Sunday, November 30, 2008

Terror in Mumbai and responses

Fight against terrorism is one for the long haul, even as the perennially terror affected Mumbai citizens say, “Enough is Enough”.

The recent terror attacks in Mumbai, a city that has been subject to bomb blasts, riots and underground violence for years now, mark a qualitative difference in the scale, magnitude and the modus operandi of the operations. If bomb blasts in unsuspecting civilian areas, particularly crowded ones – suburban trains, bus stations, market places was the order of the previous attacks, this one featured a full scale urban guerilla attack, schemed and planned to precision and to invite maximum attention and exposure.

The targets chosen by the attackers revealed much about their inclinations and ideology. The symbolism of Chatrapati Sivaji Terminus – a hub for nearly every working Mumbaikar (Mumbai resident) is apparent; CST represents secular and working India, a point where people of all classes and sections confer for their daily travel purposes. The choice of the Taj, Trident-Oberoi hotels were made to ensure that foreign tourists from the United States and Britain could be targeted, while the attack in Nariman House was on Israeli citizens and Jews. Other structures of everyday Mumbai and India – Metro Cinema, Cama Hospital were targeted to make the point that India is as much the hated enemy and part of the axis that features the US, Britain and Israel.

That these attacks were carried out by terrorists acting in the name of radical Islam is very clear, from the inputs and findings of the security agencies engaged in investigating the attacks. These terrorists were brainwashed and fed on propaganda based on millenarian ideologies and religious fundamentalism which feeds on discontent in the Islamic community about the happenings in Palestine, Kashmir and other parts of the world. The viciousness of the attacks and the randomness of the murders point out to how dangerous is the propaganda that has been fed into these attackers. From all indications, most of these attackers seem to have come from Pakistan, trained by the fanaticist Lashkar-e-Toiba, it is speculated. The co-ordination and material help came from erstwhile or present state actors in the security set-up of Pakistan, it is suggested. The terrorists had used the sea route from Karachi, by hijacking a mother ship in the waters and using rubber dingies to reach Mumbai's shore, before branching off to various targets. That India's coastal security is lax is for all to see, but the security agencies' excuse is that the coastline is too large to be manned and made non-porous. We shall get to the security and policing part later.

After indiscriminate firing at CST and other public places, which killed among other civilians, three prominent police officers, the scene of action was at the hotels, where hostages were held captive by the terrorists. This in turn was greeted by a security response intent upon neutralising the terrorists and regaining control over the hotels. Admittedly, the security forces – police and later special commandos of the National Security Guard and Marine commandos were left with little choice with the scrutiny that were subjected to and they bravely went about extinguishing the threat by killing the terrorists and flushing hostages as many as were possible. But the question remains if all the steps in the counter-terrorism manual for hostage situations were followed. The terrorists took a number of people hostage in the hotels, prominently foreign tourists with British, American and Israeli nationalities and most definitely that hostage taking was intended for negotiation. The ideal strategy for the counter-terrorist forces should have been to exhaust the terrorists while engaging in negotiation and keeping avenues open for safe exit of many of the hostages, but the way things panned out, the losses were heavy as more than 100 tourists (the count is still on) died in the process even as most of the terrorists were killed in the special operations.

Why was it that the security forces had to go on the offensive from the word “go”? Was it because the administrative structure – the Maharashtra government and the Indian central government, both led by the Congress– felt that anything less than decisive action would have been a sign of weakness, an allegation about the ruling parties that has been used time and again by the rightist opposition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party? As events pan out, we would certainly come to know about this. Having said that, the unremitting hostility and fidayeen nature of the attack perhaps was part of the terrorists' gameplan. It could have been part of their calculus to engage in a protracted siege, and that the killing of their hostages would attract maximum attention, an exposure that would force the Indian public to demand immediate retribution and accept strict laws in order to minimise the risks of yet another catastrophic terrorist attack. The terrorists' game plan therefore was to force the Indian government to adopt hard-line measures, and draconian laws targeted at cutting down of civil liberties and public rights, which would invariably have focused on the minority community and revealed the fissures between them and the state and at worst, leading to increased communal violence.

That leads us to the response of the government. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pointed the needle of suspicion to Pakistan indirectly, having been convinced of the latent evidence. He also talked about stricter laws and penalties, paving the way for what the terrorists exactly had in mind. Surely, this must be playing into the hands and the intent of those who have managed this terrible saga. We all know where draconian laws such as POTA and TADA led to – repression, unfair targeting and miscarriage of justice. These laws sowed more seeds of discontent than ever before and gave a lifeline to the growth of fundamentalist and radical ideologies that mirror the terrorists' intentions and beliefs, within India itself. In other words, the government would be scoring an own goal by doing exactly what these terrorists wanted. The question then to be asked is what is to be done to prevent such attacks again?

It leads us to two aspects – strengthening the security, policing and intelligence infrastructure that can predict and nip such threats in the bud. And the other focusing on destroying the seeds that lead to the sprouting of the millenarian ideologies that are represented by such fundamentalist groups. One may ask as to how much the levers the Indian government can have against an international menace that persists in Pakistan and in west Asia under the umbrella denominations of Al Qaeda, the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and other myriad groups.

Pakistan is also bearing the brunt of the regular terrorist violence (the recent Marriot Hotel attacks in Karachi were very much the precursor to the incidents in Mumbai), which was the consequence of years of patronage to radical Islamic and fundamentalist sections by the Pakistani ruling classes and establishment. There is an elected government in Pakistan today, after perhaps the most free and fair elections in the country after decades. There is greater pressure from the international community which sees Pakistan as the wellspring of terrorist violence with the presence of fundamentalist groups in north-west Pakistan (in Waziristan) and the sprinkling of terror camps all across the country, which were responsible for many a catastrophic event such as the Lal Masjid incident, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and most recently, the Marriot bombings. There is great hatred for these groups among the Pakistani public themselves, who have become tired of the years of patronage provided by the ruling establishment under the control of the Army and that explains the resounding defeat of Pervez Musharraf's supporters in the recent elections.

