Devyani Khobragade and the India-US diplomatic crisis - a case of much ado about nothing

The airwaves in the past few days have been dominated by the news of the diplomatic crisis between India and US over the treatment of a junior diplomat, Devyani Khobragade. It got way too much attention than it deserved and it became a rallying point for all political parties, no major party wanted to be left behind, especially with elections coming up soon. Anti-US sentiments work well in most parts of the world and the politicians in all countries are quick to latch on to it. So in the midst of all the smoke, let us try to look at the issue without any emotions. There are two issues here, one is the visa fraud by Devyani, and the other is about the way she was treated.

Devyani Khobragade is the Deputy Consul General in New York and was arrested on visa fraud charges (which is in the back-burner now). She gave false info when she filed the visa papers for her maid (Ms Richard) stating that she will pay her the minimum wage as per law, while she paid about a fourth of that only. She was arrested after there was a complaint to the police, but they arrested her when she was leaving her kids at school. She was then was strip searched by a female police officer, which to me was taking it a little too far on the police side. This became a blessing in disguise for her as she was able to turn the tables to become the victim instead of being the accused. One has to give credit to Ms Khobragade to turn the narrative around in her favor.

Clearly there was over reaction from all sides, and most by the political brass in India for obvious reasons. This is where all political parties had one agenda. Why did they not cry out loud when innocents are being raped on a regular basis in India? Or to get a Lokpal bill in place? There are so many reasons that Indian politicians should be ashamed of including rampant corruption, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, violence against women, lack of access to basic facilities.., the list can go on and on, and yet they found just this issue. As Seth and Amy would say on SNL, REALLY?, I mean REALLY Indian politicians and public, is this all you are concerned about? And REALLY Devyani, are you so naïve that you did not know you were committing visa fraud, REALLY?

The police for sure overreacted to a certain extent, especially with the strip/cavity search (if what is written in the media is true), though fact is she was strip searched by a female officer and not a male officer as was made out in the Indian media. They should have dealt with her in a milder manner. That still does not make her above law. The media over reacted too by making this a big headline and catapulting Devyani to fame. Same with the Indian public too who talk about this as an issue of morality and turn a deaf ear when an Indian commits heinous crimes, especially against women. Sure, the US has its own morality issues and in this case there is an element of it too, but why would they bring this up when it happens in the US? Why is the same public silent when women from other countries are raped in India on a regular basis, and we are talking of rape and not a strip search by a female police officer? Why don’t the same people protest when numerous women are raped by police themselves in India? For folks who have traveled around the world, especially around the US, a lot of people of color have been subjected to pat-downs. This is not the only morality issue, corruption is a morality issue too, and so is falsifying documents.

Now what does one think of the actual accusation of visa fraud? To me, it does not take an investigator to know that the maid was not being paid as was mentioned in the visa papers. Most house maids who have been brought in from India and other countries will agree to work for much lower than minimum wage. That does not make what Devyani did as lawful. Being a diplomat, she has to know that that it is plain wrong to give false information, and that if she still did it then she has to be ready to face the consequences. She is living in the US and has to abide by the US law. If she needed a domestic help, then pay her as per the law. If she tries to hire someone in the US then she will have to pay much more, so she tried to be smart by having her cake and eating it too. Her record is not blemish-less too, with both her and her father being cited in the Adarsh housing society scam. She has 11 or more properties, including in places as dispersed as from Maharashtra (majority is there) to Kerala to Uttar Pradesh, this does not seem so normal to me.

Finally, on the maid Ms Richard, was she hallucinating that she’d be paid close to $4k per month when she was asked to be a maid?, especially when she agreed on a much lower pay in India. So there is a possibility that she is trying to take advantage of her situation. One does not know if she was subjected to any harassment by Devyani and her family, but it does bring the plight of domestic servants who are brought like this and in many cases exploited. Indians should know this very well with a lot of examples of Indian women (especially from Kerala) going to the gulf countries to work as maid servants and being subjected to a lot of harassments. There were a few instances in the past 2 years of poor women from Kerala being subjected to extreme harassment in the middle-east countries. None of that got the media attention it really deserved, as that did not happen in the US. Those were much heinous crimes and should have been debated by the politicians and public alike. Sadly there was no outrage from the public, the politicians and the media alike. We should have taken a very strong stand against those countries, but we chose not to care. I guess it makes a lot of people feel good if they can find a reason to accuse the US, and the US has to be blamed too for its past hegemony and narrow-minded foreign policy decisions across the world over the past few decades. All said and done, there is no need to shed too much tears for Ms Devyani, she was smart enough to turn the narrative to her benefit and has most likely succeeded in evading the visa fraud charges. We cannot expect politicians to change, but one hopes that the public would protest for the just causes and not over react like in this instance, it was clearly a case of much ado about nothing.

-Ramanuja Iyer

Sachin Tendulkar - The man who gave joy to millions for over two decades

Finally the curtains came down on one of the greatest cricketers as I watch the game today in a truly post-Tendulkar era. Wanted to write after we watched Sachin’s farewell speech that made all 3 of us tear up, but the weekend turned out to be full. So when my 12 year old wrote about Sachin yesterday (here is his tribute: http://ajbookcritique.blogspot.com/2013/11/thank-you-sachin.html), I could not resist anymore, especially after pondering on what Sachin meant for my generation, and to many others of past and future generations.

I stayed awake along with my 12yr old during the last test for one last look at the great man play. Did not have any expectations, but just as a small tribute for all the joys (and some sorrows) provided by the great man to the millions over the past 24 years. To admit that it was his best knock in the past 2 years and it included some of the classical Sachin trademark shots, including the straight drive off the seamers that is more of a push/block, than a drive for other mortals playing the game. Still remember the‘89 series vs Pakistan under Srikanth’s captaincy, and the baptism by fire at the hands of the two W’s, including a bloody nose from Waqar. We did not have a TV at home then, and remember watching it at a neighbor’s place with friends, those were the daysJ. Till that time, cheering for the Indian team was based out of hope that someone might score, but since Sachin’s arrival the hope switched to a confidence that Sachin was there and the rest could play around him. I am sure many would have felt the same too, and soon enough the expectations of a billion was thrust on the little man’s shoulders. I am not the biggest of Sachin fans, as I used to be Dravid fan, but cannot take away the fact that Sachin was on a different level, in many ways.

What Sachin has given the nation is a lot of hope and cheer for millions. It was at a time when the country was not the same, V.P.Singh was the Prime Minister (seems like a different age) when Sachin played his first test, and there was no liberalization yet and the economy was stuttering at its best and hence life for most was not gung-ho as it is now. Making people happy can have a lot of positive effects, including making them feel good and thereby to do positive things in their life. It can give hope and keep one going in spite of the tough times. Not everyone might be able to relate to such thoughts, but I can tell that it does matter, especially when one is feeling down. It was also a time when my family was going through our own struggles and I for one did feed of on sports for hope and cheer. We mortals cannot give joy and hope to even a handful of people, and think of what Sachin has done to hundreds of millions. How many celebrities can stake that claim? He started at a time when the money in the sport was nothing like it is now, and if he has earned a few millions so be it, he deserved it. Sachin was a great role model for all upcoming cricket players and for the youth in general, and it was not just about cricket. Success never got to Sachin’s head and he always kept a low profile. This was true with Dravid too, but Sachin is larger than life and hence has more impact. Aggression on the field for Sachin was for his bat to do the talking, and not with the mouth or hand gestures like some of the present generation stars do.

