Mumbai Terror Attacks - few weeks later

I am a big fan of Arundhati Roy; although I don't quite agree with all her views (her anti-globalisation stance, for example). But I thought this article by her on the Mumbai terror attacks hit very close to home & was very thought provoking. I agree with the essence of what she observes, that India is completely in denial that the problem could be within (irrespective of whether or not the ISI was involved).

PS: I don't agree though that the Taj is an icon of the inequalities & injustice in India. I think its an icon of the 'good life'; the opportunities & dreams that make Mumbai the city it is.

"The Myth of the Rational Voter" by Bryan Caplan

This is a book written by an economist who argues that democracy = bad economic policies.

I guess it confirms what we all knew all along: democracies elect their respresentatives irrationally. Voters most often (and inspite of having adequate information to make a rational choice), make choices emotionally rather than rationally. Especially when it comes to economic policies we tend to choose policies that are not in our best interests. The author cites many examples like say the voters' bias for employment as against productivity.

It struck me that India probably has more examples to prove this hypothesis than any other democracy in the world; even with an economist as the prime minister. Loan waivers for farmers, oil subsidies, inflation, the whole "Maharashtra for Maharashtrians" debate, nuclear energy deal -- all issues that the voters saw emotionally, rather than rationally.

An interesting read. A short article by the author here.

Charlie Wilson's War

Watched Charlie Wilson's War last week... what can I say, I'm watching a lot of movies these days :)... Its an enjoyable political satire (funny, witty).

The movie makes a case (a bit simplistically) that the US action of arming the Mujahideens in the 80s may have been well-intentioned. But it also seems to suggest that because they meant well, they were right in doing them or that they were necessary (Wilson even refers to them as the "glorious" days that ended the cold war). Thats where it didn't convince me.

What I did agree with though, was the political reality of how it all ended -- the Congress was generous in doling out money for arming the anti-soviet --it made them look heroic & patriotic-- but didn't want to spend anything on re-habilitation of this war-zone once the Soviets were defeated --there was no political advantage in that.

PS: Philip-Seymour Hoffman is fantastic in the movie as an out-spoken CIA agent.

Right to nuclear energy...

...championed by a tactless leader!

Kashmir

I watched last evening on NDTV, Parvez Musharraf’s interview on the Kashmir issue. It was a relief to see peace being discussed as an option.

As an Indian I had been conditioned to thinking that the fact that 80000 people have been killed in Kashmir since 1989, has been part of a war we have fought for decades defending our national boundaries. I’m sure there is a similar conditioning in Pakistan or even in Palestine/ Israel where people are led to believe that dignity and pride lies in defending the national borders and not the lives of the people within those borders.

Its time more of us realize that it is not patriotic to assert our claims on the borders; but it is patriotic to stop this wasteful loss of lives in our country.

Thats the plan?

Wonder why they cant see that this plan wont work!

Ironical

I found this really ironical. While the whole of Israel is rooting for military action in Lebanon, there is one city called Hafia in north Israel where a majority of Israelis are actually pro-peace. And this was also the first city that was bombed & devastated by the Hezbollahs rockets yesterday.

All wars are fought for political reasons. And surprisingly, politicians manage to convince people that there is actually a cause in the madness. Only those who witness the war at such close quarters can tell that it is all madness, no cause.