The Haitian

I find it very disturbing that a single person from Haiti could be instrumental in bringing the AIDS pandemic to the US. The BBC reports:

"With this data, they recreated a family tree for the virus, which they believe shows conclusively that the strain came to the US via Haiti - probably via a single person - in around 1969."

It raises questions about the sexual behavior of the US society. Rather about humans in general. If the general acceptance of monogamy, disdain of cheating is as widespread as it appears to be, a single person should have infected only a few dozen at the most. Even considering that his children passed it on and so forth, the person in question is believed to have entered US only in 1969. I am exaggerating no doubt, but is it really possible for a single person, or a few others from Haiti that came after him to have caused a pandemic?

I also fear if this would be used by some spiteful anti-immigration proponent to back his stance. I hope not!

Is it time up for ElBaradei?

The US has once again chosen to dismiss Mr ElBaradei's findings that there is no evidence that Iran is making a bomb. In fact it is years away from making a bomb. But the US thinks that the fact that Iran chose to enrich its own uranium instead of importing it, proves that it wants weapons.

There is no doubt that Iran, with its belligerent President Ahmadinejad is a risk to world security. We need to be vigilant of what it does with its nuclear capabilities. The recent resignation of Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Larijani is disturbing as he believed in negotiating with the West to settle the issue, while Ahmadinejad considers the case closed. However, does that justify rubbishing the IAEA's findings? If ElBaradei's reports, his intelligence is fit only to be dismissed repeatedly, I see no reason why the position should exist. The IAEA could be scrapped of its duties as the nuclear watchdog of the world, and Bush appointed in its place. His intelligence is always so much more accurate!

I really fear that Bush might want to go to war with Iran. There is a lot of opposition from all possible quarters, ample evidence to prove how difficult it will be for Bush to go to war. But his Iran rhetoric is disturbing. He dismissed ElBaradei's report about Iraq, and now he doing it for Iran. I desperately want to be an optimist, but can't help fearing the worst.

Tehelka does it again

The recent Tehelka sting operation that caught Narendra Modi’s conspiracy on tape is as appalling as it could get. The vivid descriptions of how the massacres were committed, without any remorse but instead pride make you wonder what these men are made of.

I had a talk with one of my friends about it. He was angry at the guts of those men, their inhumane killings, and the probability that the BJP would be voted to power again in Gujarat.

And then he committed the fallacy every one of us does. Castigate Islam as a religion when a suicide bomber attacks. Castigate Hinduism for what those men did. As appalled as I was by those heinous acts, I have lived my 24 years knowing Hinduism to be nothing but good. I have known about the atrocities committed by the Hindus during the riots in Mumbai, in Gujarat, the riots at the time of independence. I hated those who did it as much as I respected my religion. And when he attacked that faith my first reaction was to defend it. I asked him to not extrapolate about either Hinduism or Hindus. Because by doing so I felt like perpetrator of the crime.

He was appalled that at such a time when he was expressing his anger at the genocidal nature of those crimes, all I could think of was defend my religion. I did not jump the wagon and go Hindu bashing with him. I did not express with as much passion the anger I felt at those men. So why did I not? You might think I am being inhumane too. But do you not jump to defend if a part of your identity is attacked. The impact of the tapes, the anger my friend felt and expressed, the shame I felt that the crimes were being committed in the name of the religion I identify with, the sudden flash of similar atrocities during riots, they all attacked my sense of identity that I derived from being a Hindu. They were trying to take away an identity I did not want to give up. Most of my ideals, beliefs, actions, and ethics come from this identity. I was born and brought up in a family that believed in it with all its heart. That voted for the Janata Party and the BJP. Because of the severity of the crimes of those men, when he attacked Hinduism I wanted to protect it even more. In that one moment he had not only attacked my identity as a Hindu, but also my upbringing, my parents. It was like pointing fingers at all of us. At all those people I consider to be some of the most gentle and humane.