Sachin’s career can be broken down into 4 phases. The first phase was from 1989-95 when he was the only quality batsman in the team, and the team itself was average at best. The best Sachin could do during that stage was to take the battle on his own, and there were many memorable innings of his during that phase. The second phase started with the arrival of great company, with Dada and Dravid in 96 and VVS the following year. It heralded the beginning of the great Indian middle order, and the pressure on Sachin was reduced as the others were legends in their own right and could win and save matches on their own too. He surely blossomed during this time and played his most memorable knocks. The standout performance was the brutal assault on Warne while the Aussies toured India in ‘98. The 3rd phase was from 2006 to 2011 when the team was more powerful and starting winning abroad as well and Sachin was no longer the destroyer, but became the accumulator with the likes of Sehwag and Dhoni to take the destroyer mantle. It culminated in the great world cup win with Sachin being India’s highest run-getter with 2 centuries and a match winning knock against Pakistan in the semi-finals. The final phase was 2011 and beyond, a phase which could have been avoided. This was when the weight of the 100th century buried him and it was painful to see him struggle. No great knocks during this phase.

There are so many memorable knocks from the man and one cannot list them all, but if I have to pick the 5 that I can recollect the most from what I have seen of him, here they are:

1. 136 vs. Pakistan in Chennai (1999): What a knock, though in a losing cause. A great and gripping test match, it was a match between the wonderful Indian batting side (with Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman and Azhharuddin) vs the terrific Pakistan bowling (with Wasim, Waqar and Saqlain). Turned out to be Sachin vs the Pakistan bowlers with the other batting stalwarts folding for 10 or under. Sachin with a painful back took India so close to victory batting with Mongia and the tail, but finally fell to Saqlain’s guise with India 13 runs short. A painful, but wonderful memory.

2. 169 vs. South Africa in Cape Town (1997): Wonderful exhibition of high class batting, though it was once again in a losing cause. Sachin and Azhar decided that attack is the best form of defense and everyone was treated to the best batting partnership I have seen, each matching the other on the quality of the strokes, that too against a high class seam bowling with Donald, Pollock, McMillan and Klusener. Sachin scored 26 boundaries in all and only an extra special catch by Adam Bacher could cut him short.

3. 143 vs. Australia, Sharjah (1998): The desert storm. Tendulkar single-handedly takes India to the finals, and then scores a century to give India the cup. This was a better knock than the one in the finals as it was a do or die game, and he did not have any kind of support at the other end. This knock completely demoralized the Aussies that it set the tone for the finals. This was Tendulkar at his aggressive best.

4. 114 vs. Australia, Perth (1992): This knock in a way signaled the arrival of Tendulkar on the test arena and have everyone take notice. Though it was his 2nd century, it was more difficult than the first given the bouncy WACA pitch and the Aussie pace armory. Sachin adapted well to the bouncy track and played some gorgeous drives along the way, and scored 114 out of India’s total of 272, with Srikanth’s 34 being the next highest score from the top order batsmen.

5. 98 vs. Pakistan, Centurion (2003): Key match at the world-cup against Pakistan, who set up a challenging total, more so given their terrific bowling. Tendulkar comes out firing on all cylinders and settles the game with his assault on Shoaib and Waqar right at the start of the innings, even Akram was not spared. Cannot forget the uppercut of Shoaib for six. Finishes with 98 of 75 balls against top quality pace bowling on a seamer friendly track.

Felt that he should have retired right after the world cup win when he was still at the top of his game, and I was disappointed that he was still hanging around istead of passing the baton to the younger generation, but then he is human enough to not realize the waning process that is so typical of most great sportsmen, including Federer. There are exceptions like a Gavaskar, whose last test innings was arguably one of his best. Watched all the above knocks (and more) on YouTube with my son over the past week, and enjoyed every bit of it. Thanks to the internet, Sachin’s knocks will be there to be enjoyed for generations to come.

Have been fortunate to see him bat live at the Eden Gardens, and then at close quarters at the hotel, and one last time at Kent. Have followed the game through all those 24 years, the sleepless nights, the early mornings, the missed classes, and the sheer joy that came with watching him play.

THANK YOU SACHIN for all that you have given!!!

-Ramanuja Iyer

GMOs, Allergies and impacts to Health, Environment and Economy...

With summer at its peak, the allergy season in the US has weaned down and it is very evident by the reduction in ads of the seasonal allergy medications on TV. I have always wondered why there are substantially more allergies in the US when compared to the rest of the countries. Infact, as you can see later in this post, the current allergy rate in the US itself is substantially higher than what it was 15-20 years ago, while other countries did not see this rise. The difference is more alarming in the case of food allergies. This might seem surprising since one would assume that US is similar to any other western nation, like France, UK, Germany, etc. on most terms, including food. So I wanted to dig a little deeper to understand why there is a difference. From far that view might seem true, but go closer and you can find that it is far from the truth.

Consider these facts. The kids in US never had a substantially higher food allergy rate than kids from other countries (especially western countries as it is a good comparison) till the mid 1990s. the biggest change in food during this period between the US and these countries was one factor - GMOs. It was in the 1990s that GMOs were approved in the US and massive farming of GMO crops started. Hospitalization due to food allergies sky rocketed to over 250% between 1998-2006, while GMO agriculture increased by the same percentage too (around 280%). Even if the numbers vary a little based on the source, one cannot ignore the high correlation. Countries in Europe did not see the rise because they did not approve GMOs, especially given the fact that it had potential for negative impacts, which turned out to be true.

I had talked to a lot of friends and neighbors who have been living in the US all their lives and they had mentioned that they have not seen food allergies during their time, and till the early 90s schools were never peanut free, infact most kids used to take bread and peanut butter for lunch. Looking at the various factors, you can narrow down to the fact that the big change that happened in the US during this time frame, and which did not happen in other countries, was the big increase in GMO foods in the US. GMO foods are so prevalent in the US now that it is hard to avoid them. According to the Non-GMO Project, eighty percent of the food supply in North America contains GMOs. It is very difficult for one to select non-GMO items at the shop, unless they are organic or specifically labeled as GMO-free.  Even at a grocery store like Whole Foods they cannot guarantee that a produce is GMO free unless it is specified as organic. While shopping at Whole Foods last month, I had asked them if the Water Melon was non-GMO and they said that they cannot guarantee that unless it is marked organic. There are currently no labeling requirement for GMO identification, unless it is organic or non-GMO verified. More than 60 nations in the world require GMO labeling (including all of Europe), and yet in the most rich and powerful country that stands for freedom, there is no freedom to know what is in the food you buy.

So what are GMOs, and why are they bad in the food we eat? I am not a genetic engineering expert, but I will try to simplify it based on what I have read. To put GMO in layman terms, what is done here is that genes from a different species is mixed together with that of a particular plant, and in most cases with GM crops, altering the original protein coding. Proteins perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, including catalyzing metabolic reactions, replicating DNA, responding to stimuli, and transporting molecules from one location to another. Altering it could lead to unpredictable results with changes to the DNA and proteins of the resulting GM crop, which can lead to unintended side effects like toxic or allergenic side effects. When the protein is altered in the crop, the human body might not understand it and this causes allergic reactions. Besides, in the case of Bt based plants, the Bt toxin is induced into the plants, so in other words, you don’t need to spray the pesticide as it is in the plant itself. These plants act as insecticides, which means that they can kill other living organisms with their toxins, and yet we are told that it is safe for human consumption, including kids.

