Author Archives: amardeep

Non-Aligned Nehru (Guha Chapter 8)

Posted on by

[Part of an ongoing series on Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi. Last week’s entry can be found here. Next week we will look at Chapter 9, “Redrawing the Boundaries,” on the Language Movements of the 1950s]

With 20-20 hindsight, many people criticize Nehru today for pursuing a foreign policy oriented to “nonalignment” — that is, independence from both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Here is one of Nehru’s most famous statements articulating that policy, from a speech given at Columbia University:

“The main objectives of that policy are: the pursuit of peace, not through alignment with any major power or group of powers but through an independent approach to each controversial or disputed issue, the liberation of subject peoples, the maintenance of freedom, both national and individual, the elimination of racial discrimination and the elimination of want, disease and ignorance, which afflict the greater part of the world’s population.”

The idealism in that statement is admirable, and still worth thinking about, even if the world order has changed dramatically since Nehru first uttered these words. The idea of taking an “independent approach to each controversial or disputed issue” is one I personally strive for as a writer, and could serve as a helpful corrective to many partisan ideologues — on both the left and the right — who tend to only see the world through one particular ideological filter or the other.

Ideals aside, Nehru’s government did make some serious mistakes in foreign policy in the first few years. One of the significant failures Guha mentions in this chapter involved an inconsistency in the response to two international crises: 1) Anglo-French military action in response to Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 (the Suez Crisis), and 2) the Soviet invasion of Hungary following an anti-Communist uprising, also in 1956 (the Hungarian Revolution). India publicly condemned the first act of aggression by western powers, but not the second, which today seems like a clear indication that India was leaning towards the Soviets more than it let on.

Guha suggests there were some internal differences between Nehru and the famous leftist Krishna Menon, who represented India at the U.N., over the Hungary question. Nehru publicly defended Menon’s abstention at the U.N. on the resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungary, but privately he was deeply upset about the invasion. Part of the problem here might have been Nehru’s lack of clarity over the correct course to take, but certainly Krishna Menon’s independent streak must have been a factor as well.

A similar kind of diplomatic confusion was present in India’s relationship with China starting in 1950. Here, the Indian ambassador to China, K.N. Panikkar (who is also very well-known as a historian), seems to have fatally misread Mao Zedong and the personality of Chinese communism: Continue reading →

Two Things I Think We Can All Agree On

Posted on by

1) Padma Lakshmi may not be the sharpest tool in the shed:

“Padma Lakshmi,” she hoped, might one day be on as many food labels as “Paul Newman”—“a big hero.” Soon there would be Padma jewelry and fashion, “like Jennifer Lopez,” she said, and television and cookware, “like Martha Stewart.” In September, she sealed a major deal with IMG, the sports-and-entertainment marketing giant. “She has a global image and no end of ideas,” said John Steele, a senior V.P., “so we have multiple agreements.” “Like,” Padma said, “Tiger Woods.” How amazing was it that she, the daughter of a single mother who fled India to escape the stigma of divorce, was poised to become the first Indian woman with an American brand—perhaps the first to self-brand. “I’m as American as anyone else,” she has said. (link)

Ah yes, comparing yourself to Martha Stewart, Jennifer Lopez, and Tiger Woods in a single paragraph. Why not also go for P Diddy, to round out your own private Macy’s commercial of utter delusion? (Read on for more wince-worthy quotes…)

2) But she knows how to work the hair:

padma-lakshmi-vanity-fair.jpg

(Thanks for the tip, KXB. I know you read Vanity Fair for the articles, too.) Continue reading →

In Defense of Substantive Democracy

Posted on by

This post is a response of sorts to Abhi’s thought-provoking comments on Musharraf’s State of Emergency, and what he sees as the possible benefits of dictatorship in certain limited conditions. Abhi’s post, as I read it, was a thought experiment, not necessarily a political program — and this is a somewhat speculative thought experiment as well (these ideas are not set in stone). There is some value in the general idea that democracy before stability is not always the best thing for a country, and in the particular claim that Pakistan’s democratic institutions have been severely weakened by years and years of misrule (going back to the Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif days; Musharraf did not start this with his 1999 coup).

