Monday, December 20, 2010
Barkha Dutt And Nira Radia Transcript
19th Nov, 2010: The recent unearthing of transcripts of conversations between Barkha Dutt, group editor of NDTV, and Nira Radia, a powerful PR consultant and lobbyist who represents the Tatas and the Ambanis, has created an uproar over the extent of influence journalists and lobbyists allegedly exercise on engineering governments in our country.
The most powerful man in the world
The most powerful man in the world is not Barack Obama. It is Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, who is making America think again about big words like democracy and free speech, the kind of stuff that country prided itself on.
Allegedly Assange is promiscuous. There are rape cases filed against him. Since he is one way or the other stealing information that the US government considers classified, he could be called a thief. And since what he does can be easily interpreted as seditious, he could have been accused of treason if he were a US citizen. Enough stuff then to put him behind bars or keep him on the run. In short, a man of many failings. Just like and you and me.
Yet news about him drives newspaper sales. Every time WikiLeaks puts out apparently sensitive documents, the print world follows up on the act and in the short term at least does well. You could be forgiven to think that on a good day the net is print's benefactor.
Washington has done all it can to shut down WikiLeaks' operations. But the leaks keep popping up on mirror sites. There are any number of online debates and discussions happening on WikiLeaks. Most of them seem to think this is a clash between cultures, of the new net-based and truly democratic generation and the old posers in power, who mouth the good words and then pull the trigger.
Maybe it is. Equally, it is how the balance of power is shifting back to the individual in his fight against the system, here the state itself. Assange is powerful, because like Mahatma Gandhi, he is using truth as a strategic weapon. But unlike Gandhi, he has the unique advantage of the net, one of the most democratic of technologies. The US is a technologically driven country. It's perhaps justice then that it has met its match in a man who knows how to use technology with such subversive impact.
That Assange can disprove stated positions of a superpower and hold it accountable to its actions virtually single-handedly is good news to all those who believe patriotism and national identities must be subservient to human rights and ethics. The first is politics. The second is poetry. The individual is finding his voice again. And he is forcing the system to respect him. The power of one is now. And Assange is the man.
Allegedly Assange is promiscuous. There are rape cases filed against him. Since he is one way or the other stealing information that the US government considers classified, he could be called a thief. And since what he does can be easily interpreted as seditious, he could have been accused of treason if he were a US citizen. Enough stuff then to put him behind bars or keep him on the run. In short, a man of many failings. Just like and you and me.
Yet news about him drives newspaper sales. Every time WikiLeaks puts out apparently sensitive documents, the print world follows up on the act and in the short term at least does well. You could be forgiven to think that on a good day the net is print's benefactor.
Washington has done all it can to shut down WikiLeaks' operations. But the leaks keep popping up on mirror sites. There are any number of online debates and discussions happening on WikiLeaks. Most of them seem to think this is a clash between cultures, of the new net-based and truly democratic generation and the old posers in power, who mouth the good words and then pull the trigger.
Maybe it is. Equally, it is how the balance of power is shifting back to the individual in his fight against the system, here the state itself. Assange is powerful, because like Mahatma Gandhi, he is using truth as a strategic weapon. But unlike Gandhi, he has the unique advantage of the net, one of the most democratic of technologies. The US is a technologically driven country. It's perhaps justice then that it has met its match in a man who knows how to use technology with such subversive impact.
That Assange can disprove stated positions of a superpower and hold it accountable to its actions virtually single-handedly is good news to all those who believe patriotism and national identities must be subservient to human rights and ethics. The first is politics. The second is poetry. The individual is finding his voice again. And he is forcing the system to respect him. The power of one is now. And Assange is the man.
Rahul Gandhi is spot on but what is the Congress doing about it?
It is completely ridiculous for the Congress to be defensive about Rahul Gandhi’s reported remark that Hindu radical groups are potentially a bigger threat to India than Jehadi terrorists. Hindu communalism can lead to civil war, while Jehadi terrorism cannot, by itself.
If India’s Hindu majority, who are more than four-fifths the population turn communal, the idea of India as a plural, democratic nation that manages to forge unity out of diversity will cease to be even a goal. The idea will not just die; rather, it will be killed in a pool of blood, a very large pool that can drown not just the lives of innocents of all faiths but also India’s promise of prosperity on a fast track.
Radicalisation of small sections of the minorities does not have the same potential. But this does not mean nor suggest that minority communalism deserves kindler, gentler treatment. It needs to be stamped out with vigour. And it needs to be stamped out with vigour precisely because minority communalism becomes a handy justification for majority communal ideologues to spread their virus among the populace at large.