 

Did you know that all baby formula (yes, the Enfamils and Similacs) is loaded with GMO content? Hint, hint…, do you also see why kids in the US start with allergies right when they are very young. Again, this happens only in the US, the same formula in Europe and many other countries is GMO free. I have noticed that if the kids are born outside the US (even if they have lived mostly in the US after that) have a significantly less chance of getting an allergy, could be because their parents were not much on GMO/processed foods, and they were not fed too much baby formula, that too with GMO. In a world where we care so much for babies, including what kind of dress and toys we give them, we don’t care for what type of food goes into them.

If you are inclined to know a little more about GMOs, here are some scientific basics. The World Health Organization defines GMOs as "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in such a way that does not occur naturally." And this from the American Association of Environmental Medicine - "Randomly inserting genetic fragments of DNA from one organism to another, usually from a different species. For example, an artificial combination of genes that includes a gene to produce the pesticide Cry1Ab protein (commonly known as Bt toxin), originally found in Bacillus Thuringiensis, is inserted in to the DNA of corn randomly." Long term effects are not studied in detail, but a recent study titled “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize” published in the reputed ‘Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal’ found that rats whose diets consisted of GM corn has much higher rates of tumor and early death when compared to rats with a regular diet. If you are interested in knowing more details, especially from experts (and it is good to know this), please refer to the links I have provided at the end of this post in the PS scetion, along with the youtube video as well. Again, there are applications of GMOs that make sense, but not in food.

GMO issues are not restricted to allergies alone, just that allergies happen to be seen easily. I believe (and so do many others), that GMOs have an impact on many other health, environmental and economical issues. Besides the health issues and impact on finances, especially on small farmers, as it has happened in the US. I was very surprised on seeing that GMO agriculture is on the rise in a big way in many developing countries like India, Brazil and China. India is soon becoming the next big GMO hub. Clearly the government does not seem to care for its people, or they are ignorant about the effects of GMOs on the entire food chain. They will wreak havoc on the farmers financially and wreak havoc on the health of the people in a huge way, and it will be irreversible.  There have been NO long term studies done on the effects of GMO, without which it cannot be declared safe. On the contrary, there is long term data to show that the effects of GMO has had a big impact on health across in the US, the one country where it has been used the most. If the Indian government is serious about the people of the country, they should not bow to money/lobbying power by Monsanto. You cannot cry ignorance in this age when all facts are there in the open. One of the main arguments for GMOs are that they will reduce the use of insecticides (though it is a different matter that the toxin is directly in your food now). If that is true, why does data suggest that the use of pesticides, and herbicides (read as Roundup) in particular, have increased year over year, when GMO agriculture has seen a big rise in the past decade. Clearly there is something amiss here, though one thing for sure is that the Monsanto execs are laughing their way to the bank with the sale of GMOs and Roundup, unfortunately at the expense of the common man, so unaware of things around him. GMOs are NOT the answer to solving world hunger, it is only an answer for the money hungry corporations like Monsanto. Sustainable organic farming is the right answer for people and the environment. Something has to be done about this or it will be like a great train wreak waiting to happen...

There is a ray of hope though as I am seeing a lot of anti-GMO activity across the US as people are slowly becoming aware of the food around them. It is also good to see some progress at the state level in the past couple of months on GMO labeling, with Connecticut taking the lead. I also see some of what is happening in the US being reflected across other countries as well, including India. Also, stores like Whole Foods have finally agreed on a plan (albeit delayed) to bring in GMO labeling across the store. Chipotle became the first fast food restaurant to have GMO labeling, though you’d be surprised to see that if you want GMO free food, the only option you have is plain barbcoa, carnitas or beans without the rice or tortillas J. Finally, real change can happen only if consumers demand good wholesome food, that will also help in bringing down the cost. We live in a world where all the information is just a click away, but most of us choose to be selective in what we want to know. So it us up to each of us to become aware of what is happening around us, and start demanding for the right things. Right for the farmer, the consumer, and for the earth/environment in general.

-Ramanuja Iyer

 

PS: If you are interested in knowing more about GMOs, checkout these articles:

·         Here is an informative article on GMO written in a very balanced way by a doctor, and a mother of four. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-j-cederquist-md/prop-37-california_b_1971259.html. Read for yourself and make your own judgement.

·         http://www.nongmoproject.org/learn-more/

·         http://www.exposingthetruth.co/truth-about-gmos/

·         http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs

·         A very detailed report at http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.31.pdf

 

I’d ask all of you to watch this documentary on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEVcLpMr4iU&list=PLrCHn_qRg3qPjeUsoxmB71F8Q-LRAsNYk) and understand how GMOs have already affected you and your kids.

Egypt's Tryst with Democracy

Egypt has come a full circle in a year. The country is back in turmoil with the democratically elected government ousted in a coup, and they are now ruled for all practical purposes by the military. No matter what people call it and try to sugar coat it as a needed ouster, it is still a coup. President Morsi was elected democratically with a little over 51% of the vote, which is quite similar to the 51%+ won by President Obama in the 2012 elections. So is it right for the opposition in the US to demand President Obama to resign if they dislike his policies? A good example would be when the healthcare act was passed in the US with over 40 percent of the country opposing it, could the republicans and the tea-party folks demand for his resignation? They can show their opposition and file law suits, and finally take it up in the next elections. If the majority has disapproved of Obama, then they would have seen him being booted out of office, and as it happened that was not the case. This is what happened in the US since there is a working democracy (in-spite of all the dysfunction in Washington) and the power is not concentrated by just one executive branch.

 

Compare this to what happened in Egypt, people did not like Morsi’s policies and also felt that he is trying to be too powerful. Besides, Egypt’s economy was not doing well and so people were frustrated. The right path for the protestors would have been to show their opposition, rally up the entire opposition to be united and then let Morsi face the music in the next general elections, or take it to the court. People would have had the power to vote a bad leader out if his policies are not good. Atleast, democracy would have survived and people had the freedom to make their choice, and it would have given Morsi an opportunity to test out if his policies would have worked. What happened instead was that it gave an opening for the anti-government leaders and the leaders from the old regime, as well as the military to strike back at the government. Unlike in the US, the ultimate power in Egypt rests with the military and hence they could easily bring down a democratically elected government. There is no other executive power involved. So clearly what happened in Egypt was a step back in its progress and also in the democratic aspirations of its citizens.