It is a ripe enough moment for the Indian government to engage with the democratically elected government in Pakistan, with added impetus from the international community to purge the radical, fundamentalist and crazy elements that are entrenched in its security apparatus – in the ISI and in the Army. The Indian government can now force the new Pakistani government to act immediately and tough against the radical outfits such as the LeT and JeM which operate under various names impudently, as the gaze of the international eye is fixed firmly upon Pakistan.

At the same time, domestically, Indians should repudiate the very basis that forms the ideological thrust of the radical jihadis – that the Indian state and its citizens are the enemy of people of their basic faith and that the Indian state is an appendage of the imperial world. The re-affirming of the secular nature of India's democracy and the strengthening of the edifices of welfare democracy will serve as a strong answer to any fundamentalist questioning of the partiality of the Indian state. The solidarity of the Indian state toward anti-imperialism will break the backbone of any reasoning that ties up the Indian state within the imperial axis. That means that the Indian state should repudiate any intention that serves imperial interests in south, west and central Asia; meaning that the occupation of Iraq and Palestine should be unequivocally condemned and India should desist from acting for imperial interests in Afghanistan where discontent against NATO bombing and American actions is very high.

As for the short-term and immediate ways of handling the menace, there are enough ways of intercepting and quelling plans for sabotage and terrorism. From surveillance of financial transactions, creation of a central co-ordination body against terrorism, extensive databases about sleeper cells of terrorist outfits operating in the country, effective penetration and neutralisation techniques, better border security, there are quite a few security avenues available for such action.

The people of Mumbai in the meantime have had enough. Bomb blasts in 1993 following religious riots, a long spell of underground violence which took years for the police to control and eradicate, blasts in the Ghatkopar suburb and more blasts near the Gateway of India in 2003, the serial bomb blasts in trains in 2006 and now these attacks in November 2008; all of them have been conducted to destroy the spine of India's most populous city. More than any other, these attacks stand out. The people of Mumbai showed resilience in returning back to their quotidian lives, rejecting attempts to foment communal divides and more violence in the past. But this time around, the wounds have scarred them enough to make them fear about the unknown. Mumbai was not back to normality after the sieges.

Traffic was still loose on the normally busy streets and many offices were still shut. Anger is slowly engulfing the public, who have chosen to blame the broad polity for their travails. There is also enough anger against Pakistan for being the source of this recent menace and it is clear that any lowering of commitment toward ensuring justice for those affected by these incidents by both the Indian and Pakistani governments will not go down passively with the people of the city.

Regional exclusivist and chauvinist groups such as the MNS and the Shiv Sena have already held Mumbai to ransom with violent acts against north Indian citizens of the city. The ruling parties have been no better in fanning the waves of chauvinism. That security personnel drawn from all parts of India led from the front in sanitising the city's terror affected locations from marauding terrorists, is a slap in the face of these chauvinists. The popular sentiment among the citizens of Mumbai is a sense of gratitude for the bravery of the security persons who risked their lives in ending the sieges and a sense of angst and anger against the failed right wing politics in the city. There would be no non-chalant return to the quotidian for the average Mumbaikar anymore, but the determination remains to dispel any attempts to destroy the fabric of this remarkable “Maximum City”. One sincerely hopes that this continues to remain the case, for that would be a fitting reply to those terrorists and their ideology of fanaticism.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Guest post..: My brother writes

My brother, Srivathsan Ramani, works for the Indiabulls Group and his office is based out in Colaba, south Mumbai. He couldn't go to work yesterday and the day before yesterday, because of the chaos owing to the terror attacks in that area. Today, he managed to go to work and he has this to say of what he saw in the area:

After two days i went to office today. The curfew was lifted from the area where my office is..My office is in colaba, very very near to the Taj and Nariman House. The office was empty.. i thought now i had a chance to go and look at the Taj.. I went there... When i went near the place i could feel the smell of taj burning... i saw the top of Taj fully black... smoke still billowing out of the roof... I couldnt go any further because the policemen there didnt allow me too... I always go through the taj and the gateway to catch a taxi from office... this was the first time i saw such a ghastly sight...

Next i went to Nariman House... I thought it might be a posh area or something which wasnt to be.. it was very near to the market.. I went quite close to the building and saw that the building was demolished to a great extent.. I saw the neighbours still crying in there... Suddenly i heard a blast... and then another... i was taken aback... i crouched and to my amazement saw people near me werent reacting at all... then i came to know that the terrorists had left some bombs and the NSG was defusing them.. sigh of relief for me...

From there i went to Leopold Cafe where the cowards first struck.. this again was in the next road to my office... it was closed... i saw some blood and bullet marks in that place.. the wall with lots of holes... Suddenly a women came to me and showed me a photo and asked me whether i had seen the person in that...she was crying ... a chill ran down my spine...i didnt know what to say... a simple answer was no.. but i couldnt say it.. i just couldnt... i just stood there...She took it as a no and went to another person asking him the same

From there i went to Oberoi Hotels...I just saw the building from a distance so cannot say much....

after that i decided to go home.. boarded the train.. reached our station and just was about to go to the road where i had parked my bike when to my amazement the road was totally empty!! policemen all around that road!! the road was totally barricaded.. i asked a policement standing there and he said that there has been a bomb kept there and they dont know whether its a hoax or not....unbelievable!!

i have heard bomb blasta which had taken place in our area but this was horrible... Lets pray for the departed. May their soul rest in peace...