The Congress is allowing the Jehadis free run if not actually promoting them, has been the cry of the Hindu right and its ideologues, ever since the news broke of the Wiki leak on Rahul Gandhi. The implicit juxtaposition of Hindu communalists with Jehadis from Pakistan as mutually exclusive categories is downright silly. A leadership that is aware of the threat immanent in possible communalization of the majority would be doubly determined to guard against Jehadi terror. Jehadi terror can create mayhem of the sort we saw in the attack on Mumbai in November by Pak-trained terrorists, that is bad enough, but it can also give a boost to Hindu communalism, which can lead to civil war.
This should be obvious to all Congressmen who swear by Gandhi, who was killed by a Hindu communalist, and Nehru, who understood the sources of danger to the idea of India with utmost clarity. But, clearly, Congressmen today have no such clarity. And this is the criticism that Rahul Gandhi has to face.
The Congress has degenerated from the party of Gandhi and Nehru to a party of powerbrokers. Since power is more important to the party than the end to which it must be wielded, the Congress compromises with both Hindu and minority communalism. How else can anyone explain successive governments of Maharashtra, led by the government, failing to act against communal actions by the Shiv Sena, for example.
The continued social backwardness of Muslims is not just against the interests of the community but also a source of vulnerability for India’s national security. In the interest of social justice and to strengthen social cohesion and national security, concerted government action to end that backwardness is an urgent imperative. But if that imperative is articulated in a political idiom that tells both Muslims and Hindus that the Congress is trying to curry favour with Muslims, it only serves to feed the threat which Rahul Gandhi rightly identified as being more grave than the threat from Jehadis from across the border.
If India’s Hindu majority, who are more than four-fifths the population turn communal, the idea of India as a plural, democratic nation that manages to forge unity out of diversity will cease to be even a goal. The idea will not just die; rather, it will be killed in a pool of blood, a very large pool that can drown not just the lives of innocents of all faiths but also India’s promise of prosperity on a fast track.
Radicalisation of small sections of the minorities does not have the same potential. But this does not mean nor suggest that minority communalism deserves kindler, gentler treatment. It needs to be stamped out with vigour. And it needs to be stamped out with vigour precisely because minority communalism becomes a handy justification for majority communal ideologues to spread their virus among the populace at large.
The Congress is allowing the Jehadis free run if not actually promoting them, has been the cry of the Hindu right and its ideologues, ever since the news broke of the Wiki leak on Rahul Gandhi. The implicit juxtaposition of Hindu communalists with Jehadis from Pakistan as mutually exclusive categories is downright silly. A leadership that is aware of the threat immanent in possible communalization of the majority would be doubly determined to guard against Jehadi terror. Jehadi terror can create mayhem of the sort we saw in the attack on Mumbai in November by Pak-trained terrorists, that is bad enough, but it can also give a boost to Hindu communalism, which can lead to civil war.
This should be obvious to all Congressmen who swear by Gandhi, who was killed by a Hindu communalist, and Nehru, who understood the sources of danger to the idea of India with utmost clarity. But, clearly, Congressmen today have no such clarity. And this is the criticism that Rahul Gandhi has to face.
The Congress has degenerated from the party of Gandhi and Nehru to a party of powerbrokers. Since power is more important to the party than the end to which it must be wielded, the Congress compromises with both Hindu and minority communalism. How else can anyone explain successive governments of Maharashtra, led by the government, failing to act against communal actions by the Shiv Sena, for example.
The continued social backwardness of Muslims is not just against the interests of the community but also a source of vulnerability for India’s national security. In the interest of social justice and to strengthen social cohesion and national security, concerted government action to end that backwardness is an urgent imperative. But if that imperative is articulated in a political idiom that tells both Muslims and Hindus that the Congress is trying to curry favour with Muslims, it only serves to feed the threat which Rahul Gandhi rightly identified as being more grave than the threat from Jehadis from across the border.
SRK features in WikiLeaks cables
Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan and the threat by the Shiv Sena to ban screenings of his film "My Name is Khan" found mention in a US embassy cable that was leaked by WikiLeaks.
"My Name is Khan" is a 2010 movie made by Karan Johar in which Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol played the lead roles.
"The Shiv Sena had threatened to ban screenings of Shah Rukh Khan's upcoming movie, 'My Name is Khan', because Shah Rukh Khan publicly lamented the absence of Pakistani cricket players in India's professional cricket league for the coming season," says the cable dated Feb 22, 2010.