 

I have seen reports from many in the international media stating that it was probably a good step as Morsi tried to grab more power than he had to, but the fact is that whatever was done by Morsi (even if he tried to grab more power) was done in a democratic manner. He won a democratic referendum to amend the constitution, with over 60% support (though some might argue that it was boycotted by a section of the voters). Morsi’s removal cannot be justified and has put Egypt on a very slippery slope, whoever is in power will not have the legitimacy, and will always have around 45% of the population against them. It is a very tricky situation for the international community (and specifically the US) too as any interference in Egypt could be interpreted in the wrong way by half the population. Infact, as of now both sides are blaming the US for what has happened, though for completely opposite reasons. The anti-Morsi supporters are claiming that Obama is a Morsi supporter for not opposing the way he ruled, while the Muslim Brotherhood are claiming that Obama is supporting the army for not opposing the coup. It is best for the US not to interfere and pick sides now, they should leave it up to the Egyptian people to find a way out. After all the revolution was started by them, and they own responsibility for the outcome as well. If the US is seen to be very supportive to the current regime and the army, it will create further alienation of the US in the middle east and in the Muslim world, for going against a democratically elected Muslim government.

 

What the Egyptians should realize is that democracy is not a perfect solution and is not a solution for all their problems. Every democracy has had their share of problems, as we have seen in the US in the recent past where at times the democratic process has been very dysfunctional. Even in the largest democracy in the world, India, voter discontent is very high and a majority of the population feel that the government is very corrupt, inefficient and does not put people first. Even then, there is something that works and democracy is still alive and the people elect the government. There is freedom and there is opposition from some segment of the population for all policy decisions. The same is the case with many mature democracies around the globe. Of course, there are democracies which do not function well at all with repressive regimes even under a democratic veil, one hopes that Egypt does not fall into that category. The revolution started with the Egyptians wanting freedom from a dictator who ruled for decades, and its citizens yearned for democracy. Once that was achieved, they wanted a perfect solution or a solution that works to their advantage. They need to reset their expectation and understand that democracy is a long process with many ups and downs. They need to be patient on this big change to democracy and need to understand that it is the people who wield the final power, and if a government is not functional, they can boot them out of power in the next election. Till then, they need to wait with patience, and give the nascent democratic process a chance. So does the international community. Egypticians should be in charge of their own destiny without international interference. The people of Egypt started the revolution and they themselves must own the responsibility to take it to the next step.


-Ramanuja Iyer...

The strange case of Edward Snowden:

The strange case of Edward Snowden:

Edward Snowden was back in the news today for again asking Russia for asylum. I have been perplexed by his motive ever since the first news of his leaks came out, and it has got more intriguing as to what his objective was. If it was quick fame, then he has achieved it, but at what cost? Time will tell, and this could be in very quick time too. As per the Guardian, he said that “I can’t allow the US government to destroy privacy and basic liberties”. If it is for a higher good as he claims ‘to inform the public’ of what the US and UK Governments have done, then it is a wash. It is no secret that countries and governments spy, all countries do and the US is obviously no exception. They spy internally on their own people for national security purposes (mostly), and externally as well. It is not even a secret all over the world that US has an organization called the CIA and spying is their core competency. Internal spying (or eavesdropping) has been on going since the time of the cold war (or even before), just that it was not on the electronic format during those days. Every nation does this for their national security, though the level of spying varies from country to country, the US will occupy one of the top 3 spots with Russia and China. In the current post Sept 11 era, this is the new normal, and that is why it was a non-issue even in the partisan US political scene with the republicans hardly shaking a leg on this topic too at a time when they are looking for every opportunity to pounce on Obama.

The amusing part of the Snowden story is that he wanted to seek asylum in a country with ‘shared values’. And what were the first countries he looked at for asylum, China (Hong Kong) and Russia, apart from Iceland. Hmm, I am trying to think of what the ‘shared values’ he has with Russia and China, a very open government?, or a government that does not spy at all?, or a government that has high human rights values? KGB must be a ballet company to Snowden and the Communist dictators of China must have been Buddhist monks. So when that asylum attempt failed, he then turned to any country that could offer him an asylum. He was offered the same at Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, and he is willing to take it if he can get to any of these places. It needs no introduction on what kind of governments are in control in these countries, for sure they are a far cry from the ‘basic liberties’ that he seems to be fighting a lone battle for. Snowden explained his actions saying: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things [surveillance on its citizens]... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. You might be welcome to any of these countries Edward, but every single move of yours will be recorded and tracked, including to the loo, so much for privacy and basic liberties. If you are still trying to break your head on why China and Russia are reluctant to take you in, it is because they are shit scared of you that you will find out that they are much worse, so much worse by miles, that you’d go puking around on all fours with lack of freedom, liberty, human rights and privacy, and that you will end up taking them to the headlines at Guardian for the wrong reasons.

 Oh, and by the way, why are you so against the US government, what about private companies like Google, Yahoo, Facebook, et al. Have you ever looked at gmail? For being someone who is very computer and privacy savy, I’d have assumed that you’d raise a stink about a company like Google, for showing relevant ads based on the content of your email. Try visiting an online shopping site, like The Children’s Place looking for dress for kids. Then you’d find out when browsing later on other sites, including at Guardian, that ads from Children’s Place are popping up everywhere you go. Looks like he missed such things in the midst of his path breaking big privacy discovery, else it could have been shutters for Google. Or maybe not, he was probably aware of this and knew that speaking out against Google would not have gotten him any attention, but going abroad and speaking out against the US government will garner a lot of attention for press that is looking for topics that can spike the eye ball count. Btw, I am not telling that Google and other private firms have a privacy issue, maybe there is an issue, but I don’t feel it is of concern to me as it does help users to get what is to his liking, even if it is ads. I don’t believe that these companies can have any individual scan through emails, which would have been a privacy issue. This is what the goverment does as well, unless they find a security related suspicion in which case they need to dig further. I am fine with that and so are most others, which is why this became a non-issue. Finally, I am not sure of what Guardian is trying to achieve as well, unlike the case of the ‘News Of the World’ phone hacking scandal which was also first reported in Guardian.

 In the strange case of Edward Snowden, there are no big winners, if at all there is some winner it is Guardian, and certainly not Snowden. There are many losers, the biggest of them being the US Government, and the country as such. His employeerBooz also took some hit in the process. So much for Snowden who also claimed to be a patriot. This news took the leverage the US had against China for its cyber spying on US based computers (government and private) and stealing information, as the news coincided with President Xi’s meeting with President Obama. Maybe one day Snowden will provide his real motive for the leaks, it could be as a memoir to make some quick money, but till then I can only think that this was done just for some quick fame and was misguided.

 

-Ramanuja Iyer

Boston Marathon Bombings and a conversation on a Taxi in Paris

Had been in hibernation from the blog this year, though not by intent. I started on a long topic at the start of the year, but could not get to complete it, and before I knew it, 4 months had passed by and the uncompleted article is still midway through. Meanwhile, events unfolded in Boston and I had an interesting conversation with a stranger on the topic.

I was in Paris when the Boston Marathon bombing took place and had missed out on all the details thanks to a gruesome schedule while on the visit with 18hr work days. I was able to catch-up on the news a little bit before I left back to the US the following weekend. I usually leave for the airport at the last minute, and it was no different this time too, just that it happened to be a Saturday morning and not a lot of cabs are around the suburbs of Paris on a Saturday. So after waiting for 15 minutes, I asked the front desk of the hotel to try an alternative. They got me to a private cab company who said it could be a little costlier, but I did not have much of a choice.