Friday, November 28, 2008

More thoughts on Mumbai Terror

Even as the Mumbai terror saga has slowly started to come to an end with the closing down by force of the sieges by terrorists at major hotels such as the Taj and the Oberoi Trident and at Nariman House, reactions to the horror have started registering in the media from civil society (well..if one could call spiel by advertisors, cine-actors and others such as that). And apart from the understandable anger at the failure of intelligence agencies, government and law enforcement to anticipate an attack of this scale, calls have been made for stricter laws, restriction of rights, and for an "appropriate" and hostile response to the neighbouring country, Pakistan - which is seen as the wellspring of all this horror.

While there is no question that in the immediate steps must be taken to strengthen intelligence gathering, co-ordination and to prepare responses for such horrific contingencies, the other "recommendations" which pertain to curtailing of rights and the talk of silencing the critique of law agencies' misuse of power are very much misplaced.

Let us assume that the current theory of terrorists being trained in Pakistan and sent across to Mumbai is indeed true. The apt and proper response of the Indian government is to co-ordinate with the Pakistani establishment to take prompt and palpable action against elements in both their security apparatus as well as their polity which have nurtured ties and links with the radical terrorist groups. Pakistan has also seen the brunt of terrorist violence and continuing impact of radical jihadi groups in the country. By exerting pressure on the Pakistani government to act tough and decisively against the rotten elements of their security setup as well as other non-state actors through international co-ordination and dialogue, the Indian government can help prevent a situation where any jingoism will only strengthen the hands of the very same elements that the government wishes to be curbed and eliminated. As I write this, I hear that the ISI head from Pakistan has been summoned by the Indian prime minister and thats good news in the sense that they are striking a right note about what is to be done about engaging the Pakistani establishment (democratically elected, it must be said) to act on radical terrorist elements ensconced in the country.

Domestically, such crisis and horrific terror moments are used as levers to establish stringent laws, which more often than not - owing to the nature of the predominant right-wing polity- are misused to wreak havoc on innocents. Examples such as the Hyderabad detentions and torture and other incidents of misuse of draconian acts such as POTA and TADA are there for all to see. One can actually make a case that such misuse and branding of innocents have resulted in further alienation and indignation, creating even more a fertile ground for breeding terror within India. Vis-a-vis the acts of law and provision of justice, investigation and punishment (if necessary) must be based on fairness and the pursuit of truth. There are enough instruments that a state can use without recourse to violence and prejudice to adjudigate guilt and there requires no suspension of rights of those who are accused of guilt.

The solution lies therefore in handling the situation not only from a security ground but also on political grounds. The Indian government should have to re-assert that the civil conduct of affairs, rule of law, secular governance and amity among communities will be the order of the day. Beyond symbolism, agencies of the Indian state should ensure that it would work toward removing any grievance that may exist among disgruntled sections among whom seeds of radicalism are sown.

That would mean that all prior acts of violence perpetrated and all pending acts of delivering justice such as those still left to implement - the Srikrishna Commission's findings, the Gujarat Pogrom cases should be pursued with alacrity and determination. This should be done side-by-side with investigations into the multiple bomb blasts that have wrecked the nation in the past few months.

More than that, there is also the need for a political response to the menace of radical terror. The nature of such a political response has to be oriented toward the goal of inclusion and rejection of the notion of the 'other' that seems to have permeated the consciousness of the ordinary citizen due to the relentless driving of the communal agenda by various political outfits which include the Sangh Parivar. Mere lip-service to secularism and rejection of a broad political agenda of progressivism is the response that the mainstream polity has offered to counter the threat of communalism. Of what use is the slogan of secularism, if the issuers of that slogan are corrupt and have sold their souls at the altar of opportunism? For example, the Congress can go about bandying its commitment to secularism, but their pandering to big capital at the cost of the poor or continuing poor administration will not help in defeating communalism.

A political battle against terrorism is one for the long haul. It is centered on the notion of "inclusion", dedicated to defeating the stigma of marginalisation and is situated in the edifices of the modern welfare state. This means that all alienated minorities, marginalised identities are provided not just representation but rights and dignity; valued as contributing citizens in society. This requires dedicated action in addressing the problems of poverty, skewed development, and inequality irrespective of community, by an increased role of the state in this endeavour. In essence the fertile grounds for breeding terror are made barren.

I had written two and a half years ago, that the best way of fighting terror was to focus on two strategies- one for the short term and the immediate and one for the long term - both at the same time. The short term strategy involved preparation for prevention and the long term involved destruction of the structures that gave grounds for terror as a means of registering protest. Neither of them have happened in the years gone by since I wrote about it.

In the past two years, by openly praising and seeking the strategic friendship of fiends such as George W. Bush, the Indian central government has invited the antipathy of many a citizen (including those from the minority community) against it. By refusing to prosecute those adjudged guity in the Bombay riots cases via the Srikrishna commission, the Maharashtra government has help nurture the grounds of even more discontent and anger against the partial law enforcement of the state. Despite much improvement in relations with neighbouring countries, there has been no attempt to demand from the Pakistan government, a commitment to act upon the promises to eradicate dangerous radicalism, through concerted engagement with the Pakistani civil society and the establishment. In India, meanwhile the communal opposition has kept up the festering politics of exclusion and exclusivism.

Intelligence gathering, policing and security co-ordination still lies in tatters. What has changed so much that such an attack could not have happened again? Nothing much and the attack did happen.

There is only the sincere hope that we as a secular society will have the gumption to act now.

Terror in Mumbai - Quick Thoughts

Mumbai has been attacked..and has faced perhaps the most audacious attack against secular India. There is much to be written or said about it. I will definitely do that, but for later. When I get the fullest details and when the siege of hotels end and when un-falsifiable information filters in. But for now, I want to focus on what can be easily gleaned from the mode, method and targets of the terrorists. 

