Total Pageviews

Image of the Day: July 27

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

For the United States, Arab Spring Raises Question of Values Versus Interests

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

CAIRO - Barack Obama came here as a new president in 2009 to proclaim “a new beginning” in American relations with the Muslim world, grounded in support for the dream of Arab democracy and “governments that reflect the will of the people.”

The Agenda

Middle East stability and security post Arab Spring.

He could not have guessed that the demand for Arab democracy would instead become one of his presidency's greatest foreign policy challenges, forcing whoever wins the November election to confront tough trade offs between American values and interests.

The popular uprisings that have swept the region since Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo have upended an authoritarian order that was largely congenial to the United States. While they may have brought Arab nations closer than ever to fulfilling of the pr omise of self-determination that has echoed through the speeches of American presidents since Woodrow Wilson at the end of the First World War, they have also imperiled crucial American allies, empowered antagonistic Islamists, and unleashed sectarian animosities that threaten to drag the whole region toward chaos.

Before the uprisings, a rough balance of power held in check enemies like Iran. Israel and other allies were increasingly secure within their borders. Even Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, once the “mad dog of the Middle East,” in President Ronald Reagan's words, was eager for closer ties with the United States, and American diplomats sent high-level emissaries to the Syrian capital, Damascus, in the hope of sweet-talking President Bashar al-Assad at least a few steps away from Tehran and closer to Washington.

Despite the strains caused by the invasion of Iraq and its bloody aftermath, American influence was arguably at an apex in the capitals of the Ar ab world if not the hearts and minds of the its people.

There was one deadly drawback. Washington's support for Arab autocracies drew the fire of militants who despaired of toppling their own monarchs and strongmen. That was the genesis of Al Qaeda. But those same Arab strongmen - including Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, and President Zine al Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia - were eager to lend their spies and jails to the American fight against terrorism.

For the occupant of the White House, the upheaval has produced at least three pressing dilemmas.

The first is the rising power of Islamists. Democratic elections in Egypt and Tunisia have brought to power Islamist parties historically opposed to United States policies in the region, from Washington's support for Israel to the American invasion of Iraq. At the same time, the toppling of the old secular strongmen has opened up a new debate among Islamists over ju st what Islamic governance should mean, including how to balance respect for individual freedom against traditional religious values. How can American policy makers assess the intents and agenda of the new Islamist leaders? Can the United States build productive alliances with these former foes? In Egypt, should the United States back the elected Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood in their struggle to pry power from the hands of military leaders? The generals were once Washington's best friends in Egypt but now threaten to curtail the transition to democracy?

The second challenge is the threat the insurgents pose to other undemocratic allies. Here the clearest case is in the tiny, oil-rich Kingdom of Bahrain. It is the home to the American fifth fleet and provides a vital base in the Persian Gulf. But its Sunni Muslim monarchs have used brutal force to crush a largely peaceful democracy movement backed by a Shiite Muslim majority.

Can or should the United States push the king to yield power? Would that risk the rise of Shiite Muslim parties backed by Shiite Muslim Iran? Would it alienate other important allies like the monarchs of Saudi Arabia or Jordan? And if the American president continues to stand by the King of Bahrain - as the Obama administration has - can America still hold itself up as a champion of democratic values in the rest of the region?

The third challenge is the eruption of sectarian animosities long suppressed by the old autocrats. The most explosive case here is Syria. The uprising against Mr. Assad is also a battle between Syria's Sunni Muslim majority and his own minority Alawite Muslim sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam whose members dominate the Syrian military. Many of the Alawites fear annihilation at the hands of the Sunni insurgents seeking revenge for decades of repression by Mr. Assad and his father, former President Hafez al Assad. Others in the region fear the Syrian conflict could become a regi onal proxy war pitting Shiite Iran on one side against Sunni Muslim Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states on the other. Sparks from the Syrian fighting have already shown the potential to reignite sectarian violence in neighboring Lebanon, around the border town of Tripoli.

Should the United States lend its support to the rebels challenging Mr. Assad, as Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both Republicans, have urged? How well does the United States know the rebels it might aid? And can Western policy makers prevent or contain a descent into sectarian violence, a grander and more catastrophic return of the kind of strife that engulfed neighboring Lebanon in a decade of civil war?

The situation is evolving by the day and often in unpredictable ways. It often seems distant from the domestic economic issues dominating the presidential campaign. But as Mr. Obama has learned since his speech in Cairo three years ago, events, welco me or not, have a way of imposing themselves on the White House.