The cab arrived in 10 minutes and the driver was well dressed and very cordial. He told me that he owned a fleet of cabs and he himself is driving that day as it turned out to be a very busy day, and so he might have to take calls directing his other cabs on their schedule. He was on a few calls for the first 10 minutes and then asked me where my destination was. On hearing it was NY, he said that he was saddened at what happened in Boston, and that it should not have happened in any part of the world. He told me to be careful as he knew Boston was close to NY, though I am not sure if he knew it was a good 3 hrs away. In between his calls, he spoke about the need to have peace and love in the world, and not hatred. He said, “Why are people doing this in the name of religion”. I agreed with him and nodded all along, though I was also keeping a close eye on my watch. He noticed that too and told me that we should be there in 45 mins to an hr, and assured me that he would get me on time even though we might hit traffic closer to the airport.

What he told next caught my attention. “I am ashamed and feel so sorry” he said, and continued, “I belong to the same community and a few bad guys tarnish the image of the whole community”. He said that the guys that indulge in violence are not true Muslims and do not have an idea of their religion. Besides, they clearly have not even read the Koran, and if they have, they would not commit crimes against humanity. He had more calls and when that happens the vehicle slows a bit and I would move my attention to my left wrist. He came right back to the topic after his call, and continued that the guys who did this must have been brainwashed by radicals. Radicals, he said, do not believe in god but they just have their own agenda. No god wants to kill innocent people and no true follower of god wants to see people suffer, and he said it is the same with your god and my god. I nodded again in agreement.

In between, he also gave a short family background. He was French and was born in France to North African parents of Algerian and Tunisian descent. Though he was French, he also wanted to stay close to his roots (culturally and religiously). He said everyone in his community is against the violence, and that most just want to live in peace and harmony. However, the small minority of anti-social elements put the whole community at risk by giving them a bad name. So I asked him why the community as a whole is not speaking against terrorism and violence, he was taken aback by the question. He took some time to think and told me that it is a very interesting question, and maybe that is what has to happen. Many people do speak against violence, but it should be done in a global scale so that the face of the religion is not taken over by the radicals.

He then mentioned that it is surprising to see two guys from Chechnya attacking a city in the US, when their hatred should have been against the Russian government. Maybe because the US foreign policy decisions over the years has caused so much adverse negativity around the world that it becomes easy to brainwash people to be against US. He continued, stating that it is still no excuse to kill innocents, and that we all live for a short time in this world when compared to the age of the earth, so why not live with love in the short time. “Do you agree?”, he asked me, and I nodded again. I was not sure if he understood the nod as my Indian nod goes across all directions. By then we had entered the road to Charles DeGaulle, but it was stop’n’go traffic and I was more interested in catching my flight to be back home at the earliest after being out for 2 long weeks. He said he’d drop me at the nearest terminal and I can walk across from there to my terminal to save time, as it takes more time for the car to reach the terminal in the traffic (and he was right about that). I said good bye to him and thanked him for getting me to the airport on time, and also for the interesting conversation. “Take care”, he said again and with that, I ran in through the terminals and reached mine just in time to catch the flight. I was one of the last to board the flight, which is not surprising.

While I did not talk too much during the conversation in the cab, obviously my mind was focused on reaching the airport on time, I also wanted to hear what he had to say. The long flight back provided me the time to ponder back over the conversation and there were two things that stood out. One was that being a devout Muslim, he was feeling ashamed for the bad acts of people from his community. This is not something that is common, at least externally. Two, it also gives a pointer to how some screwed up foreign policy over the years can have so much of an impact in the years to come by. Economies change, countries change, people change, cultures changes, but history remains the same and there is for everyone to see, the good and the bad. Look at a few examples where bad and inconsistent policies by earlier governments caused negative after effects.

Starting with Iran, where US and UK were involved in architecting the coup that removed a democratic government (the movie Argo starts with this), and placed an unpopular and aristocratic Shah in power for their own gains (Oil?). The unpopular Shah and his policies caused the Iranian revolution and the rise of the current regime. There are anti-US sentiments that are deeply rooted in the country. In addition, the US also supported Saddam Hussein and propped him up to counter the rise of the Iranian regime. It caused a long war between the countries where people from both sides suffered a lot. It also made Saddam a powerful person and then he became a little too powerful for his own good, and now, the US turned against Saddam and then invaded the country for reasons that we all know are without much credence. The country was again ravaged by war and violence. Imagine what the plight of people living through all of this over the years.

Same sort of story with Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Bin-Laden and his gang of Mujahedin, were provided financial and material support by the US (with the help of Pakistan), and were propped up to fight against the Soviets there. Afghanistan was so badly ravaged in the aftermath that it became a country without a government, which enabled the Taliban to take over the country. So many youngsters lost their future, and their next generation had to face the wrath of war all over again in the past decade. So decisions on foreign policy and war must be well thought and should not be taken lightly, as they have a profound effect on the future. Even more so in the case of the US, as its decisions have a big effect on the whole world itself. So for all those who want US to intervene in Syria, think twice. On a different topic, why should it be the US that has to intervene everytime, what about the other countries?

Just a one hour conversation in the car, but one that made me ponder over it for a few more hours. Finally on Boston - so sad to hear of the details. As the taxi guy said, whatever made them do such an inhuman act, no god would want it and tolerate it. My prayers are with the people affected by the tragedy. It is a city that I visit often and I have many friends who live close by. It is a wonderful place to run. I have one run planned for in June, and I will go and run in Boston this year too... The race must go on and so will the city of Boston…

-Ramanuja Iyer

Nirbhaya !!! When the fearless succumbed to rape…., don’t let it be left aside as just a Nirbhagya…

I did not want to write about the topic of the recent brutal rape in Delhi as it was all over the world press, and sincerely felt that Nirbhaya would survive the ordeal. Saddened by her death, but a positive glimmer of hope is that her demise will make people come out in the open without fear (Nirbhaya translates to fearlessness) and protest against this social evil. Delhi is the rape capital of the world, shame on the city. Many parts of India are not far behind, shame on the country. This is not an issue with India alone, it happens in many parts of the world, and in most places it is taken for granted and news is swept under the carpet. It happens even in western nations, so let us not think it is something that happens only in the third world and illiterate parts of the world. Shame on the world. Men are responsible for rape, period…, shame on all men. That does not leave women without blame too (will get to that in a minute), so shame on the entire humanity. Messages and protests all over India and on the web blame the government, but in this case it is the individuals and society that is to be blamed more, read on to know why. What I write might not please everyone, but I prefer to be blunt about such topics, and it is also from small experiences that might explain the callousness with which men, and society at large, treat women.

We hear of rape incidents on a regular basis in Delhi, official figures put it at around 2 every day, one does not know what the unofficial numbers are as most cases don’t go reported for fear of social stigma, and of fear of being raped further by the police (as has happened in recent times). Statistics can cover the true picture too, many states don’t have good reporting on these crimes and hence might look like better with incidents of rape, which is quite far from the truth. Why does this happen a lot on India?, the rate has doubled in the last 20 years, that too when Indians have more access to education and upward mobility. The reasons can be many, including much bigger population, easy access to drugs/alcohol, girls being more outward, easy access to money for youngsters, increased reporting of rape cases, and a general decrease of moral/cultural values. Can one tackle all of this? Quite difficult I’d say, especially in a nation that is seeing huge chaotic growth and upward mobility, along with an inefficient corrupt government in place that is at best reactionary.