First things first. This is out and out a fidayeen attack involving terrorists acting in the name of radical Islam. Why can't it be radical Hindutva extremists, one would ask, considering that ATS chief Hemant Karkare was killed, barely a few days after he was threatened for probing a high profile investigation of the Malegaon blasts involving Hindutva extremists? One look at the targets and the evidence is enough to disprove the theory that it can be Hindutva extremists. 

The targets have been Taj Hotel, Trident Hotel, Nariman House apart from Metro Cinema, Cama hospital and good old CST (it pains me terribly to think about the scores of people being killed while being completely defenseless). 

Hindutva extremists will not dare to touch the symbols of big capital in India. There is too cosy a link between Hindutva forces and big capital in the country and there is no contradiction between these. Whereas, radical Islam and jihadi forces always had a problem not only with secular symbols but also had a great problem with the market as represented by neoliberalism and even modernity. The siege of the Taj and Trident clear points out to the antipathy that is already established in jihadi terror against big capital. 

Nariman House with its Jewish linkages is another planned and selected target by the jihadis. While the other areas attacked are simple symbols of secular India's day-to-day existence, a complete antithesis of the jihadi outlook of the non-separation of the ummah and the nation-state. 

The picking and choosing of British and American tourists/ businessmen in the Taj/Trident are pretty much evidence of the anger of the radical jihadis against the "imperialists". 

Just as 9/11 was all about targetting the radical jihadis' most hated symbols (American capitalism  represented by WTO and American military power represented by the Pentagon), these targets in India are all symbols that are the most abhorred by these elements. 

Now who are these jihadis. Are they home-grown? Are they recruits from the radical Islamic outfits based in Pakistan and which have been nurtured by rogue elements of the erstwhile Pakistani establishment such as the ISI? These will be revealed by investigation. But the symbols and the answers to what were the motives and reasons for the targetting are very much clear. 

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

EPW Special Issue on 30th anniversary of the Alma Ata Declaration

The following is the set of articles we published in the latest issue in EPW on the 30th anniversary of the Alma-Ata declaration on Primary and Universal Health.


Reflections on Alma-Ata

C Sathyamala

Upon an examination of the development of health services in India, it is evident that the primary health care strategy was a logical outcome and justification for health policies that were (and are) antithetical to the principle of social justice. Thirty years down the line, the village health worker has metamorphosed into the Accredited Social Health Activist, but the health situation cannot be significantly improved without challenging the exploitative social structure.

C Sathyamala ( is an epidemiologist and public health scholar based in New Delhi

Thoughts on Alma-Ata and Beyond

Binayak Sen

It is possible today to voice a proposal to take the idea of primary health care, stated in the bold language of the Alma-Ata declaration 30 years ago, forward and work towards making it a reality.

Binayak Sen, a paediatrician, public health professional and national vice-president of the People's Union for Civil Liberties, is the recipient of the tenth annual Jonathan Mann Award for Global Health and Human Rights.

The Complex Truth

George Thomas

A government which believes that medical education and healthcare are best provided by the private sector is deliberately starving government hospitals of funds. Until a clear plan to ensure health for all is in place and the poor demand medical care as a fundamental right, public health services will remain skewed and unjust.

George Thomas ( is chief orthopaedic surgeon at St Isabel's Hospital, Chennai and editor, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics.

Role of the World Health Organisation

Indira Chakravarthi

The Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978 on Primary Health Care together with the slogan of Health for All by 2000 AD is considered one of the most significant public health initiatives of the 20th century. The 30th anniversary of the declaration provides an opportune time to revisit its history and arrive at some fresh perspectives. This article examines the role of World Health Organisation in developing countries as a directing and coordinating authority on international health, and in providing impartial, evidence-based technical information.

Indira Chakravarthi ( is a public health researcher based in Delhi.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Transition to Multiparty Democracy

There is widespread optimism as a pro-democracy activist is elected president in the Maldives.

After a prolonged 30-year rule by former president Abdul Gayoom, the Maldives elected prominent opposition leader Mohammad Nasheed (“Anni”) in the country’s first truly democratic presidential elections. Nasheed won the run-off presidential elections by capturing 54% of the votes.

Gayoom’s iron-fisted rule, marred by corruption, nepotism, cronyism, and stifling of any political dissent had remained unchallenged until these elections. Nasheed was at the receiving end of Gayoom’s actions against political dissidents in the country. An activist who had been sentenced to prison 23 times, was 18 months in solitary confinement and underwent torture in prison, Nasheed had founded his opposition party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) overseas in Sri Lanka only in 2003. This was in the aftermath of a civil demonstration in the capital Male against Gayoom, which resulted in riots and unrest.

Generous political help followed from international actors as Nasheed was given refuge in the United Kingdom, where he and his party colleagues built up support for their “cause” – ushering in genuine democracy in Maldives. After his return to the Maldives, Nasheed consolidated his support base by engaging in campaigning across the nation’s islands. Facing continual unrest due to anger against his rule, and relentless demonstrations for a democratic Maldives, Gayoom tried to use repressive measures to stem the discontent against his regime. But, adverse international opinion mounted after the international community’s involvement in tsunami relief in 2004.

All this pressure eventually forced Gayoom to accept a relatively peaceful transition to political pluralism which paved the way for the recognition of the MDP as an opposition party in 2005. Later, Gayoom had to allow the enactment of a new democratic constitution in August 2008 and schedule presidential elections in October 2008. Parliamentary elections are also slated for February 2009.

The new democratic constitution, for the first time, brought about a separation of powers in the Maldives, with the powers of the judiciary statutorily demarcated from those of the head of state. The constitution gives importance to the tenets of Islam which is the State religion, while at the same time guaranteeing a regime of rights and freedoms, apart from the separation of powers as between institutions such as the Majlis (parliament), the presidency and the judiciary. Under popular pressure, Gayoom’s otherwise autocratic political legacy gave way to permitting a transition to a constitutional, democratic republic.