Probably I am taking it too far. Trying to rationalize my appalling reaction to his attack on Hinduism. But that is where the reaction came from. I would have reacted the same way if I were a Muslim and he had attacked Islam. It is not the religion that is in the wrong, it is the men who did the act. This is probably one of the easiest escapes to it all. But it is the truth. That is why it is easy for fundamentalists to gather support. They play upon the fear of possible loss of identity that people feel when their religion is attacked. It is a fact of life that most people identify themselves with some religion and put a lot of faith in it. It is no wonder that when you ask someone who they are they answer as being a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian. They react the sharpest when that identity is attacked. It is no wonder that during riots, in spite of ample evidence of what their fellow men are doing, the Hindus back the Hindus and the Muslims back the Muslims.

If you think about any conflict situations you have been in, you will find that every time you react with anger, or get defensive it is because the other person is threatening one of your identities. Your identity as a good manager, a good wife, a righteous person… anything that you hold dear. Every time you succeed in dealing with a difficult person it is because you have someway taken away the threat to his identity. That is why almost all arguments will have someone saying things like “why are you taking it so personally?”

The Tahelka has done a good job at unmasking Narendra Modi and the BJP. They will suffer if there are midterm elections. But as my friend pointed out Modi might win again in Gujarat, due to the support for his economic policies. The perpetrators will go scot-free, even more confident that they can get as brutal as possible, as no one can touch them. Questions will be raised about India’s democracy. Where the country is heading politically and morally. How it will affect our international image. Weather we will be able to keep the Islamic fundamentalists from wanting revenge. And thanks to our short term memory, everything will be forgotten until someone again threatens our sense of identity.

A peek at the nuclear threat

Today's Washington Post opinion page is interesting not only for those interested in nuclear issues, but also others who would like to update themselves on the nuclear threats in general.

Scoring at ground zero

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is currently in the US where he will not only address the UN, but also speak at the Columbia University. His visit has kicked of debates and protests about what he should do, what he should visit, where he should speak, what he should speak…. While people are protesting his talk at the Columbia University, the Dean of the said University has promised to grill him about issues of human rights, holocaust, nuclear program etc.

As part of the protests, he is being banned from visiting the World Trade Center site. The reason, it would amount to violation of the scared site. Why ground zero should be considered a scared site violable by the presence of a Middle Eastern leader is not really obvious to me. For one most religious institutions and places of worship, generally considered sacred are open to everyone. Ahmadinejad has no direct proven connection with the 9/11 attacks, that could probably have helped rationalize the ban. And all he would be doing is pay his respects to the victims. This should be considered a positive sign. I have been to the site, and I would say that if anything, he should be encouraged to visit it. Before the visit I was not as empathetic to the incident or the victims as now. The visual impact of the site is huge. Probably letting Ahmadinejad experience it might help deal with Iran. It surely is a long shot, but worth it. By banning him for no apparent reason, the US is scoring no points with Iran sympathizers. If the US desires to talk sense into Ahmadinejad about abandoning Iran’s nuclear program, this action is not creating any goodwill. And goodwill is crucial at this point of time, when both US and Iran are stubborn, and the US cannot afford another war. Any option/opening that can help it score a brownie point should be grabbed by the US. At least in case of an attack, it can be used as evidence of having tried everything 'peaceful'.

But I guess the ban will continue, and so will the protests. It is time to see how Ahmadinejad does.

Nose stud and the works

A woman employee at the Heathrow airport was recently fired for wearing a nose stud! It is said to be a case of religious discrimination. After being outside of India for more than a year now, I realize that wearing a nose stud is more a fashion among the goras than the Indian girls I see around. Not just hippie looking undergrads, but even grown up working women. If I were the woman fired in this case, I would have loved to believe that the nose stud is now more a matter of fashion, than a matter of religion. Guess Britain is still as racially discriminating as this report suggests? Wonder why?

Bollywood Dhamaka!

