I must be waaaay more patriotic/nationalistic than I thought because I just went totally nutso when A.R. Rahman won his golden globe....in a good way...
AND Shahrukh Khan is going to present? My cup runneth over...
(Edited to add: I love SRK because he is always charming, totally himself and he did not put on a weird accent- thus avoiding the sad affliction that strikes most Indian actors when they appear in Western media)
In the immortal words of my favorite 'Goodness Gracious Me' character: India! Indian! India!
(Thank you Youtube for allowing me to find this video from one of my favorite shows EVER)
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Monday, October 13, 2008
I'm angry so this might be raw
A few days ago, a young journalist was shot in New Delhi at 3 at night as she drove back from work. The Delhi police is (typically) baffled and has no leads, clues or witnesses as far as I can glean. A woman being harassed, abused, raped or even killed in New Delhi is sadly not surprising news. It is a notoriously difficult city for women to live in. There are tons of blog posts on horrific encounters and everyday humiliations that women go through. I lived seven years there, for a long time on my own, and it was frequently uncomfortable and scary. Every woman has a bad Delhi story - it's just a matter of degrees.
What really enrages me, however, is the Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit's remark on the incident:
""All by herself till 3 am at night in a city where people believe...you know...you should not be so adventurous.''
Anyone can be suckered into giving a bad quote but in subsequent interviews and statements, Dikshit has only tried to qualify the comment in ever more aggravating ways. In the opportunism and hypocrisy typical of Indian politics (or any politics, lets be fair) the BJP has condemned Dikshit's (she's from the Congress) comment but for all the wrong reasons. This from the people who brought you valentines day vandalism, bans on the movie 'Fire' and Water etc. in the name of 'Indian culture'. So forgive my cynicism.
The lesson to take away from this, according to Dikshit is that the onus is on women to lock themselves up, be home at a 'decent' time, confine themselves to 'safe' jobs and no doubt not to drive, go to a bar, smoke, dance...you name it.
None of this is surprising in itself or even unique to India. You hear similar arguments everywhere. 'she was asking for it', 'she was wearing a short skirt', 'she was drinking alone'. Not new. And I'm the first to advocate basic common sense and vigilance, specially if you're a woman in a dangerous city. Yes, it's probably not a good idea to walk home alone at 2 am at night in a dangerous city, or accept a ride from a stranger or meet a blind date at their house - whether you're a man or a woman.
However, that does not mean you shouldn't be able to be a journalist, or wear a skirt or drive home late at night. Again, none of this is particularly revelatory.
What is really appalling to me, and I think is troubling about contemporary India, is that people like Sheila Dikshit (or whoever it is) can get away with making comments like these. Where are the watch dogs? Why is she not forced to apologize for her remarks and actually go after the people responsible for upholding the law? When does all this b.s. end?
The institutional discrimination and insensitivity to questions of gender (or other minorities) should truly trouble us as members of a large, liberal democracy. It is not enough to keep congratulating ourselves on our unexpected and against-all-odds success with the great experiment of 'democracy'. We need to recognize the challenges to the strengths of that tradition and to acknowledge the failures and systematic weaknesses in it. So to Dikshit and all the other protectors of our so-called morality, I have a simple point. At the risk of pointing out the obvious- caging women up after dark is not the answer. Providing security, infrastructure and a civilized public discourse about women is. It is tough in a city like Delhi but cannot be helped by statements and attitudes like Dikshit's.
And if you really do want to cage people- I would suggest starting with the charming men of Delhi.
Lastly, thanks a lot, Sheila. You've shown nicely why women leaders are not necessarily the best news for women's interests. I'm not going to say the word but it starts with a P, ends with a N and rhymes with a brutal, bearded Soviet Dictator.
What really enrages me, however, is the Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit's remark on the incident:
""All by herself till 3 am at night in a city where people believe...you know...you should not be so adventurous.''