Over the course of the campaign we will try to present arguments from Washington and the Middle East about how the White House might seek to advance American values and interests after “the new beginning” of the Arab spring. And we will re-examine the challenge over the next few months with each turn of events in the region. We are inviting experts and readers to weigh in and raise questions as we explore the issues, as part of a series we're calling the Agenda.



In Conversation With: Tribal Expert Virginius Xaxa

By MALAVIKA VYAWAHARE

The mounting violence in Assam has highlighted yet again the serious conflict between tribal and nontribal communities in India. India Ink spoke to Virginius Xaxa, the deputy director at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Guwahati, Assam, to learn more about the most pressing issues affecting the tribal communities in India and to assess how the Indian state has dealt with their concerns.

The tribal population as per the 2001 census was 84.3 million, or 8.2 percent of the total population at the time.

More than 600 tribal communities are recognized by the Indian Constitution and granted special benefits by the state, including quotas in educational institutions, political offices, and government jobs. Their population is characterized by geographical isolation, a distinctive culture, language and religion and a degree of social isolation from mainstream society. The Constitution also gives areas inhabited by tribal people greater autonomy in their governance.

Mr. Xaxa, who belongs to a tribal community Oraon from Chhattisgarh, has written extensively on tribes in the country. His book, “State, Society and Tribes: Issues in Post-Colonial India,” was published in 2008. His 1999 article “Tribes as Indigenous People of India” is often cited as essential reading for an understanding of India's tribal communities.

Have violent clashes between the tribal and nontribal populations in India been on the rise in recent years?

You have to situate the violence that happened in Assam in context â€"- there, there is a conflict of interest between tribal groups and others. In central and eastern India, the resistance is against development projects like mining projects and state-sponsored policies. There, the problem is not between tribals and nontribals. Don't get me wrong, conflict between tribals and nontribals does exist there as well, but it is not so intolerant.

How is the situation in the northeast different from other tribal areas in India?

The demand for greater autonomy for tribals and the perception of outsiders as exploiters is pervasive in all tribal areas in India.
Assam has a history of interethnic clashes. The Bodos have clashed with not just migrant Bengalis and Muslims but also adivasis [tribal groups also referred to as aboriginals].

Unlike in the central and eastern region, tribals in the northeast are not agitated by the state. This is because historically new states have emerged in the northeast - Meghalaya and Mizoram were part of Assam until they got independence [based on their ethnic differences].

Many people believe getting a separate state is a panacea, that once you get independence all the problems will go away. But some groups continue to feel discriminated, and interethnic conflicts continue.

When the oppressed groups make their assertions, th ey are not welcome, and attempts are made to crush them by the majority. The problem in the northeast today is that both sides have become organized, but rather than discussions and dialogue they resort to violent methods.

The balance of power is being maintained through violence.

There is a perception among the urban population in India that people living in tribal areas are anti-development.

The urban population thinks that these projects coming up in tribal areas will bring about development and this kind of resistance by the tribals is anti-development.

But that is not the case. Tribal communities are not opposed to development.

When I was working with the Khonds in Orissa they told me that, “We are not antidevelopment; we want a development that has a place for us. If you have irrigation projects, make sure our lands are not taken away.”

Their opposition has been because in the last 50 years development that has occurred has gone against their interests. All this while they have been sacrificing. They have not gained anything out of it.

The tribal populations have lost faith in the development. They do not want to be sacrificing themselves anymore.

How have the federal government's policies toward tribals affected the situation?

As far as India is concerned, only when things take a violent turn does the state intervene. They understand only the language of gun, and this is true in other countries too.

In eastern India, too, tribal people have moved into extremist organizations, like the Maoists, but there they are resisting not only the state but the corporate presence too. Earlier, under socialism, it was the development directed by the state. Now, after economic liberalization, it is the corporate sector in charge, facilitated by the state, which they are resisting.

They have become uprooted from their own land and forests. Earlier, they did not oppose it, but now they think enough is enough!

What solution do you see for this alienation of the tribal population in India?

The biggest challenge for the state now is to win their confidence if it wants to continue to pursue its development agenda. But in the northeast it is more a question of sharing of resources and sharing the fruits of development.

Take the recent problem: The Bodos felt they were economically, politically, socially and culturally subjugated by the Assamese society. They did not get a separate state; they got an autonomous council and are trying to get maximum mileage from it, but the region it covers does not exclusively have Bodos in it. Other ethnic groups have been there for decades. How far in history can you go to see who owned the land originally?

(The interview has been lightly edited and condensed.)