With the summer vacation in full swing, I have been on a movie-watching spree. Right from EkChalis Ki Last Local to Red Swatik, I watched them all. (Online, of course!).

So after the two consecutive disappointments, I was really hoping for some good entertainment, and Ek Chalis Ki Last Local does do that. It entertains. It is a stupid film, that you don't need to take your brains to. But like all those Govinda-David Dhawan films, it does entertain. In fact I also like Abhay Deol in it. I sincerely think that Abhay Deol is bearable just because I haven't seen him dance yet, and because he is not the regular Deol 'he-man'. But yes, he does look extremely dumb. On the contrary Neha Dhupia looks the 'he-man' here (rather always!) The remainder of the cast, music, etc is good enough and I wouldn't mind recommending it to someone who really wants to laze around, and give his brains a well deserved rest.

But if you don't want to do that, then you should watch Provoked time only! Provoked is a must watch. Its been done beautifully, with all the actors fitting perfectly into their character. Except for Ms . It has everything, right from a cause to Aishwarya Rai! Being based on a real-life story, it evokes a lot of sympathy and anger. Domestic violence is an issue that needs serious thought and remedy. It needs us to raise our kids to respect women. But foremost it also needs some stringent measures to deter the perpetrators, to provide relief and voice to the victims. However, more of it later. Now its Bollywood time! Provoked is a must watch! Its been done beautifully, with all the actors fitting perfectly into their character. Except for Ms Rai. Of course she has done a brilliant job, and for a change she is not her usual Miss World self, but a woman victimised. I would think this is one of her best performances so far. But then, she being herself, it is difficult for a viewer to not look at her as Ms Rai. Her presence makes the film seem a little unreal. A lesser know actress might have made a difference. Or for that matter Nandita Das would have been wonderful in it too. But then one needs to sell the film, attract the crowds, without which the message, the story would be better untold. And that, Ms Rai does well. With due credit to her performance, it is her stardom that overshadows, that makes you want to see the film. I knew the story, I saw it to see why Ms Rai is in it!

And then I decided to see her dad-in-law. In Cheeni Kum. The film is simple and sweet, though it did get a little irritating whenever the 'sexy' kid came up, or when Paresh Rawal went on a Satyagraha. I thought that Satyagraha business was a bit to far fetched, and did not add anything to the film. Instead a nicely thought out debate between Amitabh and Paresh Rawal would have been much better. When Amitabh does his final speech, and enumerates the reasons why the dad wouldn't want his daughter to marry him, the whole issue gets frivolous. The movie till then had raised my expectations much higher than that. Of course the part till then is good. The witty dialogues between Tabu and Amitabh are really well written, and both play them out as if second nature. The screenplay deserves kudos. It builds the two characters beautifully, who I doubt would have been as strong without it. Tabu looks very elegant, and fits the role to the T. Their chemistry is also good, and one can feel it increasing in tandem with the increased attraction between the two in the film. Overall, a sweet film that put a smile on my face.

And because I don't want that smile to go away, I shall not tell you a word about Red Swastik. Or rather, I should well tell you three words about it , Don't watch it!!!

kaphi kafi nahi

I don't think I can get myself to drink that coffee!

Mistaken identity

It pains to read stuff like this. Reading all this I wonder why the Nazi association continues to be so strong.

Having grown up in a normal Indian Hindu family, associating the swastik with something negative is so difficult. It is one of the basic symbols of everything mangal. A primary rangoli design, so easy and meaningful. I remembers hundreds of instances where my mom would have said, "don't bother with an elaborate design now, even a swastik is enough." All those advertisements for real estate, insurance, paints, banking, tourism... deriving maximum mileage from the meaning that the swastik conveys.

The swastik has so much more life and history other than the brief infatuation by the Nazis. I really hope this misuse ends!

Sigh!

Till a few days back I was almost chocking with ideas to write about. But there was hardly any time. And now, I have all the time in the world, and there's vacuum!