The biggest issue that is the root cause of most rapes is in the minds of men. The fact is that some guys feel they can do anything to a girl, and more so if she dresses in a certain way or behaves in a certain manner. People even go to the extent of blaming girls for the incidents, and maybe Nirbhaya would have been fine if she had chosen to stay at home during after evening hours, but that is a shameless way to deal with it. I can give an example of the mental outlook of youngsters in Kerala, which is the most socially forward state in India and one of the few states where the sex ratio tilts towards women (so very little female infanticides). It is also a state which has the highest employment (and literacy) rates amongst women. Kerala’s social development, especially related to women issues, is attributed to a matriarchal  structure where women enjoy power. This does not make Kerala any good in terms of crimes against women, in fact it is notorious in many ways. I have lived most of my life in Chennai, a very conservative society, but some of what I mention below is true to Chennai as well.

I did my engineering in one of the 8 engineering colleges during that time in Kerala (now it probably has more than a 100). So my fellow students can be termed as being in the upper crop of the populace in terms of education/literacy. I was shocked at the attitude of the guys to the girls, including to their fellow classmates. Again, I am not generalizing, but there was a good percentage that indulged in (or were supportive of) such behavior that it is worth mentioning. One of the pleasures they indulged in was to go to places where there is a lot of crowd (buses during peak hrs, places of worship during festival time, hot spots of travel) for the purpose to have physical contact using elbows or fingers on certain body parts. Many of us found it disgusting and beneath human nature, and have said so in no uncertain terms. I for one have a mother and a younger sister in my family, and both of them I was quite close with. So it was unimaginable to me that guys would do this. I even remember asking one of the guys who was talking with pride of his exploits if he’d do this to his own people (family, relatives and close friends), obviously they did not like my comment. Most of these guys have mothers and sisters, and are also one of the first guys to show a nice side to girl classmates and likes talking to them. It is maybe a coincidence (divine coincidence?) that most of these guys are now married and have daughters. Please don’t jump to conclusions here on everyone having a daughter, it was just based on an interesting observation from a minute sample of the population.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that a lot of guys during my time did not care about genuinely protecting women and they treated them as objects at times. While fondling is not rape, it is still doing something against the girls wish. This is of individuals who are well educated and further on most of them went on to do quite well in life professionally (and maybe personally too). Some of them were otherwise nice guys too, and were guys that girls thought of highly as well. I had even talked to some female friends, with whom I could talk about such topics, and they have all told me that they have been subjected to this sort of behavior at sometime or the other. They hate when that happens, but fear social stigma or retaliation and hence suffer silently and try to protect themselves to the best of what they can do. While the guys who do this might not do it to their mothers, sisters and daughters, but leave them at the mercy of their friends or brethren to exploit. I sincerely hoped that things would have improved over the past 15-20 years, but clearly it has not,  and this was also highlighted in a recent Malayalam movie with a social message. There was also a very recent brutal rape incident on a train that garnered a lot media attention (and just that). So if this is the state of affairs with the educated populace in the most socially forward state in India, you can guess what it is with most other parts. Now, don’t think of me as a saint (which I am not), but I can assure you that the majority of the guys are like me and don’t approve of such acts, but there is a good portion of guys (maybe between 10%-20%) who are out there that I would not agree with on such topics.

So how best can this be tackled? I’d put the onus of responsibility on individuals and institutions. As we often say, everything starts at home and this is very true here as well. Starting with parents of boys who should instill good values in their sons because that is where the root cause is. It is shameful that the first preventive measure our society talks about is to advice girls to not venture out and to dress in fully covered clothing. Does doing the contrary give a free ride to anyone to rape a girl? Instead mothers (this is why I said at the beginning that women have to be blamed too) should tell their sons that they do not harm other girls as someone else will then harm his own, and that it is beneath human decency. The same with sisters and fathers too, who should talk to their own. On friends who should persuade friends to not do such acts. For the leaders to pass bills that provide for strict laws and harsh punishments. On the law to persecute severely for any such acts, atleast that will act as a deterrence by fear, if not by morality/decency. For the police to encourage reporting and dealing with such victims in a more humane manner. Finally to the girls, If it helps try not to go to risky places at night as you don’t live in a perfect world. You can do that in a place like Singapore and no one will harm you, but most places are not Singapore and Delhi for sure is not. It is shameful to give that advice, but if that can avoid more such incidents it is worth it.  Finally, you girls should violently protest even if it is a small physical act against you, have to be Nir-bhaya literally or else more girls will end up like Nirbhaya. Please don’t let that happen.

-Ramanuja Iyer

PS: On a lighter note, it might be best to have curfew of guys not to venture out of homes after 8pm at night, that will ensure no rape happens after dark :-) .

SandyHook, Newtown: The kids deserved better from our laws…, if this can’t provoke an action nothing can…

US, Serbia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the list goes on…The US leads the pack of this not so great company (not to demean the nations in the list). Well, it is the list of nations with the most guns per 100 residents, so it is no surprise that we have scores of shootings including at elementary schools. The US is estimated to have 88.8 guns per 100 residents, which means if I am in a crowd of 10, everyone else has one, quite a scary thought.

I am shocked, saddened and angry at the mass shooting today at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, just 25 miles from my home. My heart goes out to the families impacted by this horrific tragedy, and pray that they have the courage to overcome the personal loss. It is not a time to look for blame, but it is a time to see how this can be prevented again.

About 20 small kids in the elementary school died, and for what purpose? Atleast a 100 rounds were fired, at innocent unarmed kids. The shooter was no doubt insane, but it is our gun control laws that are even more insane. How else can one explain providing automatic weapons freely to insane people without proper checks? It is not that US has more crazy nuts, every country has crazy people, almost in the same percentage range as in the US (maybe the US has less), but no other country makes it easy to arm these crazy nuts with automatic weapons.

These are not illegal weapons, they are very much legal. The gun control advocates are quick to jump at every mass shootings to say ‘it is not the guns, but the people, guns don’t kill, people do’. To which I say, dude, people cannot kill in masses unless you provide him an automatic with 100+ rounds. Ask the NRA and they might advise that guns make people safer. Going by that logic it is better to arm all kids in schools with guns than to have gun control. And by the way, more guns does NOT mean more safety, statistics show it is the opposite. The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries per capita among developed countries, though they also have the highest rate of gun ownership. Violence committed with guns leads to significant monetary costs. It is estimated that such violence costs the USA $100 billion annually. On a lighter note, at a time when we are looking at closing the budget deficit this might help us. Congress, are you listening?

I am for full gun control, but that is like wishing for peace between Israel and Palestine this year. So for a solution that is realistic is to atleast not allow automatic weapons for civilians. The argument by the gun lobby is to bring in second amendment and self protection. You don’t need an automatic weapon for self protection, have a regular weapon if you want with proper checks. Make sure licenses are allotted to people after good background checks. Automatic weapons should only be in the hands of police officers, else it ends up in the hands of criminals and also puts the officers at risk.

As for the second amendment, this is a big wash and as anything else is by the lobbyists they bring up a narrative. "Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". It was created during the 18^th century to legalize the right to have weapons as the British had banned it to prevent the settlers from having an army (and weapons) to fight them. It made perfect sense then, but does it really mean the same in today’s civilized world ? Are we still living in the 18^th century? The gun lobby and the politicians that support them (and get money from them) have changed the interpretation to sound as if having a gun makes you a true American because it is about your freedom, and to fool the ignorant (and there are plenty of those around) they add the word constitution to it.