That said, I’m not ready to give up faith in liberal democracy, and I think it could still happen in Pakistan. As for how to get there, there are probably only two or three paths at this point, none of them easy. One is a popular uprising that would probably turn pretty ugly in the short run — think of the bloody riots in Karachi this past summer, only magnified. If successful (big “if”), mass protests/riots could be followed by a military coup and a provisional dictatorship, and then by open elections — again, if the coup was carried out by the right person. (There could also be more violence during the elections, and possibly more trouble/instability even after they occur.) The other is something accidental, which could be anything. Perhaps a new leadership emerges (Imran Khan, by the way, has managed to escape from house arrest — I wish him luck), or perhaps something unforeseen happens to/with Musharraf that leaves a power vacuum? Perhaps both? Who knows. Either way, in my view there is no question that if democracy is to have a chance in Pakistan, Musharraf has to go.

Another possibility to speculate on is what might happen if either the Bush administration or (more likely) its successor were to withold military and economic aid to pressure Musharraf to cancel this State of Emergency. Here I’m really not sure what the ramifications would be for Musharraf. It might be symbolically bad on the international stage, but would it really hurt him all that much domestically? Here I’m really not sure.

I should also say that I disagree with the calculus, which is widely prevalent amongst American TV pundits right now (and also implied in Abhi’s post), that Musharraf needs to stay because America needs him for its “War on Terror.” There may or may not be any truth in this (as has been pointed out, Musharraf’s net contribution to fighting terrorism is highly debatable), but what I keep thinking is that at this moment it’s not America’s interests that I’m concerned about, it’s the Pakistani people, who deserve good, transparent governance. It’s the Pakistani people who deserve a free press (not blackouts of private news channels), the right to peacefully dissent, and the right to organize politically — who deserve, in short, substantive democracy. Continue reading →

Sikh-Face — Today’s Version of Blackface

Posted on by

This week’s episode of NBC’s My Name is Earl (thanks, anonymous tipster) features a neighbor in the trailer park who is supposed to be a Sikh. But he looks more like the usual “turbaned” convenience store clerk/taxi driver stock caricature who shows up in Hollywood movies and TV shows from time to time.

sikh face my name is earl.jpg

Is it offensive? Going by just the image, I would say yes, and not just to Sikhs. I think it’s offensive to all South Asians, perhaps even to all immigrants. In a sense the “Sikh” neighbor here stands in for all funny-looking/sounding foreigners in the imaginary world of My Name is Earl, just as Apu does in The Simpsons. It’s not just the wrong-looking turban and the glued on beard, it’s the accent — he’s even wearing a Sherwani suit! (While living in a trailer park!)

On the other hand, it could be pointed out that this particular episode is making fun of the anti-terrorist hysteria that swept the U.S. after 9/11 (the conceit is that the show is actually an episode of “Cops” filmed in 2002 — and the claptrap about catching terrorists is of course all the more absurd since the show is set in a small town). It shows law enforcement officers as particularly incompetent and clueless in their attempt to “profile” suspected terrorists, including the character above. But if your goal is to make fun of hysteria using silly caricatures that actually reinforce the ignorance you’re supposedly satirizing, what are you really doing?

It could also be pointed out that a show like My Name is Earl is so generally politically incorrect (and self-conscious about that political incorrectness — “Look, see, we’re being politically incorrect!”) that getting offended about this one thing seems out of place. (Look at how women are represented in the show, for instance.) I’m not sure — but one does think of the recent controversy over the reference to the Philippines in a recent episode of Desperate Housewives, which got a fair amount of media coverage; this, it seems to me, is much more offensive.

You can watch the show on NBC.com here; it’s episode 307. The “Sikh” character (he self-identifies as a Sikh) shows up briefly in the beginning, and then again in the last third of the show.

What do you think? Is it offensive? Are you planning to write NBC?

[UPDATE: One other thing — in case you’re wondering “what self-respecting Desi would take this role?” — the Sikh character is played by an actor named Alex Endeshaw, who is ethnicity isn’t entirely clear to me from Ethiopia originally.] Continue reading →

Two Conferences this Weekend (tooting apna horn)

Posted on by

Normally a post like this would go on the Events Tab, but some SM bloggers are involved in one event, so perhaps it’s not too out of place to put it here. Both events have their main speakers this Saturday (11/3), though SAWCC actually has a reading/performance on Friday night and creative workshops and panels on Saturday.

