Over the top

In two separate incidents, a Bangladeshi girl was ‘lashed to death‘ and a Dalit girl in India had her ‘body parts chopped off.’ In Bangladesh, 14 year old girl, accused of adultery was publicly lashed under Islamic Sharia law. In India, a 16 year old Dalit girl had her nose, ear and a part of her hand chopped off when she resisted to rape. The same tale of brutality continues, everywhere. Not so surprised anymore. We have internalized shock, haven’t we?

Meher Ali on Jairam Ramesh’s apology for the government’s role, 23 years ago, in the clandestine transportation of toxic waste from the Union Carbide plant to a TSD.

Jairam Ramesh, India’s Union minister of state for environment, apologised on Sunday. ‘Whoops!’ he said. The Madhya Pradesh government secretly transported 40 tonnes of toxic waste from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal to a Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) facility in Indore in 2008, at a time when the curfew was imposed on the riot-affected city, the Times of India reported.

What do you say to that? ‘Go Ramesh!’ ‘Champion of transparency!’ ‘Of course you are not to be blamed. We agree, you were not the environment minister at that time, so environment was probably not one of your concerns.’

So what if 23 years ago, the country shook from the impact of the Bhopal gas tragedy. So what if the government that you work for has treated the victims of the tragedy with little more than contempt. So what that the state and central governments have both tried, with all their might, to brush Union Carbide’s role in the environment disaster, under the carpet?

You probably knew about it though didn’t you? For how long?

What happens now? Another Bhopal in the making, because we know it’ll probably take you another 20 years to shift the waste (clandestinely) to some other obscure place, or maybe you’ll wait for a riot to do the trick.

The UPA-II, it seems, is getting more arrogant by the day. Instead of chalking out a clear plan of action for disposing of toxic waste which has been in the country since 1984; instead of holding those responsible for the disaster accountable; instead of using this environmental disaster as a lesson in how to avoid similar tragedies, the government says, ‘Sorry! Whoops!’

Would it have been too much to expect the environment minister to have a plan of action on how he plans to now get rid of the toxic waste in Pithampur accompany his apology? Would it have been too much to ask him to explain how exactly he came to know of this and when? (Of course he would have to tell us the truth, which may be a stretch).

We want to know why the central and state government were working so hard to cover this up, not just in the 1980s but until 2008. We want to know how many Indian citizens’ lives equal that of Warren Anderson? We want to know if the government will take environmental hazards seriously or if it is waiting for another one to happen. When will it chalk out a clear plan of action with regard to compensation for victims of environmental disasters, protocols for cleaning up and emergency responses to such disasters?

We want to know if the government is serious about governance and if it values people over profits. The last point is important, because if it does not, as we have seen in the past; if the government is callous and irresponsible towards its people, if it treats corporations as kings and the people as ‘collateral damage’ in its quest to become a ’superpower,’ then the people may not accept. Whoops!

— The writer is the Assistant Editor (print) at Himal Southasian.

In today’s Nepali Times, Rabi Thapa wrote:

From 1950 to 1990, 13 countries in Latin America, Africa and the former Soviet Union moved their capitals. Even the Indian capital moved from Calcutta to Delhi in 1911. Why not Nepal?”

I have been a big critic (like many) of the highly-centralized governance in Nepal. The result? We aren’t any better than we should have been, and the problems are plenty. The levels of disconnect and disparity between Kathmandu and the rest of the country are so high that they are like two different countries in themselves. People talk of marginalization of the Madheshi, of the Sherpas, of the Dalits, and so on. In my opinion, Nepal’s problems are not as much on ethnic grounds, as they are on regional differences. The Human Development Index (published by the UNDP) of Kathmandu district is comparable to that of South Africa, while that of Far-Western Nepal is comparable to that of Sierra-Leone. You call this class-difference or whatever, but a century of wrongs by the Bahuns and Chhetris in Kathmandu should not be the reason for the Bahuns or Chhetris in Jajarkot to be wronged for another century. Ask a Madheshi and an uneducated Chhetri from outside Kathmandu- the level of discrimination and the treatment of second-grade citizen offered by the residents of Kathmandu are more or less similar for both of them.