Anyone can be suckered into giving a bad quote but in subsequent interviews and statements, Dikshit has only tried to qualify the comment in ever more aggravating ways. In the opportunism and hypocrisy typical of Indian politics (or any politics, lets be fair) the BJP has condemned Dikshit's (she's from the Congress) comment but for all the wrong reasons. This from the people who brought you valentines day vandalism, bans on the movie 'Fire' and Water etc. in the name of 'Indian culture'. So forgive my cynicism.
The lesson to take away from this, according to Dikshit is that the onus is on women to lock themselves up, be home at a 'decent' time, confine themselves to 'safe' jobs and no doubt not to drive, go to a bar, smoke, dance...you name it.
None of this is surprising in itself or even unique to India. You hear similar arguments everywhere. 'she was asking for it', 'she was wearing a short skirt', 'she was drinking alone'. Not new. And I'm the first to advocate basic common sense and vigilance, specially if you're a woman in a dangerous city. Yes, it's probably not a good idea to walk home alone at 2 am at night in a dangerous city, or accept a ride from a stranger or meet a blind date at their house - whether you're a man or a woman.
However, that does not mean you shouldn't be able to be a journalist, or wear a skirt or drive home late at night. Again, none of this is particularly revelatory.
What is really appalling to me, and I think is troubling about contemporary India, is that people like Sheila Dikshit (or whoever it is) can get away with making comments like these. Where are the watch dogs? Why is she not forced to apologize for her remarks and actually go after the people responsible for upholding the law? When does all this b.s. end?
The institutional discrimination and insensitivity to questions of gender (or other minorities) should truly trouble us as members of a large, liberal democracy. It is not enough to keep congratulating ourselves on our unexpected and against-all-odds success with the great experiment of 'democracy'. We need to recognize the challenges to the strengths of that tradition and to acknowledge the failures and systematic weaknesses in it. So to Dikshit and all the other protectors of our so-called morality, I have a simple point. At the risk of pointing out the obvious- caging women up after dark is not the answer. Providing security, infrastructure and a civilized public discourse about women is. It is tough in a city like Delhi but cannot be helped by statements and attitudes like Dikshit's.
And if you really do want to cage people- I would suggest starting with the charming men of Delhi.
Lastly, thanks a lot, Sheila. You've shown nicely why women leaders are not necessarily the best news for women's interests. I'm not going to say the word but it starts with a P, ends with a N and rhymes with a brutal, bearded Soviet Dictator.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Do Norms Matter part 2: the N deal
Congress approved the US's nuclear deal with India today. Under the agreement, India will be able get material and technical support for its civilian nuclear program and in return will open up 14 of its nuclear sites to inspections.
This move is note worthy for several reasons:
First, it is a rare victory for the Bush administration's foreign policy, and particularly in a very bad week for the administration. I mean congress actually passed something Bush wanted- weird. Relations with India have been one of very few foreign policy successes of the Bush administration in general so we should take note of this moment.
Second, if you believe the hyperbole, this is a 'tectonic' moment in not only Indo-US relations but also in the development of the nuclear non-proliferation regime itself. Making an exception of India signals many things - it validates the idea that liberal democracies stick together (a variant on the 'democratic peace' thesis), it opens up the pressing question of demonstration effects on other undeclared nuclear states and it recognizes that there is a range of behaviors within the category of nuclear non-proliferation norm violators, eroding the salience and the legitimacy of the non-proliferation regime itself. The deal jolts the shaky foundations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, while still showing that states want to abide by it. Third, despite the easy passage of the bill, there is much disagreement on the impact and moral salience of the bill. We are not done with this at all.
So, does this mean that nuclear non-proliferation norms have comprehensively failed? Sure looks like it- the US is actually rewarding 'bad' behavior like testing nuclear weapons, right? Not if you read Karthika Sasikumar's fascinating work on India and the non-proliferation order. According to Sasikumar, the 'norms worked' by forcing India to act in regime compliant ways, even as an outsider to the regime. By this interpretation, India should be seen as an exception that proves the efficacy of a set of still stringent rules. It will not be easy for other states to make the same case that India did and thus the standards of acceptable nuclear behavior remain high.