As China Eyes Indian Ocean, Japan and India Pair Up on Defense

By AARTI BETIGERI

For two days last month, ships from the Indian and Japanese naval forces held joint military exercises in waters off Tokyo. By military standards, the exercises were small in scale. But they were heavy with symbolism and brought to light another facet of the growing relationship between the two countries - defense.

Their growing collaboration is expected to lead to tighter cooperation in one of the world's most increasingly important regions, the Indian Ocean. And given the shadow cast by the regional giant that separates the countries, it is a relationship that many observers feel is long overdue. (Read more about Japan and India's growing economic ties.)

Such joint exercises might be standard practice in international military-to-military exchanges, but with growing regional tensions - like in the South China Sea, located between India and Japan - they take on a more complex meaning.

“If you look at it through a containment of China prism, it makes sense. Everybody is very worried about China,” said Rahul Bedi, a regional defense expert - particularly the Indian Navy, as China flexes its muscle in the Indian Ocean.

According to an Indian Navy spokesman, Commander PVS Satish, the ships involved covered basic exercises aimed at simply “understanding each other's operational and communication procedures.” Around 1,400 sailors from four ships were involved, including the missile destroyer I.N.S. Rana and the frigate I.N.S. Shivalik.

The joint exercises were part of official commemorations of 60 years of diplomatic ties between the two countries; there has also been a flurry of high-level visits back and forth, including a trip to India last November by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda of Japan. There is a lot to celebrate, given that just 15 years ago, relations hit a low point when Japan deeply objected to India's testing of nuclear weap ons.

While they could be seen as simply an attempt to build practical naval experience with each other, the exercises could also be taken as part of efforts to boost India's naval power and project its influence beyond the Indian Ocean.

“This is part of a wider ambition to show the flag regularly east of the Strait of Malacca, now that India is becoming an Indo-Pacific nation and not solely an Indian Ocean power,” said Rory Medcalf, director of the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute, an Australian foreign policy think tank.

“At sea, both have serious navies. Japan's may be more advanced, for instance, with its strong submarine fleet, but India has the benefit of long experience in the Indian Ocean,” he said.

There are growing fears that the Indian Ocean region might become a battleground in any future regional conflicts. Home to vital shipping routes as well as piracy issues, it is bordered by Australia, Asia and Africa, with India and China at its core. Beijing has been working hard to build up its naval capacities here, including interests in ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh - something that has India deeply concerned.

In addition, the South China Sea is particularly geostrategically important, as it is critical to global shipping routes and has enormous potential oil and natural gas reserves. But it is also pockmarked by a handful of worrying territorial disputes.

Still, it is important to note that India is striving to at least maintain what maritime ties it has with China. The ships that took part in the Tokyo exercises stopped in at Shanghai on their way back to India, in the first naval visit by Indian ships to China in six years.

“The ships' visit is a high point of defense exchanges this year, as it is designated by both the countries as a year of friendship and cooperation,” S. Jaishankar, India's ambassador to China, told the Press Trust of India news agency.

In addition, ships from China, Japan and India are all involved in guarding the strategically important Gulf of Aden, in Yemen, from piracy.

While China's neighbors might be keen to curtail its maritime ambitions, they are also trying to engage with the country and retain good relations. Regional powers are swimming around each other, cautiously and nervously, jockeying to assert their own strength but trying to avoid the kind of sea-based conflict that many observers fear is looming.

“It makes sense for them to cooperate against transnational maritime threats like piracy,” said Mr. Medcalf. “The big challenge for all these countries will be to figure out a way of working with China in the Indian Ocean.”



Bollywood Star Remakes Himself Into TV Conscience

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

“Aamir Khan spent more than two decades as one of India's most admired movie stars, appearing in a string of socially conscious but mainstream films,” Vikas Bajaj wrote in The New York Times.

“Now he has gained even more fame as the host of a popular weekly television show that is calling attention to some of the country's longstanding social problems,” Mr. Bajaj wrote.

Mr. Khan's show, “Satyamev Jayate,” or “Truth Alone Prevails,” is taped in front of a live audience, and is something more than a talk show but short of “60 Minutes.” Mixing Oprah-style interviews on a couch with short reports from the field, it tries to shine a spotlight on festering issues like dowries, domestic violence and the indignities of the caste system.

In just three months, the Sunday morning show has become a national phenomenon, distributed in seven languages and dra wing a cumulative audience of nearly 500 million, according to Star India, the network that broadcasts it.

Read the full article.