The cable posted in the Guardian newspaper said that Shiv Sena goons burnt posters of the movie and protested in front of his home, asking Khan to "move to Pakistan".
"Khan himself did not bid on any Pakistani players as co-owner of one of the frachises," it said.
While some theatre owners refrained from screening the film on its opening day due to security concerns, "a show of force by the police convinced theatres to roll out a full release" the next day.
"With protests and controversy generating far more international buzz than the typical Bollywood movie, Khan's new movie opened to packed audiences in Mumbai and elsewhere," it added.
"My Name is Khan" is a 2010 movie made by Karan Johar in which Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol played the lead roles.
"The Shiv Sena had threatened to ban screenings of Shah Rukh Khan's upcoming movie, 'My Name is Khan', because Shah Rukh Khan publicly lamented the absence of Pakistani cricket players in India's professional cricket league for the coming season," says the cable dated Feb 22, 2010.
The cable posted in the Guardian newspaper said that Shiv Sena goons burnt posters of the movie and protested in front of his home, asking Khan to "move to Pakistan".
"Khan himself did not bid on any Pakistani players as co-owner of one of the frachises," it said.
While some theatre owners refrained from screening the film on its opening day due to security concerns, "a show of force by the police convinced theatres to roll out a full release" the next day.
"With protests and controversy generating far more international buzz than the typical Bollywood movie, Khan's new movie opened to packed audiences in Mumbai and elsewhere," it added.
Al-Qaida aims to 'bring down' Pakistan: Biden
WASHINGTON: Al-Qaida is trying to "bring down" nuclear-armed Pakistan, US Vice President Joe Biden warned Sunday, days after a war review tip-toed around Islamabad's role in fighting extremists.
"Our overarching goal and our rationale for being there is to dismantle, ultimately defeat al-Qaida... to make sure that terrorists do not, in fact, bring down the Pakistani government, which is a nuclear power," Biden said.
The vice-president, in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" program, repeated threads of a one-year report on the US military surge in Afghanistan that pointed to progress but warned that more time was needed.
Unveiling the policy assessment, President Barack Obama urged Islamabad to do more to rein in extremists holed up along the Afghan border but also renewed US commitment to major aid programs for Pakistan.
The report trod carefully on the uneasy US anti-terror ally following pointed criticisms of Islamabad's nuclear safety and other areas of policy revealed in the US cables published by WikiLeaks and other reports.
Many experts say Pakistan is far less willing to take action against militants seen as useful in fighting rival India or in preserving Islamabad's influence in Afghanistan.
While the war review called relations with Pakistan "substantial" -- a departure from private US assessments that question Islamabad's commitment to fighting extremists -- it did urge some readjustment.
"For instance, the denial of extremist safe havens will require greater cooperation with Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan," it said.
Biden measured success against al-Qaida by noting it had been restricted to efforts like the botched underwear attack on a US-bound jetliner last Christmas and a failed amateurish bombing in New York's Times Square in May.
They are planning much smaller bore but yet deadly attempts to go after the United States of America. We saw that in the underpants bomber last Christmas. We saw that in the Times Square effort.
"We have significantly degraded and knocked off a lot of the main planners and organizers and trainers. Does that mean we've succeeded? No. Does that mean we're in much better shape than we were a year ago and two and three? Yes."
Obama on Thursday said Afghan progress was sufficient to permit a "responsible reduction" of US forces to begin in July 2011, though the size of the likely drawdown appeared limited.
The assessment comes one year after the president announced both a surge of 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan and the conditions-based July troop drawdown.
"Our overarching goal and our rationale for being there is to dismantle, ultimately defeat al-Qaida... to make sure that terrorists do not, in fact, bring down the Pakistani government, which is a nuclear power," Biden said.
The vice-president, in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" program, repeated threads of a one-year report on the US military surge in Afghanistan that pointed to progress but warned that more time was needed.
Unveiling the policy assessment, President Barack Obama urged Islamabad to do more to rein in extremists holed up along the Afghan border but also renewed US commitment to major aid programs for Pakistan.
The report trod carefully on the uneasy US anti-terror ally following pointed criticisms of Islamabad's nuclear safety and other areas of policy revealed in the US cables published by WikiLeaks and other reports.
Many experts say Pakistan is far less willing to take action against militants seen as useful in fighting rival India or in preserving Islamabad's influence in Afghanistan.