Mohammad Nasheed inherits a Maldives whose economy has been relatively prosperous in terms of per capita income, largely due to high returns from tourism and foreign investment. But, this record is marred by high levels of inequality and youth unemployment buttressing crime. Nasheed’s immediate challenge remains mitigating the negative impact of the global financial crisis on the economy which is over-reliant on tourism and its associated sectors. He had campaigned on a platform of diversification of the economy beyond tourism and fishing, and this would be a priority task for his government. The other challenge that president Nasheed faces is the effect of global warming on the Maldives. Practically the entire population of the country, living in its chain of atolls, is threatened by the rise of sea water level.

The transition to multiparty democracy and the election of Mohammad Nasheed, a pro-democracy activist, to the post of president, one who has shown no rancour against his former tormentors and political rivals, should facilitate the task of addressing the many challenges facing the country.

Editorial written for the Economic and Political Weekly

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Bihar Floods Special Issue on EPW

Floods are a perennial problem in Bihar. The very same water source that acts as the life-blood for the agriculture-dependent population in the state, turns into an avalanche of death and misery every year. And every year, as this natural disaster strikes, it evokes temporary attention to the plight of the victims and soon to be forgotten government commissions and helicopter visits by the bourgeois polity. But once the shock value of the images fades away, all is forgotten even if misery is compounded and the people are made to brace up for the next year's natural fury. Such is the case of floods in Bihar. The Kosi river- a dynamic, sediment carrying water body is particularly driven to course-changes and therefore to put paid any plans to tame the river (through the embankment strategy that has been adopted for years). That the fact that this river originates across national borders in Nepal makes the problem even more complicated. Four experts - whose intros are provided in the post- with substantial understanding of the problem through different forms of expertise weigh on the Kosi tragedy and the perennial woes of river management and floods. They even venture to offer solutions. Following are the links to these articles published in the Economic and Political Weekly.


Floods, Himalayan Rivers, Nepal: Some Heresies
Ramaswamy R Iyer

The strategy of building embankments to constrain river flow and to prevent floods in north Bihar has proven to be questionable and flawed. Reliance on a dam-and-reservoir system for that purpose only offers limited protection and even greater risks of flooding in case of damage. Learning to cope with floods and managing a transition to a system that does not rely upon the embankments any more seems to be the rational course of action.

Ramaswamy R Iyer (ramaswamy.iyer@gmail. com) is with the Centre for Policy Research and has written extensively on issues related to water.

Management of Floods in Bihar
C P Sinha

A combination of short- and long-term measures that gives importance to both structural (traditional) means and non-structural techniques is required to solve the perennial flood problem in north Bihar.

C P Sinha ( headed the Second Bihar State Irrigation Commission and was also associated with Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee.

Kosi: Rising Waters, Dynamic Channels and Human Disasters
Rajiv Sinha

The recent Kosi floods have proved once again that inadequate control measures have been responsible for the recurring disasters. Typically flood control and riverine studies focus on hydrological information, whereas a much more integrated approach that pays attention to specific morphological factors is required. Since Kosi is a dynamic river with a unique morphology and because it is a river which has always carried high sediment loads, flood management strategies must be attuned to such specific parameters of the river, besides being much more than mere “river control” through embankments.

Rajiv Sinha ( is with the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.

The Kosi and the Embankment Story
Dinesh Kumar Mishra

The Kosi afflux bundh breached in Kusaha in Nepal on 18 August 2008. This was the eighth incident of its kind and the first time did a breach occur upstream of the Kosi Barrage. The ones in 1968 and 1984 were no less disastrous but this year’s breach has generated the most concern and its international dimension has added an edge. In an effective life of 45 years, the embankments have remained intact for 37 years. What happens to the people who have suffered the wrath of the river nearly five times more than those in the areas protected by the embankments?

Dinesh Kumar Mishra ( has been working on water-related issues in Bihar for many years and is the convenor of the Barh Mukti Abhiyan, a civil society organisation working with the people living in flood-prone areas in the region.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Telangana Demand

The demand for Telangana state has new takers as the Telugu Desam Party changes tack on the issue.

The decision of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) to support the creation of a separate Telangana state is a volte face. The decision is also significant because the TDP is the principal opposition party in the state and has hithero vociferously opposed such a move. It is clear that the TDP’s moves are aimed at attracting support in the Telangana region. The TDP had always positioned itself as a party with a base in all the Telugu-speaking regions of Andhra Pradesh.

The TDP split in 2001 leading to the formation of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS), which renewed the agitation for a separate state but with no returns so far. The TRS alliance with the Congress in the last assembly elections in 2004 had hurt the TDP and the latter’s recent change in position has brought it closer to the Telangana party, thereby creating the possibility of an alliance against the ruling Congress Party in the assembly elections in 2009.

Political calculations apart, the TDP’s about-turn means that the idea of a separate Telangana state now enjoys currency among almost all of the major political parties in the state except for the non-committal Congress, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPI(M). Even the newly formed Praja Rajyam of the actor Chiranjeevi has recently suggested that it is open to the idea of a separate Telangana.

More than five decades after the state of Andhra Pradesh was constituted by merging the Telugu-speaking areas that were part of the Nizam of Hyderabad’s dominions with the linguistic coterminous areas of Madras Presidency, grievances over lopsided development remain. The Telangana region suffers from inadequate irrigation, higher rates of poverty, poorer health facilities and higher unemployment in comparison to other regions in the state. One of the reasons for underdevelopment is the fact that Telangana inherited a feudal political and economic structure from the days of the Nizam, other reasons relate to the failure by successive governments to implement promised measures in the state.