More deaths of innocents (including children) will continue in the months and years to come, and nothing will be done. This incident will be forgotten just like every others in the past.  I wish I am proved wrong, but there is no leader who has the guts to take on the powerful gun lobby. So I guess we have to get used to this and take it in our stride, and yes pray and hope we can.... We should all try to do what we can, and this is what I can do in a small way...

I know a lot many gun lovers will not like this post, but can you provide a logical explanation of what happened?, and do you really believe it has made you a lot safer?

-Ramanuja Iyer

Ceasefire in Gaza and 2 deaths in India

It is Thanksgiving weekend in the US and a time to reflect upon the good things in life. One positive news towards the TG start was the ceasefire in Gaza. The timing of the new conflict though is puzzling and reports from all around are conflicting too. One strong reason seems to be the fact that Bibi (Netanyahu) lost some of his strength at home after Obama’s re-election as he had betted on  a Romney win. It caused internal rumblings in Israel where the prime minister was perceived to have created a wedge in relations with the most important ally of his country. So what do you do when public opinion is down and you will be going into an election year soon?, stir-up nationalism is one good option (though not very rational), but that is what you’d expect of Bibi.

Now what can one say of the attacks itself, clearly it was not a fair fight amongst equals. Imagine a giant kicking a powerless street guy, that too hands tied (with trade blockade and no good weapons), you get the picture. On top of this imbalance, Bibi does not need to worry about the costs of the war, because it is sponsored by the American tax payers. If you are Bibi, life is good (for a while atleast) J. The US must help with the security of Israel (for a variety of reasons), but it is time for the US to lay down terms and have some say for the large 3B+ annual military aid to Israel, the aid cannot be used by a political leaders whims to destabilize his own countrymen and the entire region. This does not exonerate Hamas which has a history of violence, but atleast this time around, though they were powerless and no match for the Israeli army, the Palestinians (including Hamas) had the sympathy of most around the world. So in my eyes, Bibi won the battle, but lost the bigger war. Another winner was Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi who brokered the peace truce, and very soon expanded his own powers in Egypt.

It was also the week when there were 2 significant deaths in India, one celebrated by most in the country in a public way, while another by most in a silent way (or else big brother would arrest you......yes, that did happen to 2 innocent girls of the FB generation). The first one was the death of the Pakistani terrorist Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, who was the last surviving gunman of the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. He was rightfully executed for the mass murder of 160 unarmed civilians and was the first capital punishment in India in more than 8 years. I saw all around the web and in FB about people celebrating his death. This is no cause for celebration as the masterminds are still at large in Pakistan, and some maybe in India itself. He deserved the punishment and that matter should be closed at that. There are many other things to feel proud and celebrate for.  

The second death was one of Bal Thackeray, the founder of the right wing Shiv Sena. He was popular (and very powerful) mainly within Mumbai city and in some parts of Maharashtra state. He formed the party to fight for the rights of people from his state as he felt Mumbai was being taken over by people from outside states, especially from Gujarat. It later became a very radical wing and was against other Indians in his state and against foreigners in the country. So maybe he could be thought of as anti-nationalist too for being against Indians from other states J. He led with an iron fist and had an army called Shiv-sainiks who would impose their rules on people. So clearly his death was received by many as a positive thing, and when Thackeray supporters called for a bandh in Mumbai, not everyone was supporting it. Most were obviously afraid of saying that out in public though. Now the current FB generation believes in free speech, and don’t think twice before clicking the blue ‘post’ button. So one hit the ‘post’ button to provide her views, while her friend duly obliged with a ‘like’. Soon enough, the two were behind the bars…, and freedom of speech went for a toss. Compare that with what happens in the US where one (and all) can slander even the President by calling him all names and yet life goes on…..

-Ramanuja Iyer

Primer on politics in the US, and the Presidential Election

What better time to talk of politics in the country than just a couple of days before the presidential election. Have been in the country for close to a dozen years  and this is the 4^th presidential election I am witnessing. During the initial years I had not paid a lot of attention to the political landscape, was more interested in international happenings (which is still the case) than politics within the US. There has to be a beginning for everything and a story behind it too, so here is the story. I had signed up as a guest speaker at my son’s school a few years back and chose the subject to be ‘Global Warming’ as it was very much in the news then. I had read about it a lot and clearly there was science involved in it and reasonable data to support it too. The talk to the kids were more on how they can help the environment based on the reduce/reuse/recycle thinking.

A week later at a social gathering in the school I was confronted by a parent who came-up to me and said “so you are the one who is spreading the liberal left wing ideas on kids”, much to my bewilderment. Frankly speaking I was not sure of what he meant by the liberal left, so I just brushed him off telling it was just a talk to help kids save energy and thus money even at home. The first thing I did on getting back home was to read on what that term meant and I was to a certain extent ashamed at my ignorance on the politics in the country I was living in. I felt the urge to read more, one reason was to make sure I did not get into similar situations in the future and to be more aware of the ground realities, and be politically correct going forward. It acted as a start button to read more on the politics in the country, it was a fascinating ride as it was a very complex and muddled topic, to say the least. So here is my attempt to clear the picture with a short primer.

The two main parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There are many other small parties which do not play a significant role, so for all practical purposes the country is just a 2 party system. The republican party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party), is the party of the conservatives (or the right wing). The democratic party is the pat of the liberals (yes, that was the term J), who are also known as the left wing. Both parties have evolved in what they stand for over the years and I find that fascinating, will get to that later. Approximately 30% in the country are registered as democrats and 30% are registered as republicans, the rest 40% are independents and form the swing voter category. Now let us look at the voter base based on the various segments to see how the population is divided.

·         Geography:

o   Republicans: The base of the party is in the South, along with the Midwest, the Plains  and Rockies areas, and those states are known as the Red states. Usually the less populated and less literate states are republican.

o   Democrats: They are predominantly based in the east coast, especially the Northeast states, along with the populated Midwest states and the West coast. The more populated and more literate states are democratic.

·         Demographics: A rough approximation based on data, and some intuition

·         Age:

o   Republicans: Old and middle aged are typically republican

o   Democrats: The younger to the middle aged group is more aligned to the democrats

·         Ethnicity: The color of the skin is always an underlying factor in elections though people try to say it is not, to me it can be a big factor with many voters

o   Republicans: White/Caucasian, especially in the South and Mid-West regions, very little diversity

o   Democrats: More diversity with Whites, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and most other immigrants

·         Sex:

o   Republicans: Very strong amongst males (mainly whites), possibly because historically they are not in favor for women rights, and are very much for less gun control

o   Democrats: More stronger among females, possibly because of their support of social and women’s causes

·         Economic stature:

o   Republicans: The very rich, rich and middle class (based on regions). Possibly so because republican policies are for lower tax, especially for the rich.

o   Democrats: Some rich (especially entertainers), middle class and mostly low income. Possibly because they promote social causes.

