly dangerous external forces.

Despite these sympathies, I'm categorically against such a move. I would ask anyone trending towards such a view to first truly consider both the motives and the path to success for terrorists such as those organizing this most recent attack. So. Why do terrorists attack? Yes, ultimately, their goal is the establishment of some sort of religious state atop which they would presumably be perched, but in the short term, they are looking for capital, both monetary and human, with which to continue their agenda. And in seeking to gain such capital, they benefit from either promoting, or exploiting 1) financial disparity, and 2) religious extremism/isolationism. Financial disparities increase a class of poor and disenfranchised people, who are more susceptible to groups such as Al-Queda that offer them a sense of community and purpose in the absence of economic promise. Isolationism and religious fervor promote the cause for obvious reasons.

So how does this apply specifically to India and to Mumbai? India suffers from a tremendous amount of financial disparity, with a majority of its 13% Muslim population at the short end. Nevertheless, widespread belief among the Hindu majority is that the government has been too quick to coddle the Islamic minority for aforementioned vote-related reasons, including but not limited to a) permittance of Shari'a law in some circumstances for muslims and b) a presumed "soft" stance on terror. This has driven the majority increasingly towards Hindu nationalist parties such as the BJP, whose emphasis on domestic counterterrorism has a clear isolationist stance. The growth of parties such as this further marginalizes the already poor, underrepresented Muslim population in India, no doubt providing ample incentive for them to become more radical.

Now you add the attack on Mumbai. First, the attack is on a financial centerpiece of India. Disrupting economic growth is a surefire way to drive more people towards religious extremism, and remember: an increase of extremism of either Muslims or Hindus is an unequivocal win for terrorists because of a multiplier effect (extremism in one direction drives extremism amongst opposing constituents). It's an attack on a city with many Hindus and Muslims living in tenuous, but functional, cohabitation, and so the attack has tremendous symbolism. And finally, we have the potential of this attack to lend more weight to the voices of political parties promoting religious isolationism. And while i understand the tendency for that type of protectionism, I would say this: one of the most wonderful aspects of India is its secular embrace of all cultures (something it has in common with America). I mean, there is a professed Islamic state just next door, and yet there are more Muslims living in India that in Pakistan, and why? Partially, yes, because they were living in India before the partition, but at least partially because, especially for more secular Muslims, its probably much nicer to live in India than in Pakistan. For all its faults, India still has a functional democracy whose ability to maintain the rule of law is orders of magnitude better than Pakistan's. India is the one country in South Asia still offering hope for a religiously integrated hegemony of all people rather than a series of religiously isolated states privately stoking the fires of resentment , each progressing towards inevitable conflict.

Does this mean that I think there should be no response to a terrorist attack - of course not. But let me quote the awesome Fareed Zakaria:

The problems of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are now bleeding into one another, and any purely national approach is not going to work. The best outcome of these attacks would be if they spurred cooperation and reform. If instead they feed rivalry, bitterness and finger-pointing, the victims will have died in vain, and there will be more victims and an insecure neighborhood.

The crucial point is to remember the common enemy. When discussing causes and cures, never forget who is to blame first and foremost: the terrorists, the evil men who chose to deliberately kill innocent men, women and children, to burn young families to death. They are the ones who did it.

And while Indians have many troubles, they have one great counterterrorism policy—resilience. The Mumbai stock exchange reopened last Friday and closed higher. The country will persevere, the city will bounce back, and all those who have reasons to go there should not be deterred.

I could not agree more. Let the response to this attack be strong, but properly directed - unflinchingly at terrorists, and terrorism of any and all kinds. Certainly, I think that India should strengthen their counterterrorism initiatives, including increased surveillance at ports, increased power to police in dealing with terrorism suspects, ability to prevent extradition of terrorists, etc. There is a great opportunity for the Indian government to work with Pakistan to seek out the perpatrators of this attack. But let their stance be against terror, and not against Islam. Don't give the terrorists what they want, and put a wall between Muslims and Hindus. Instead, seek to protect all citizens, and protect the cultural and religious diversity that is so great about Mumbai, and India.

blogworthy

since santosh still is deep in ruminations, i figured i would post this gem of an article by joe klein, time magazine.