The persistence of these grievances among the populace of the region has resulted in many a political party eventually coming to support the demand for a separate state. Even the Congress Party, following a Congress Working Committee resolution that was adopted before the 2004 assembly elections, had promised to take up the issue, through the aegis of a second state reorganisation commission to look into the formation of new states. Inaction and indifference by the Congress forced the TRS to break its alliance with the party and withdraw from the United Progressive Alliance. The CPI(M), on the other hand, has consistently rejected the formation of a new state, arguing that the neglect of the region can be rectified by focusing on prioritised development of the backward areas in Andhra Pradesh.

The formation of Andhra Pradesh after a concerted movement marked the beginning of the linguistically determined federal reorganisation process. The coherent division on a linguistic basis has, contrary to the fears expressed in the mid-1950s, helped strengthen the democratic federal framework. Yet, the political institutional set-up and the mode of development (primarily capitalist) within several states have created intra-state disparities. The opposition to the demand for a Telangana state is posited on the logic that the creation of such a state would open a Pandora’s box for other intrastate regional areas to stake their claims for separate states as well. This argument underestimates the alienation of backward regions.

Many grievances gather emotive steam through appeals to cultural differences. That is when the logic of “linguistic coherence” inevitably loses appeal. It is obvious that only a focus on removing disparities can prevent such situations, but it requires political will to address structural inequalities. In the case of Telangana, for example, land reforms and other socio-economic measures to address poverty and semi-feudalism should be the immediate remedy. But with the political leadership more interested in a model of development that is decidedly urban-centric, private investment-driven and engaged only in token welfarism, is it possible to prevent the demand for a new state?

Editorial written for the Economic and Political Weekly

"Spindian Express"

Vijay Prashad's article in Counterpunch last week about Sonal Shah's participation in Hindu right-wing activity in the United States (she was national co-ordinator of the dreaded Vishwa Hindu Parishad's America wing in 2001), created a furore. The noise generated after the publication of article at Counterpunch and here, was directly proportional to the hype surrounding Shah's nomination into Barack Obama's advisory transition team - a phenomenon that generally sees chest-thumping at any expatriate Indian's coming to prominence in the United States.

Prashad's article drew a few responses among India's own self-styled "liberal" community. Political Scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta along with CII mentor Tarun Das and others came up with a response that went in essence, thus - Sonal Shah has impeccable credentials, she has never espoused Hindu right wing views, and those who are raising questions about her past "associations" are basically committing an act of witch-hunting.

Nowhere in the statement is it mentioned that Shah was the national co-ordinator and an active member of the VHP-A in 2001. Shah, herself in this statement, asserted that she had nothing in common with the VHP or the RSS, but she did not repudiate the fact that she had worked for the VHP-A (for earthquake relief, for which she expressed her pride). She also called the allegations of her associations with the VHP-A, false and baseless in her statement.

Vijay Prashad in turn came up with a further riposte that elucidated clearly that the allegations against Ms Shah were not on the basis of "mere association" but on the sound basis of "guilt by participation".

So much for the context. Interestingly, the decidedly right-wing paper in the country today (someone would ask me which paper is not, in India today), the Indian Express editorialised on the issue thus.

The funny statement in the editorial is this:

Her participation in collecting Gujarat earthquake relief and an organisation’s invitation to her to speak at its event have been transformed into apparently inarguable evidence of her identification with illiberal politics. This is shocking.
To the dudes at Indian Express, the "an organisation" for which Ms Shah collected relief and acted as co-ordinator was the Vishwa Hindu Parishad-America, which co-ordinates activities for its parent organisation in India today for fund-raising -- money which is used to build the hate network that today operates with non-chalant disgrace and monstrosity in Orissa (Kandhamal), Karnataka and elsewhere (Gujarat circa 2002.. do you remember? ). Is this tangential??! And the organisation which invited her to speak was yet another of the RSS' many front organisations - the Ekal Vidyalaya .

Notice the clever use of "an organisation" instead of VHP-A or the Ekal Vidyalaya, by the Spindian Express. Don't you easily fail with a grade of F on accuracy, dudes?

And more:

But in diverse, robust democracies like India and America, judgment calls, especially about potential holders of public office, require a real appreciation of what it means to be a liberal: oppose all witch-hunts.
Oppose all Witch-hunts! That is rich, coming from the Witchhuntian Express! Remember Pratibha Patil's nomination to the post of President? And the daily saga of front page reports claiming her guilt in the failings of the co-operative banks she helped set up in Maharashtra? Here , here , and the best of all, here - Shekhar Gupta makes a case for the application of " due diligence " to vet the process of selection of India's highest constitutional post.

Call it "witch-hunting" or the press' right to explore the past of a public official, depending on where you stand.. there is always going to be questions raised on accountable public officials. If Pratibha Patil (deservedly, in my opinion) can be subjected to this amount of scrutiny for founding co-op banks which later (after 30 years) went bankrupt.. by the newspaper; how can it deny the same due diligence that goes about establishing credentials of a public official in the United States- Ms Shah, who was incontrovertibly, the member of the foreign wing of one of India's most dreaded medieval outfits - the VHP?

Double Standards, anyone? "Illiberalism", no? Well. that comes with the territory of Indian Express, no doubt.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Anandasangaree and the diminished voice of reason in Sri Lankan politics

Of all the commentators, news analysts and academicians who are writing about embattled Sri Lanka and the long drawn out ethnic conflict in the country, I find the most truthful, progressive and humane analysis coming from two sources - one a fearless Tamil expatriate journalist named DBS Jeyaraj and the other an intrepid Sinhalese political scientist, Jayadeva Uyangoda.