While the war review called relations with Pakistan "substantial" -- a departure from private US assessments that question Islamabad's commitment to fighting extremists -- it did urge some readjustment.
"For instance, the denial of extremist safe havens will require greater cooperation with Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan," it said.
Biden measured success against al-Qaida by noting it had been restricted to efforts like the botched underwear attack on a US-bound jetliner last Christmas and a failed amateurish bombing in New York's Times Square in May.
They are planning much smaller bore but yet deadly attempts to go after the United States of America. We saw that in the underpants bomber last Christmas. We saw that in the Times Square effort.
"We have significantly degraded and knocked off a lot of the main planners and organizers and trainers. Does that mean we've succeeded? No. Does that mean we're in much better shape than we were a year ago and two and three? Yes."
Obama on Thursday said Afghan progress was sufficient to permit a "responsible reduction" of US forces to begin in July 2011, though the size of the likely drawdown appeared limited.
The assessment comes one year after the president announced both a surge of 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan and the conditions-based July troop drawdown.
The great Indian social network
While the film is extraordinarily well made, the story it tells is even more amazing. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, at 26, is the youngest billionaire in the world. Six years ago, Mark started Facebook from his college dorm. Today, the privately held company could be worth $50 billion (Rs 220,000 crore). The movie is pathbreaking in that it is about talent, made by talented people and for a country that celebrates talent.
For, only in the USA, can a boy in his 20s, coming from nowhere, create a company worth billions in six years, and the country celebrates him by making a movie on him. Ironically, Mark never cared about making money when he founded Facebook. His main motivation was to do something innovative, entrepreneurial, and most importantly – cool. At one point, he states, "Money, or the ability to make money, doesn't impress anyone around here."
In reality, they are hardly icons. They have milked an unfair system for their personal benefit, taking opportunities that belonged to the young on a level-playing field. Indian companies make money from rent-seeking behavior, creating artificial barriers of access to regulators; thereby depriving our startups of wealth-generating opportunities. None of the recent technologies that have changed the world and created wealth – telecom, computers, aviation - have risen out of India. Yet, our promoters have figured out a way to make money from them, by bulldozing their way into taking their share of the pie, rationing out the technology to Indians, and coming out as modern-day heroes. In reality, they are no heroes. They are the opposite of cool, and despite their billions, they are, in what is known in youthful parlance, as 'losers'.
For if they are not losers, why have they never raised their voice against government corruption? Our corporates don't think twice before creating a cartel to fleece customers. Yet, they never have a cartel to take a stand against corrupt politicians. They scream about the Radia tapes being leaked but do not reflect on their disgusting content. None of our blue chips have the capability to invent technology like the cell phone but being opportunists, they jumped at the chance of making money in spectrum allocation.
International investors already know this, and while they see India's potential, they understand that the Indian corporate-political nexus is actually keeping India poor, not making it rich.
This can be fixed. Quite frankly, it has to be fixed if we want India to be the great nation our forefathers dreamed of. The net effect of this nepotism is high – it's often debilitating for startups in India, vital to the broad-based growth of any economy. If we want to set this right, there is a role to be played by corporates, the government and individuals.
First, the few corporates who really care, have to form a cartel against corruption and nepotism. If promoters take a public stand that their business group will not bribe, it will send a strong message. Compete on innovation, not the ability to bribe. That's what is cool. Meanwhile, the existing billionaires should stop flaunting their money and consider the 57 richest billionaires of America who have pledged to give away more than half their wealth to charity (yes, Mark Zuckerberg included).
Second, our government has to understand the meaning of protecting Indian industry. It isn't to protect the established fat cats, who could frankly do with a dose of healthy competition. Protecting Indian industry means policies that help new Indian companies thrive, an environment where startups are glorified and inherited princes are not put on a pedestal. Innovation is considered cool, not inheritance.
Third, we as individuals have to stop admiring and glorifying the parasitic billionaires of India. They may not be technically doing anything illegal, but there is definitely nothing cool about using connections to get something that you couldn't have if there were fair competition. We should not be celebrating money, consumption and power. We should be celebrating innovation and entrepreneurship.
Yes, these businessmen employ some of us, and we have seen increased affluence amongst some Indians. Maybe we have a million rich Indians now. It isn't enough. With the right business environment, India can be a dramatically different place, offering a better life to not just a few, but all of us. After all, to modify a dialogue from the film, "You know what's cooler than a million rich Indians? A billion rich Indians."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)