Of course, the counter-argument is the one that will get the most coverage in the next few weeks. This is the argument that the deal sets a dangerous precedent and will encourage other states, including 'rogue' states to also openly violate non-proliferation norms. Rebutting such behavior will be hard to justify, given the preferential treatment given to India.
My take on this: This is a toughie. On the one hand, I agree that India is a special case, given its record which stands out against the behavior of the usual suspects (A Q Khan anyone?). I also understand the benefits that the deal brings in both material and symbolic terms- not the least of which is the promise it holds for India's rapidly growing energy needs. Thirdly, the deal exposes the sham that the structure of the nuclear regime was which was built on the discriminatory premise of freezing into place the power hierarchies of the post second world war period. Out of the weakening architecture of the non-proliferation regime, comes an opportunity to rethink what non-proliferation means in todays day and age.
What I'm concerned about is the reaction from two quarters- the jingosm that I predict in India and the reaction of other undeclared states. I fear that the deal will dilute the already waning nuclear non-proliferation order.
Let me explain. No doubt there will be a lot of celebration in certain quarters in India - validating the enormous expense of developing nuclear weapons programs and the risk that comes with testing nuclear weapons with Pakistan as a neighbor. There are few things I find as disagreeable as Indian jingoism and we will see a lot of it in the days to come, specially from those that will tout India's growing relations with the US as validation of India's arrival as a great power.
Apart from the crude spectacle of excessive nationalism, we should be wary of such self-congratulation for other reasons. Even while acknowledging that India's nuclear record has been exemplary in terms of responsibility in upholding non-proliferation norms, we should worry about the resentment this will breed in the subcontinent. More importantly for me, the deal signals India's growing embrace of 'real politik'. India's great strength in the nuclear non-proliferation order was not its material capability but its ethical argument about the in built discrimination or 'apartheid' of the regime. We should not lose this moral ground by touting our 'power'.
Moving beyond India, the precedent this sets for other undeclared nuclear powers is troubling. Not because the US will be compelled to similarly reward other states (which it won't) but because this decision will erode the 'nuclear taboo' that has held strong for 50 years, despite the flaws of the non-proliferation regime. We should be alert to the demonstration effects the deal will have on other regimes and the arguments that will become 'thinkable'.
To put it mildly, the process of negotiating the deal has been turbulent - it nearly brought the current coalition government down in India when the CPIM bailed out in protest. It has been furiously opposed by left liberals in India and by Democrats in the U.S. This passage is probably not the end of the story - but it is a landmark day in the ongoing saga. It's too early to predict the long-term effects of the deal but that won't stop all of the talking heads ( including me!)
Bottom line: I don't know yet.
Edited 10/02/08 to add: According to the BBC, already Pakistan is arguing that Washington needs to extend a similar deal to Islamabad. Now this is just a bit rich. I'm no Pakistan basher (making fun of lecherous Presidents does not count) but with its rather dodgy chain of command, history of proliferation and you know, just that little matter of A Q Khan, I think this smells of a little boguosity...but, it just underlines the point about precedents set.
This move is note worthy for several reasons:
First, it is a rare victory for the Bush administration's foreign policy, and particularly in a very bad week for the administration. I mean congress actually passed something Bush wanted- weird. Relations with India have been one of very few foreign policy successes of the Bush administration in general so we should take note of this moment.
Second, if you believe the hyperbole, this is a 'tectonic' moment in not only Indo-US relations but also in the development of the nuclear non-proliferation regime itself. Making an exception of India signals many things - it validates the idea that liberal democracies stick together (a variant on the 'democratic peace' thesis), it opens up the pressing question of demonstration effects on other undeclared nuclear states and it recognizes that there is a range of behaviors within the category of nuclear non-proliferation norm violators, eroding the salience and the legitimacy of the non-proliferation regime itself. The deal jolts the shaky foundations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, while still showing that states want to abide by it. Third, despite the easy passage of the bill, there is much disagreement on the impact and moral salience of the bill. We are not done with this at all.