Both Jeyaraj and Uyangoda show the ability to think beyond their ethnic confines -something that is a rarity in the ethnic jaundice that has characterised the decades-long war ravaged Sri Lankan country. Both favour a just solution to the conflict and recognise the weaknesses of "identity" based claims of exclusivity that determines the charter on both sides of the conflict. Thus, Jeyaraj fearlessly raises his voice against the authoritarianism of the intransigent and violent LTTE while Uyangoda fiercely critiques any unitarian impulse in the increasingly militant and exclusivist Sinhalese ruling classes. Jeyaraj writes in a host of Sri Lankan and other newspapers (his most recent articles are archived here ), while Uyangoda's incisive pieces appear regularly as part of the "Letter from South Asia" in the Economic and Political Weekly .

Unfortunately very few in the Sri Lankan polity have shown this ability to think beyond the confines of "ethnic exclusivism" in articulating a solution to the conflict or provide a political line during the same. The Sinhalese polity for e.g. is now comprised of the ruling SLFP which, by all accounts, seems to be a family controlled ethnic majoritarian enterprise for all its lip-service to a political federal solution "after" the military defeat of the LTTE. The other parties in the picture include the even more hawkish JVP whose shameless ethnic nationalism belies the party's "left" orientation, the communal Jathika Hela Urumaya, a Buddhist monk party whose politicians are the exact antithesis of Buddha's bhikkus; and the now-hawkish, now-dovish UNP, whose political positions on the conflict change with the wind.

On the Tamilian side, whatever is left of the rump of the polity apart from the LTTE's minions, are all in more ways than some, beholden to the diktats of the Sri Lankan ruling classes.

Among all this morass, one figure stands out. Veerasingham Anandasangaree, of the nearly defunct TULF. Jeyaraj has this well written profile of Anandasangaree. Anandasangaree's remains the only legitimate voice in Sri Lanka which articulates a just federal solution to the conflict and that which bases itself on a regime that rejects the authoritarian and exclusivist impulses as characterised by the above mentioned sections of the broad polity.

It is just plain unfortunate that the TULF is hardly any kind of force in Sri Lanka today though. But fierce articulation of the federal agenda by Anandasangaree should eventually force the violent and muddled heads in Sri Lanka today, it is hoped.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Us versus them

Article written for the newspaper, "Mid-day"... Linked here. The nice cartoon courtesy the paper is also reproduced here. All credits to Mid-day.

Us versus them

How does the recently-concluded US electoral campaign compare to the on-going one in India?

Barack Obama's election as the 44th president of the United States marked a seminal moment in American politics. It was a symbolic victory for the historically traumatised African-American population in the United States to have one of their "own" elected to the highest executive post in their country.

The question that is much asked in India's chattering discussion circles in the media is whether there is going to be an Indian version of an Obama and an Obama-like victory based on the message of "change". Only the political systems and processes of the two democracies have so many contrasts as of today that it is too simplistic to expect a similar outcome in the upcoming Indian Lok Sabha elections as in the US presidential elections.

It is clear that the American public have risen above the latent expressions of fear and hate that have jaundiced their past, to move their country away from the woeful legacy of George W Bush and his neoconservative administration. It took an inspired campaign based on strong volunteer activity, networking technologies and innovative "messaging" for Obama to achieve the victory in the US electioneering system that is highly media-driven and which relies on portraying differences in "image" and "packaging of messages".

The socio-politico-economic situation in the USA compares well with what is going on in India today. There is a rejuvenation of hate for the "other", as terror attacks (in many urban centres) and communalism (in Orissa and Karnataka) has ravaged all corners of the country. The agrarian economy has been stagnant and farmers are still under duress, despite concessions by the government. The boom time in the services economy that lasted a few years threatens to come to a screeching halt, as India faces as much of a financial and economic downturn as the global economy. Long time wounds in India such as Kashmir are festering up again. Demands for statehood based on ethnic identity (Gorkhaland) and socio-economic discrimination (Telangana) have reared up again. Competitive regionalism and chauvinism have threatened to disrupt normal life in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and in Bihar.

The government of today is hard-pressed to address all these effectively, owing to a mixture of reasons from incompetence, misplaced priorities, leadership and sheer lack of will. Just like in the US, India will also go for elections soon, with the "hope" that the next elected dispensation will address the issues. Only four years ago, the people had given a mandate all across India against the NDA alliance for its handling of the agrarian crisis, growing inequality and support to communalism.

There is therefore a similarity with the American situation, but the contrasts between the political systems in these countries are stark. In a presidential system like the US, political differences get personalised and issues get subordinated to image and character of the candidates. There is also the preponderance of the two major parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, whose candidates crowd out other "third" party candidates in funding, media coverage and ballot access.

This was what precisely happened in the current presidential elections. The concurrent Congressional elections to the Senate and the House of Representatives were also influenced by the larger show of the Obama-John McCain fight, as the theme of "change" helped the Democratic Party win a majority of the Congressional seats over the Republican party.
In India however, the polity is not restricted to a two party system. India is a strongly federalised union of many states with deeper and wider, linguistic and identity differences than the US. The multiplicity of various parties, both regional and national therefore complicate the process of elections, with issues and factors at the national level having outcomes based on regional equations which depend on factors such as caste alliances. Thus, coalition politics rules the roost in this country as various parties converge upon bigger alliances. This has taken the shape of three broad entities: the UPA led by the Congress, the NDA led by the BJP and the Third Front including the Left and the BSP.

To a great extent thus, the Indian political system offers a higher number of choices for different constituencies; for peasants, the urban middle class, the dalits, the small landowners, the businessmen and the workers and of course the category of "castes". In the US however, the predominance of the two party system meant that voters had no choice but to choose the better of the two options or for some, the least worse off of them. For example, in economic policy; McCain and Obama differ on regulation of financial markets, but ended up favouring a taxpayer funded bailout of failed financial firms, restricting their solutions to the financial crisis to mere liquidity injection. In contrast, there is wider choice for the Indian voter in economic policies — for some parties support greater liberalisation and privatisation, some are dead opposed and some prefer a regulated approach. Except that being a third world country, not all Indians are aware about such differentiation in policy and merely vote on the basis of issues of identity — their caste, religion or regional pride.