First, for people in and near Washington DC, you may wish to attend the SALTAF festival, which features Madhur Jaffrey, Amitava Kumar, Thrity Umrigar, Rishi Reddi, and Canadian filmmaker Vic Sarin (whose film, Partition, is screening at the festival). Kicking off the festival as a whole is the much-hyped Hindi film, Loins of Punjab Presents, which I’ve been waiting to see for months, damnit.

In New York, it’s the SAWCC conference, which this year has the charming title, “Electric Ladyland.” SAWCC participants are younger and more “Up-and-coming,” and the conference itself (which I attended last year) is very much a hands-on, get-involved type of event — you don’t just sit back and sample the wine-and-samosas. I am on a panel called “Pop/Politics,” with Mira Kamdar, Sita Bhaskar, and Sunita Mukhi. I am not 100% sure what I’m talking about yet — probably something involving Bobby Jindal and the Tehelka/Gujarat spycam affair. And SM blogger Anna is on a panel called “Eat, Pray, Love: Writing/Crafting/Cooking the Personal Narrative,” with food writer Chitrita Banerji, and Janki Khatau.

I probably won’t be in New York long enough to participate in an official meetup, but it would be great to see/meet some SM readers at the SAWCC event itself. The panels, incidentally, are FREE.

Incidentally, if you’re interested in the creative writing workshops on Saturday morning, you should email sawcclitfest@gmail.com (they may already be filled up; the workshops are limited to 12 people each). Continue reading →

Diversity in the Indian Constitution (Guha Chapter 6)

Posted on by

[Part of an ongoing series on Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi. Last week’s entry can be found here. Next week we will skip a chapter, and go directly to Chapter 8, “Home and the World,” which explains how India evolved its “non-aligned” status.]

I’ve actually written a longish post on the idea of “secularism” in the Indian constitution in the past, but of course there’s more to say. The entire proceedings (more than 1000 pages of text!) of the Constituent Assembly have been posted online by the Indian Parliament here. Guha’s account comes out of reading through those proceedings, and is also deeply influenced by Granville Austin’s classic book, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, which is still as I understand it the definitive book on the subject.

As many readers may be aware, the Indian Constitution was worked out over the course of three years (1946-1949), by a Constituent Assembly that contained 300 members, including representation by religious minorities, members of marginal groups (i.e., Adivasis), as well as a small but vocal group of women.

Three of the profound disagreements that the members of the Assembly had to resolve included: 1) the proper role of Gandhian philosophy in defining the new nation, 2) the question of “reservations” for Dalits and Tribals (Scheduled Castes and Tribes), and 3) the status of Indian languages, and the idea of an “official” language. Continue reading →

Hard Kaur = the Desi Missy Elliott (a theory)

Posted on by

Watching the following video (from the Hindi film Johnny Gaddaar), it occurred to me that Hard Kaur is in some ways the British/Desi equivalent of Missy Elliott:

Like Missy, Hard Kaur depends a lot on the producers she’s worked with. In this case, the song wouldn’t be much at all without the ideas and beat from the legendary Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy. In Missy’s case, of course, the wizard behind all of her big hits has been Timbaland. Admittedly, neither Missy nor Hard Kaur could be called serious “auteurs” — but then, they’re not trying to be Radiohead, they’re trying to make money.

Like Missy, Hard Kaur has become a success based on her talent and street swagger, not so much her looks. (Though I really don’t want to get into a “hot or not” discussion of looks if it can be avoided; my point is, there are plenty of pretty pop princesses out there whose careers have gone nowhere, while Hard Kaur is crossing over into Bollywood like a bullet.) Just like Missy, there’s something about Hard Kaur’s rapping that has nothing to do with clever production tricks or computer software; there’s a realness and hip hop confidence (i.e., “hardness”) there that can only come from the street. Finally, both Missy and Hard Kaur have a particular fondness for a) “songs that make you dance,” and b) songs about intoxication (alcohol or drugs).

I’m not saying that Hard Kaur is ever going to make as much money as Missy Elliott, but I don’t think she quite gets the props she deserves for her originality. Is it because she’s too ‘beisharam’ (shameless)? Are people threatened by this Punjabi Kuri who writes songs about getting drunk, and her need for “Sexy Boys” (who should be, as she says, “thora sa lafanga/I need a gangster”)?

In effect, what I’m saying is that I, for one, am a fan of Ms. Hard Kaur — though I concede I may be the only one here. (I also still like Missy, though in my view she hasn’t done anything inspired in awhile.) Continue reading →

Dubai — The Beginning of the End?