The fact that Kathmandu is the most developed city in Nepal is both both the cause and effect of the city being the capital of Nepal. Hence, blaming outsiders for the disorder in Kathmandu and not thanking them for the development of the city at the the cost of their own native cities and villages is a very uncivilized thing to do.

Some in today’s meeting of high level Maoist leadership have proposed Chitwan as the new capital of the country. Many think such talks by leaders are more related to influencing the land-prices than addressing real problems. Despite that, I support the proposal. Many years ago, (in the 50s or the 60s) somebody had proposed (in Nepal’s parliament) moving the capital to Pokhara. That was an idea whose time had come. Rapidly decentralizing Nepal has no substitute, especially if we keep talking of democracy and inclusiveness.

In today’s Maoist meeting itself, some leaders reportedly opposed the choice of Chitwan because of it being a district near to India. Now, can there be a comment more naive than that? Will Nepal be able to defend the supposed Indian attack if it ever takes place? And has India been unable to do so because of Kathmandu being surrounding by hills and a little (some 40-50 km air distance from Chitwan) far off from India ?

Or have we not been able to accelerate our development because of that highly-protective and defensive mentality (read inferior-complex) of ours? I think Nepal owes that mentality to the city of Kathmandu. It’s time for us to get rid of that.

As I had mentioned in yesterday’s post, I was eagerly awaiting this evening’s live broadcast of the Intelligence Squared debate on Pakistan. You would be forgiven if you’re not especially enamoured of such events because they have become something of a dreary staple in Western policy circles. People who had never heard of Pakistan before confidently make policy pronouncements on “Af-Pak”, Swat, the “tribal areas” and rattle off a gaggle of Muslim names all in a misplaced effort to garner some form of intellectual capital.

Although this particular panel discussion suffered from some of those traits it was sufficiently stimulating for the most part. I was particularly impressed with Dr. Farzana Shaikh’s deposition. Dr Shaikh, a fellow with the Asia Programme at Chatham House put forth a thesis that seeks to view Pakistani affairs from the old-fashioned prism of Indo-Pak relations and Pakistan’s testy relationship with its founding faith. Her basic contention was that the Pakistani quagmire is a direct result of the attempt to gain strategic parity with India. There were audible gasps of discomfort from (presumably) the Pakistani members of the audience as Shaikh implied that it is time that Pakistan abandons this attempt. A gentleman in the Q&A session afterwards even questioned her “representativeness” as she wrote in English and worked for a Western organisation. Evidently, the irony of speaking in the English language escaped him.

Shaikh then, if I may be permitted the usage of the term falls in the camp of the old school pragmatic secularists who wish to see Pakistan emerge as a developed member of international civil society. I would argue that the time for this Jinnahesque political project has passed and a radical re-imagination is required to foster a new and more sustainable political order on the Subcontinent for the benefit of all the populations involved.

One panelist whose speech I was eager to hear before the debate began was William Dalrymple. Dalrymple’s deposition convinced me that although he might have talents as a travel writer and as a chronicler of Mughal history he has serious deficiencies as an analyst of politics. His speech was a collection of clichés that seemed to have been gleaned from the pulp fiction that passes for political opinion in some newspapers. His basic aim seemed to be to reassure the audience that Pakistan hasn’t lagged behind India to the extent that the Western press made it out to be even attesting to the superiority of Pakistani roads and the high penetration of mobile phones. While no doubt true, it didn’t add much insight to the proceedings.

All in all though, it was a stimulating affair. I even had the opportunity to pose a question to Farzana Shaikh via Twitter that went something like this:

Re-integration with India is a utopian notion but is it not the most rational course forward?

This question simply aimed to take Dr Shaikh’s line of thought one step further. If Pakistan is to be a secular state in the classical Western sense as she envisions it then what is the rationale for its existence as a separate Islamic Republic? This of course draws attention to that rather large gorilla in the room that everybody would rather leave alone – the botched Partition of India.