A Conversation With: Bollywood\'s Aamir Khan

By VIKAS BAJAJ

In May, Aamir Khan, the film star, started hosting a first-of-its-kind TV show, “Satyamev Jayate” (Truth Prevails), that deals with large social problems like the caste system, dowries, the overuse of pesticides, medical malpractice and alcoholism. The show has become a national sensation, prompting changes in policy and earning Mr. Khan an invitation to testify before a committee of the Parliament about health care.

Mr. Khan, 47, who grew up in a film family, is widely considered one of the top actors in Bollywood, the Hindi-language film industry based in Mumbai. In the last decade, he has increasingly performed in and produced socially conscious films that appeal to the moviegoing masses of India. He sat down for an interview with India Ink one recent Saturday morning as he prepared to start shooting for the movie “Dhoom 3,” the third installment of an action franchise.

How d id this show come about?

It's like all of us: you read the papers, you hear about stuff and you see things happening around you which you feel, “You know, I wish things were different.” I used to often feel, “What can I do, what can I do?” And I used to think that, “You know my skill sets lie in communications - that's what I have learned in the work that I do. So I can use my skill sets to contribute in any way to society.” I used to always feel television is a strong medium, and if I can combine my skill sets or whatever goodwill I have earned, along with the reach of TV, then we can actually do something.

So when Uday [Shankar, the chief executive of Star India] came to meet me, he offered me a game show, I think, which didn't interest me, then said, “What would you like to do in TV?” I said, “Look, for me to do TV, I feel that TV is such a strong medium and so powerful. In every home you have a TV. I would like to use that strength to bring about strong social change.”

Shyam Benegal, the respected filmmaker and former legislator, told me that your show is effective because it appeals to mainstream audiences. The same appears to be true of many of your movies like “Tarre Zameen Par,” which is about dyslexia. How do you take entertainment and stuff it with vegetables, so to speak?

I personally believe I am not doing it the way you are describing it. I am not stuffing vegetables. I am not stuffing messaging into entertainment. What I am doing is I am taking something - you can call it messaging for lack of a better description â€"I am taking messaging in its pure form and I am making that interesting for you. I feel that anything can be told in an interesting way.

How did you come up with the topics for “Satyamev Jayate”?

We went through many topics. And for that, Uday was also part of the discussion. We had a list of 40 topics, then we brought it under 20 and then 16 and then 13. It's very difficult to say why we dropped one and kept one. And we had hoped that if the show is successful and people do connect with it, then we could take up those more topics.

So far, most of the shows you have done so far have not been very political.

I don't know why you say that. Health care is very political.

Each show certainly discusses policy, but you don't get into political details, the role of, say, the Congress or the Bhartiya Janata Party in any particular issue.

The thing is we don't take names of anybody. Our purpose is not that. Whether it's an individual, whether it's a political party or company or agency, our purpose is to not name any individual. Our purpose is to look inward.

Let us be positive instead of being negative. Let us not point fingers and find a villain. One of us is doing it. Let's find an answer. The person who is doing it also knows what I am doing. When we say India is spending 1.4 percent of its G.D .P. on health care, who is spending 1.4 percent?

The government.

So we are very clearly saying that government is spending 1.4 percent. It's not right. Is that how we value our health? Is that the only value we can put to health? We are not mincing our words at all. We are just not being accusatory in our approach because that is not our intention. Our intention is to understand.

And everybody is part of our society, including a politician. A politician is as much a human being as you and I. You can't just only blame that person. You and I have chosen him. We have to take as much responsibility.

So you disagree with people who argue that you could have more impact if you named names and held specific people responsible?

Yeah, because I feel first of all I have to genuinely understand that I am part of the problem. The moment that I think I am not part of the problem, then I am not being honest.

We look at these issues and see where we are going wrong. That's the attempt. Can we look for people who have found a way forward? Can we say how have they understood the issue? Maybe they are in the minority and they are not exposed on a public platform nationally. We are giving that platform to them and learning from people who have found a way forward. So the show's attempt is a very positive attempt.

Wherever there are governments doing great work, we showcase that. Sikkim: fully organic. We put that as an example. If Sikkim can go fully organic, why can't every state?

But many agricultural experts say it's not realistic to think that all Indian agriculture can go organic and still produce enough food to feed 1.2 billion people.

Who tells you this?

Agricultural experts.

No, who tells you this? Think again; you are a journalist. I am pointing the mike at you now.

You want me to tell you that the [fertilizer and pesticide] companies tell me this?