Posted on by

For the first time that I know of, Desi (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Sri Lankan) workers in Dubai have gone on strike to protest low wages and working conditions. After years of systematic exploitation, it’s about time.

The boom has been possible due to plentiful investment from oil-rich neighbors and armies of non-unionized south Asian workers whose fear of deportation, until recently, kept them from voicing discontent over low wages.

“The cost of living here has increased so much in the past two years that I cannot survive with my salary,” said Rajesh Kumar, a 24-year-old worker from the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh who earns $149 a month.

The laborers ignored the threat of deportation and refused to go to work, staging protests at a labor camp in Dubai’s Jebel Ali Industrial Zone and on a construction site in Al Qusais residential neighborhood. They demanded pay increases, improved housing and better transportation services to construction sites. On Saturday, workers threw stones at the riot police and damaged to police cars.

Emirates’ Minister of Labor Ali bin Abdullah al-Kaabi described workers’ behavior as “uncivilized,” saying they were tampering with national security and endangering residents’ safety. (link)

Uncivilized? In my view, what’s uncivilized is when you’re making billions and your workers (nearly 2 million of them) are forced to live in prison-like conditions for $149 a month. When they have limited civil and legal rights, and are forcibly segregated from the native population. And when you have laws on the books that prevent them from organizing in any way that might lead to a better situation for themselves.

The era when South Asian workers were desperate to go abroad to try and make a little money under these circumstances seems to be gradually ending, and many in Dubai are more than ready to walk away, especially with a growing economy at home, and the UAE’s Dirham linked to a falling dollar:

Companies, however, do not want more workers to leave as they struggle to find enough to complete existing projects following an overwhelming response to a government amnesty program to persuade illegal laborers to leave.

In June, the government offered, no questions asked, a free one-way plane tickets to illegal workers hoping to leave. They have since been swamped by 280,000 workers who, fed up with a rising cost of living and low wages, were ready to go home. (link)

280,000 are ready to go home right now (NB: they can only go home if the UAE allows them to do so).

It’s true, even if many of the Desis leave, others might be willing to take their place. But with one large reservoir of dirt cheap labor drying up, it sounds like the oasis of Dubai’s recent economic boom is starting to flicker. It may have always been a mere mirage — albeit one built with real sweat, and in some cases, blood. Continue reading →

GapKids Shoppers, meet Bonded Child Laborers

Posted on by

One of the items that has been getting votes on the News Tab today is the IBN Live story (thanks, Raprasad) on The Gap’s decision to pull a contract with an Indian contractor that had been using bonded child laborers in horrific sweatshop conditions in Delhi. (By a strange irony, the clothes the children were working on happened to be destined for GapKids. Oy.) The decision by The Gap was prompted by an excellent article in the UK Observer, which was in turn the product of an undercover investigation. The part that bugged me in the IBN article came at the end of the following passage:

The Observer quoted the children as saying that they had been sold to the sweatshop in Delhi by their families. The children, some of who worked for as long as 16 hours a day sewing clothes by hand, said they hailed from Bihar and West Bengal. They added that they were not being paid because their employer said they were still trainees; nor would they be allowed to leave till they could repay the amount for which they were bought from their families.

When contacted, Gap gave the official statement that the sweatshop was being run by a sub-contractor. This is a violation of Gap’s policies, said the fashion giant.

Gap spokesman Bill Chandler was vocal in his thanks to the media. “We appreciate that the media identified this sub-contractor and we acted swiftly in this situation,” he told the Associated Press. “Under no circumstances is it acceptable for children to produce or work on garments,” he added.

Correctness-conscious America is very strict about the use of child labour. (link)

That last sentence, “Correctness-conscious America is very strict…” got under my skin. Granted, there are different ways of looking at this particular issue; I know some people justify limited child labor under the argument that families living in extreme poverty need all the income they can get. In this case, however, the kids were effectively slave laborers sold off by their families — an arrangement that in my view can’t possibly be defensible.

The sentence above could also be defended along the lines that the reporter was merely explaining to a readership that may not be that strongly opposed to child labor why this is such a big deal. If that’s the case — that is, if the majority of English-speaking readers of Indian business newspapers and viewers of cable news are nonplussed by bonded child labor in their own backyards — I’m not angry, just sad. It’s not about “correctness-consciousness,” it’s about basic human rights, is it not?

See also: SAJA Forum. Continue reading →