·         Religion:

o   Republicans: Mostly Christians, especially very devout ones. Some differences between Protestants and Catholics earlier, but now both are predominantly republican

o   Democrats: Less devout Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other religions

·         Education

o   Republicans: non-college amongst whites, and some college too. Typically the less educated group. This is very clear with just around 10% of college professors aligned to the republicans.

o   Democrats: Majority of the post graduates, and the graduates. Also includes non-college group from African-American and Latino communities

·         Other ideological differences: I have just picked the big factors only, there are many more, but remember this is just a primer and not a detailed study J

o   Role of federal government: Republicans prefer very less government in peoples life and more power to states, and proving more control to the private companies. Democrats are of the view that government has a big role in channeling the country forward. Both parties are for capitalism as the American way and there is no dispute on that fact.

o   Social benefits and entitlements: Democrats are in general for social causes while the republicans are against. The major social causes are medical care for the old and poor via the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Another big one is Social Security (like retirement pension funds for those who are wondering what social security is). Others are Food Stamps for the very poor and unemployment benefits for those who lose jobs. Democrats believe these social programs provide upward mobility to the poor.

o   Gun control: Republicans are against any gun control while democrats are for gun-control (though in the recent past they have not made this a big issue to please some voter bases). Just a note that US has the highest rate of death via guns, much more than any other country. Not surprisingly the US also has the highest ownership of guns in the hands of its citizens, a distant second and third comes Yemen and Libya (not a great company to be in J).

o   Taxes: Republicans are for very low taxes overall, including for the super rich. Democrats are for lower taxes only for the low-middle income groups.

o   Industries supported: Republicans have been heavy supporters of Wall street, Oil, Food Giants, Pharma, Insurance and Defense industries , no wonder the super rich vote republicans as they get a lot of tax loopholes added. Democrats support the technology industry and new energy companies, and of late automotive firms too, which again is not surprising with support from the govt.

o   Civil rights: Democrats are for civil rights and equal freedom for all races, while the republicans were not in strong support, especially in the southern states

o   Women’s rights and Abortion: Democrats are for women’s rights, including equal pay and abortion (so big of an issue in the US, people from outside the country would be very surprised). Republicans are not so in favor. So clearly that is reflected in why each group has the party preference too.

o   Labor and Union: Democrats are for more Labor laws (including minimum pay) and for Union rights

o   Discrimination: Democrats support equal opportunity for all irrespective of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc. Republicans support it to a certain extent, mainly from the moderate republicans.

o   Immigration: Democrats are for opening up immigration, while republicans oppose it. Again, this is reflected in the support base too.

o   Military/war: Republicans are very pro-war and pro-military while democrats prefer war only as the last option. This is also reflected why most military personnel vote republicans. This is also seen based on history that most wars are started by republican presidents and ended by democratic presidents

o   International policy: The international policy of the US does not change in a big way based on the party in power, though republicans prefer a more aggressive and interference approach while the democrats prefer a less aggressive approach. The big difference is the view on war (see above).  

o   Environment: Democrats have been strong proponents of the environment, including supporting regulations to reduce emissions and to support new innovations/technologies. Republicans are against the same and it makes sense too as they are a big supporter of the oil companies. Democrats also believe strongly in Climate Change (or Global Warming) as they think it is based on science, while the republicans do not believe in Climate Change and feel very strongly against it (now you see why I was questioned on being a liberal without me even knowing what a liberal meant here in the US).

There are no right and wrong in the ideologies, just that they are different ideologies each part believes in now (for whatever reasons that suit them) and each person will have a set of values they believe in and hence align to one or the other party. Those who do not believe in ideologies remain independent. Both parties have moderates in them, but that group has been diminishing over the past few years, this is more prominent on the republican side where a moderate leader is virtually non-existent (though moderate voters still exist). The country is more polarized than ever before, and this is because of the lack of moderates who could come across the aisle to solve issues. Moderates tend to cross over based on issues and not on ideology.

One of the things I wanted to check on was the performance of each party in passing landmark legislations, especially in the past 60 years and I was surprised by the results. Almost all legislations, including Social Security, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Women’s Rights and Medicare were passed by democrats, and almost all had strong opposition from the republican side, there was some signs of bi-partisanship from the republican moderates though (which was a difference from the recent healthcare reform act that was very polarized). The only major one from the republican side was the Federal Highway act passed under president Eisenhower in 1956. Again, one can question what the definition of Landmark act is, but to me all mentioned above qualify as landmark acts due to their impact to a large percentage of the population and the way it altered the history of the nation. Even after these facts, one can see that the nation is divided equally between the two parties. The fact is politics is always polarized to a good extent and people tend to leave rational thinking out (even if they are capable of it) when it comes to politics.

I did talk about the party’s ideology evolving over time and some aspects are very interesting, so here are a few. The republican party started in 1854 as an anti-slavery platform and their slogan was ‘free labor, free land, free men
’. This is so much far (or should I say backwards) from their current stand where they are a party of white supremacy (again, there are moderates in the party too who are not for the same) and against civil rights. Abraham Lincoln was the most famous of that old republican party. The African-Americans were strong republicans till the mid of the 20th century, and now there are very few who are republicans.  And the democrats started as a party that wanted more rights for states and less for the federal, a 180 degree turn from what they stand for now. Also, they were against a national bank way back in the 1790s. Change as they say is inevitable, but so much change?, not what I expected.

Finally, I find the terms conservative and liberal to be amusing. For starters, what does a political conservative mean, when he is not for conserving the environment (against any environmental regulation), or conserving human life (very pro-war and gun support), or conserving animal life (big meat eaters), or conserving human values (torture of humans and animals), I can add on more to this list. And what does a liberal mean?, for conserving the environment :-)?, conserving human life?.., and the list can go on here too. What I prefer is to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so where would I fall :-).

As for me, I prefer to be independent as I look at issues on hand and not on a specific ideology. I believe in a set of values too. I do value the environment, prefer peace on earth and believe everyone should be given an even chance to compete, and must contribute a fair share also. I believe a nation’s success is in the upward mobility it can provide for citizens to come out of poverty and explore their dreams, along with the ability to have the framework to create innovations  and innovative companies in an open market environment. I believe the government has a very constructive role if used in the right way and we need to have sensible regulation and laws in place so corporations don’t take people for a ride. As for the role of government, it is clear from the Hurricane Sandy that these are times when we feel there is a real need for govt in our lives, it acts like an insurance cover.

The elections are close and people should look at what have in front of them, and don’t get fooled by the barrage of negative ads from both sides (I am tired of seeing them, even though I have seen very little as I always record the little bit of TV I watch and hence can fast forward the ads). Whichever party wins will most likely win the 2016 elections as well because the US economy is predicated to grow between 3%-4% over the next 5 years (faster than any other major economy in the world), and hence the party in power will have a big momentum going. Also, if democrats win this time, it will be very difficult for republicans to win in 2020 and forward, unless they change their ideology and try to accommodate other minorities as the % of non-Caucasians will grow at a faster pace by that time, so it would be interesting to see how they evolve.

This election provides a very clear choice for people on what they feel is best for the nation, based on what values they believe in. The choice of the US president will have big ramifications all over the world. For e.g. If Al Gore was the president instead of George W Bush, we would not have had the Iraq war, and the colossal amount spent in the war could have been invested inside the US itself and also helped to reduce the deficit by a big percentage.  The world would have been a lot different based on just that one action. So vote based on issues and not on ideologies, that will help one make the right choice. I hope people make the correct choice...

-Ramanuja Iyer