So, does this mean that nuclear non-proliferation norms have comprehensively failed? Sure looks like it- the US is actually rewarding 'bad' behavior like testing nuclear weapons, right? Not if you read Karthika Sasikumar's fascinating work on India and the non-proliferation order. According to Sasikumar, the 'norms worked' by forcing India to act in regime compliant ways, even as an outsider to the regime. By this interpretation, India should be seen as an exception that proves the efficacy of a set of still stringent rules. It will not be easy for other states to make the same case that India did and thus the standards of acceptable nuclear behavior remain high.
Of course, the counter-argument is the one that will get the most coverage in the next few weeks. This is the argument that the deal sets a dangerous precedent and will encourage other states, including 'rogue' states to also openly violate non-proliferation norms. Rebutting such behavior will be hard to justify, given the preferential treatment given to India.
My take on this: This is a toughie. On the one hand, I agree that India is a special case, given its record which stands out against the behavior of the usual suspects (A Q Khan anyone?). I also understand the benefits that the deal brings in both material and symbolic terms- not the least of which is the promise it holds for India's rapidly growing energy needs. Thirdly, the deal exposes the sham that the structure of the nuclear regime was which was built on the discriminatory premise of freezing into place the power hierarchies of the post second world war period. Out of the weakening architecture of the non-proliferation regime, comes an opportunity to rethink what non-proliferation means in todays day and age.
What I'm concerned about is the reaction from two quarters- the jingosm that I predict in India and the reaction of other undeclared states. I fear that the deal will dilute the already waning nuclear non-proliferation order.
Let me explain. No doubt there will be a lot of celebration in certain quarters in India - validating the enormous expense of developing nuclear weapons programs and the risk that comes with testing nuclear weapons with Pakistan as a neighbor. There are few things I find as disagreeable as Indian jingoism and we will see a lot of it in the days to come, specially from those that will tout India's growing relations with the US as validation of India's arrival as a great power.
Apart from the crude spectacle of excessive nationalism, we should be wary of such self-congratulation for other reasons. Even while acknowledging that India's nuclear record has been exemplary in terms of responsibility in upholding non-proliferation norms, we should worry about the resentment this will breed in the subcontinent. More importantly for me, the deal signals India's growing embrace of 'real politik'. India's great strength in the nuclear non-proliferation order was not its material capability but its ethical argument about the in built discrimination or 'apartheid' of the regime. We should not lose this moral ground by touting our 'power'.
Moving beyond India, the precedent this sets for other undeclared nuclear powers is troubling. Not because the US will be compelled to similarly reward other states (which it won't) but because this decision will erode the 'nuclear taboo' that has held strong for 50 years, despite the flaws of the non-proliferation regime. We should be alert to the demonstration effects the deal will have on other regimes and the arguments that will become 'thinkable'.
To put it mildly, the process of negotiating the deal has been turbulent - it nearly brought the current coalition government down in India when the CPIM bailed out in protest. It has been furiously opposed by left liberals in India and by Democrats in the U.S. This passage is probably not the end of the story - but it is a landmark day in the ongoing saga. It's too early to predict the long-term effects of the deal but that won't stop all of the talking heads ( including me!)
Bottom line: I don't know yet.
Edited 10/02/08 to add: According to the BBC, already Pakistan is arguing that Washington needs to extend a similar deal to Islamabad. Now this is just a bit rich. I'm no Pakistan basher (making fun of lecherous Presidents does not count) but with its rather dodgy chain of command, history of proliferation and you know, just that little matter of A Q Khan, I think this smells of a little boguosity...but, it just underlines the point about precedents set.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