Shaikh dismissed the proposition but to do so is understandable. Talking of Indo-Pak reunification or indulging in revisionist historical scholarship is to commit professional and political suicide as Mr Jaswant Singh, her fellow panellist knows well. He was quick to offer a palatable and politically correct response when the moderator posed my question to him.

Singh is infamous for his book on Jinnah that sought to emancipate the Quaid-e-Azam’s legacy and establish his secular credentials. However, Singh, now a full-time public intellectual free from the exigencies of Indian party politics seems unwilling to embrace the logical corollary of his thesis – If Partition was a bad idea to begin with, why shirk from advocating its reversal now?

- Vijay Vikram

It’s interesting how the recent Fox News footage (of Glenn Beck) created a furor about insulting India. Nobody should feel insulted by Fox, but if they should, I think it’s an insult to the whole developing world, of which rising powers like Brazil, China and India are the new strong voices. Over the top has already seen a very good post by Vijay Vikram on this topic.

I am most interested in the response of New Delhi and Bombay’s well-informed and critical middle class. The kind whose progeny slobber at the mention of American higher education and Subway. Remember, this is a class that lethally combines a post-colonial hunger for Western approval with an almost unmatched intolerance for irony and sarcasm in the English language…
There has never been any doubt that the social base of the Republican Party comprises of moose-hunting neo-Palinites whose primary political impulse is centered around childbirth and gun control rather than relations with rising Asia.

Personally, I think that Fox News should be ignored and if possible ridiculed. Not only Fox, but there many other (some say almost all, and I happen to agree partially) American media beat around the bush in order in order to keep the audience from concentrating on “the issues.” Some sections of the American liberals have expressed worry about the situation and guessed that without proactive actions, soon there would be no mainstream liberal media outlet left in the States.

Back to the topic. This piece of video raises many questions.

• Notice the tone, laugh, and facial expression of the anchor as he uses certain words, like “India.” He calls Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe (and Copenhagen, if I heard correctly, though it’s not a country) “stupid countries.” He even says that the river Ganges sounds like a disease.
• For such a great country and people like America, I wish they had something/someone better to represent them in front of the International audience. With a decreasing American might, un-winnable wars and economic crisis, Beck and Fox certainly don’t help change the rest of the world’s perception of Americans as stupid.
• Talking of stupidity, the most ridiculous part of the video is when Beck goes to the board to compare Indian and American income levels. He compares the income of just-out-of-college Indian doctor with a well earning American doctor. He’d better got back to school and understand that such comparisons based on USD or exchange rates are very inaccurate. Comparing in terms of Purchasing Power Parity, one can perhaps have a better quality of life in India with $5000 than with $150000.
• Becks suggests that the high cost of health care in America is because of its high-tech hospitals, good doctors and all. Sure they have excellent manpower and facilities, but is an analysis of US health-care system complete without mentioning how much the private insurance companies keep for themselves? He doesn’t fail to mention though that a reason for high costs in US is because of the payments for laborers. Instead of comparing with a developing economy like India, one can get a better perspective by comparing the costs with some countries with comparable level of technical and economic progress. These charts compare the costs of private health-care plans of the US with other industrial countries like France and Germany.
• Becks should probably be thankful to the goods and services he gets from the developing world including India and China that have helped his country cope with an economic crisis that was aggravated by the “best of managers” who went to Harvard and Yale.

Right wing American media’s similar derogatory depiction of South Asia, its heritages and culture isn’t new. India, China and other countries happen to be at the receiving end because of their rising stature. All of Southasia and the developing world share the brunt of such tactics.

How do you think the Southasians need to deal (or challenge) with it? Please let your views be known in the comments.

---

Edited: The first few words of the second last paragraph were: “American (and Western in general) media’s… ” I edited after reading Joseph’s comment (2nd comment in this post).
Here is my response to his comment.

---