" In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one. "

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1862307,00.html

return post: PREVIEW

yikes. i don't even know where to start, but here are some of the issues on which i plan to ruminate later today. probably in the evening.

1. Obamaland appointments - not because this is the most critical, but because its the most fun. Clinton, Geithner, and Daschle are sure to be atop my love-fest on the Obama meritocracy.

2. Obamanomics and the stupidity of lame duck presidency - some blather on issues that i understand the least, including but not limited to: Citigroup, the automotive big 3, construction of a service-based economy, a green "war" time economy, etc.

3. A few thoughts on congresspeople: Lieberman? Barney Frank? Who knows?

4. Recent cultural observations: Slumdog Millionaire, Quantum of Solace, Decadancetheatre, the first chapter of The War Within, Saturday Night Live, 30 Rock, Keith Olbermann, This Week, the Planet Money podcast, the return of Radio Lab.

i've been absent,

but don't worry, i'm coming back soon. been doing alot of reading.

maddow v. colbert

amazing interview of rachel maddow on the colbert report. see them be awesome, and then realize that in 3 states, one of these people can't marry the person she loves. soapbox, off.

rahm emmanuel

i dont know that much yet, but from what i read about him in rolling stone, i like. a hard-nosed pragmatic former clintonite with a penchant for getting things done and taking no prisoners, whose political ideology seems well matched with Obama's...seems good to me. plus, who doesn't like this kickass anecdote:

The night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting "Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!" and plunging the knife into the table after every name. "When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape," one campaign veteran recalls. "It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you."

Awesome.

At first when I heard Obama's speech after the win in the Iowa primary, I dismissed it as being insubstantial. (a criticism Obama has since sought to dispel.) Then I realized that in fact the idealism, the rhetoric, and the slogans that Obama employs are perhaps more deeply significant and profound than any policy and plan he could offer. The Obama victory is nothing short of a shift in the American zeitgeist. He is not a reflection of America (post-modern, cynical, suspicious), but represents a transformation of it. A step forward but also a step back, to the beacon on a hill imagery he referenced in his speech last night. There is something both progressive and nostalgic about him. In the grandiosity and idealism of his rhetoric. That he has been able to mobilize Americans behind that rhetoric, that message, is incredible, and is a change that I believe will significantly alter how our country functions, as well as how it is perceived. I have never before felt patriotic. I do today.

GET.EXCITED!

what does mccain mean by "weath redistribution"?

look. john mccain was awesome on SNL. and in many ways, he's probably a cool guy. but lets not pretend, even for a second, that the stump, neocon john mccain of the last 8 years hasn't put funny john mccain in the backseat. case in point: his attacks on obama concerning "socialism" and "sharing the wealth". the new republic, like many of us, has been confused about this line of attack, because americans, particularly in pennsylvania, overwhelmingly favor a progressive tax system. So why would he be using this argument?

Well, its because he's not playing on fears that Obama will take from the rich and give to the poor. He's playing on fears that Obama will redistribute wealth between 2 other groups:

The McCain campaign trying to play on fears that Obama will take money from whites and give it to blacks. Hence McCain's claims that Obama plans on "taking from one group of Americans and giving to another," that Obama would turn the IRS into "a giant welfare agency," and his television ads repeatedly flashing the word "welfare" to describe Obama's plans.

Certainly, Pennsylvanians seem to see McCain's argument here as something other than an attack on the principle of progressivity in taxation. The Boston Globe reports: "Still, there remains a deep distrust of big government programs here, and strong skepticism about Obama. A number of voters feared he would transfer wealth from the middle class to help people "who don't work" or who don't deserve it. ..."

It's not like I think that McCain has run an intolerably lowbrow campaign. His resistance to Reverend Wright references is certainly commendable. But he hasn't been above more insidious forms of race-baiting, and this is a classic example.

chris rock

on the eve of the election, lets remember how awesomely prescient chris rock was 2 years ago.

media bias

kind of interesting article on MSNBC vs. Fox News in the waning days of the election from the times. Until my head exploded in the middle of the article.

“I feel like we are talking to the Germans after Hitler comes to power, saying ‘Oh, well, I didn’t know,’ ,” Ann Coulter, the conservative commentator, told Mr. Hannity on Thursday.

Ann Coulter, everybody!!! Wow!