Who else? Bingo. Now, l et me tell you India is a country of small and marginal farmers. What's the size of the average farm in India? Less than two acres. OK, why do you need chemical farming for that? Give me one good reason. So if you don't need it, let's not have it. Why are you putting poison in the soil, making it less fertile, turning it into sand? Why? How much water is required? How much more water is required with chemical farming? So you are using more water also, spoiling the soil, as well. And how big is your farm in any case?

India is ideal for organic farming. Please don't believe these people, I request you. America, 500 acres is a small farm. We are not America. In the West, people need to do chemical farming. We don't need to. Our average farm is two acres, we have a labor problem, people don't have jobs. Organic farming is slightly more labor intensive. Great, our guys will get jobs.

How many examples have we placed before you on the show of people who are doing organ ic farming who are time and again telling you that if you do it correctly, your yield does not go down, your soil remains fertile? Why are you turning a blind eye to that? I don't understand. What more proof do you want, yaar?

A lot of people I have spoken to say something changed about you after your 2001 movie “Lagaan,” that you started speaking out more and doing movies that touched on more serious issues than you had in the past. Was the movie a turning point for you?

No, I don't think so. I spoke out during the Mumbai riots [in 1992 and 1993] also. I have never hesitated to speak my mind, ever. “Sarfarosh” was in 1998, before “Lagaan.” It's a highly social, political film. So I don't see “Lagaan” as a turning point.

What kind of influence has your wife, Kiran Rao, had on you?

I think Kiran has had a very relaxing effect on me. She has a lot of positive energy. She is full of life. She has always got a smile on her face, a bright s mile And I think her happy nature is infectious. I think as a person I have always been very closed, you know, right through my life. I think with Kiran coming into my life, I kind of [breathes out] relaxed. That's the best way I can explain it.

Where are you planning to take the show? How do you take it forward?

The first thing we want to do is understand what we have done. We need to take stock. I don't think right now we have fully understood what has happened. I don't think anybody has. And right now we are still in the thick of it. We are still airing our episodes; we are still doing postproduction of the ones that are coming. The last episode comes on 29 July.
Once that happens, I think the next three months the team will spread out once more across the country like they did for two years. And for three months they will travel the country to understand what is it that we have done and what is the extent of the impact of the show. Has it had any impact or not?

And you will go back to doing films like “Dhoom 3” after this?

It's not like this is not a part of my life. All of this is a part of my life. “Satyamev Jayate” is as much a part of my life as “Dhoom 3” is. Neither of the two ends for me; neither of the two is kept aside for me. “Satyamev Jayate” is very much part of my life and always will be. I am looking forward to “Dhoom 3.” It's a great script. See, I only work on things that excite me.

You have said you are not interested in running for office. What do you want to be doing 10 or 15 years from now?

Telling you stories, hopefully. Hopefully, I will still be able to tell you stories. This is what I enjoy doing. I enjoy touching people's heart, touching their lives. Making you laugh and cry, feel.

(Interview has been lightly edited and condensed.)



Possible Tornado Touches Down in Elmira, N.Y.

By JENNIFER PRESTON and MARC SANTORA

A video of damage in Elmira, N.Y., caused by a possible tornado on Thursday afternoon.

A possible tornado touched down in Elmira, N.Y., late Thursday, damaging buildings, toppling trees and bringing down power lines. The authorities said some people were trapped in their cars when the storm struck around 4 p.m. There were no reports of serious injuries.

Evan White, a reporter for the ABC affiliate WHAM-TV, took these photos and posted them on Twitter while he reported the story.

East side billboard torn apart http://t.co/ZuXlmMh6

- Evan White (@evanwhite13) 27 Jul 12

Emergency officials in Chemung County said there was “significant damage” in Elmira. The National Weather Service said that there were unconfirmed reports that a tornado had touched down.

Severe weather moved across Ohio and Pennsylvania on Thursday afternoon, and into New York and New England, bringing heavy rain and in some cases, strong winds and hail.

In the New York metropolitan area, weather officials said that the storm moved in shortly after 7 p.m. The hardest hit areas were northwest of the city in Westchester County and in parts of Connecticut, where there were multiple reports of downed trees and power lines. The highest measured wind gusts in the area were 60 miles per hour, near the Tappan Zee Bridge, officials said.

Around 8 p.m., wind gusts of up to 54 miles per hour were reported at Kennedy International Air port, weather officials said. Hundreds of flights were delayed because of the storm. Amtrak also reported delays.

Late Thursday, tens of thousands of people in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were without power.

On Instagram, the photo sharing service, people posted pictures from Elmira of downed trees and a new structure that appeared in a backyard.



Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)