Similar to the US, issues and agendas do converge into abstract qualities such as leadership; and no wonder, each alliance is keen to project its best face as the prime leader. And just as Barack Obama's win was seen as much as any African American's win, Mayawati of the BSP would want to win as the Dalit representative. But while Obama highlighted his personality and demeanour to win over support which transcended skin colour, Mayawati would have to pitch her party's slogan of "sarva-samaj" by stitching together a larger caste alliance.

Both democracies therefore have their strengths and their deficiencies, but the redeeming factor remains the voter. If in the US, Americans rose above their partisan divisions to vote Obama as the alternate to Bush's legacy, in India too, voters need to rise above mere "restrictive identities" to elect their representatives who are capable and offer value as policymakers and executives. Using Obama's words, the challenge is to achieve a "more perfect union" and there is no other means but the ballot box.

The writer works for the editorial board of Economic & Political Weekly

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

President Barack Hussein Obama

Obama's win through a impeccable presidential campaign heralds a significant moment in US history

Barack Hussein Obama is now the 44th president of the United States of America. For the lone African American senator in the senate (he has merely served 4 years) with a composite ethnic and racial upbringing, a former community organiser and a constitutional law expert; being elected to the presidency is a major accomplishment. That Obama has achieved this victory representing the Democratic Party in a country that had racial segregation only forty years ago underlines the significance of his win for the nation.

Barack Obama was able to not only win the “electoral vote” decisively by capturing more than 350 of the 538 electoral college votes, he even carried nearly 53% of the popular vote, thus defeating his opponent from the Republican party, John McCain, resolutely. Obama's comprehensive triumph is reflected in the fact that he won in hitherto strong Republican states such as Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana, besides winning in the traditional battleground states such as Ohio and Florida and capturing states that voted for Bush in 2004 - Iowa, Nevada and Colorado.

The unpopularity of the George Bush regime, a recession like situation engulfing the nation's economy, the long drawn out military occupation of Iraq have all contributed to McCain's defeat, apart from the drubbing that his party received in the concurrent senatorial and congressional elections. As of November 5, the Democratic Party had a representative in the White House in Barack Obama, had a decisive majority in the Senate (with atleast 56 seats) and in the Congress. The widespread Democratic victory is an indication that the philosophy of unregulated “free market economics”, naked militarism, and the politics of fear that characterised Republican rule for the past eight years during the presidency of George W. Bush have been thoroughly rejected by the electorate.

It is not as if the Democratic Party had much to offer in the form of alternatives to the Republican philosophy or that Barack Obama had a substantial programme of “change”, even if he made it the theme of his campaign. On foreign policy, Obama's views were for the continuity of an unilateral course of action by the imperial United States against it's perceived threats – he merely had a problem with the diversion of the “war on terror” to Iraq and he has promised a change in “battlegrounds” to Afghanistan and even Pakistan.

On economic policy, he promised regulation of speculative financial activity, but no major course-change involving state intervention in reviving the economy beyond liquidity injection into capital markets, or anything beyond protectionism in reviving employment. But on some domestic issues such as healthcare, social security and energy policy, even Obama's centrist positions were enough to draw a contrast to the rabid market fundamentalism of his Republican counterpart. That he had a sound and pioneering understanding of the use of networking technology in garnering funds from many small donors on the internet, and had promised solutions in building energy alternatives to counter climate change were also great pluses. Barack Obama's ability to draw large numbers of the youth in the country transcending race and political partisanship, through clever marketing of his agenda of “change” was the hallmark of his year-long campaign.

The US presidential elections system consisting of long drawn out party primaries essentially featuring only the two major parties, followed by extensive campaigning leading up to the final polls, places a very high emphasis on formal aspects of candidature such as image and the correct packaging of an enduring message for the campaign. Obama was consistent in harping on the message of “change”, contrasting himself to the incumbent president and by linking John McCain to the failed presidency of George W. Bush. McCain on the other hand, tried initially to emphasise his experience, then reverted to “change” highlighting the “maverick character” of himself and his running mate, Sarah Palin, only to run into the deepening economic crisis with no specific ideas. This led his campaign to turn negative and to try to play upon the subliminal feelings of racism and the fear of the “other” in many Americans. That none of the “high voltage” accusations and the politics of fear could help McCain win, pointed out to how much American citizens had got tired with this phenomenon, yet another legacy of George W. Bush and his party's politics.

He might have achieved a significant victory, but Barack Obama's upcoming presidency faces tremendous challenges. He would preside over a new administration at a time when the US is widely hated across the world for the imperial excesses of the current regime. He will inherit and have to repair a trillion dollar deficit economy ravaged by war spending, debt and which faces a financial crisis nearly as severe as the Great Depression of the 1930s.

His packaged message of “change” was good enough to win an election by transcending partisan political differences expressed as the “conservative” versus “liberal” debates among ordinary Americans and by overcoming the politics of hate and fear. But only a substantive policy orientation- welfare and employment friendly economic policies, rejection of imperialism and unilateralism while strengthening cooperation and multilateralism in international affairs- will result in genuine and transcendent change in the US, attributed to president Barack Obama.

Upcoming editorial for the Economic and Political Weekly

Nader on President Obama

While it is indeed a majestic moment for United States to see an African-American to be elected as the president of the country, a progressive in the United States has her task cut out. How? and Why? This is why and how... Ralph Nader, Independent presidential candidate writes an open letter to "President-elect" Barack Obama:

Open letter to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity-- not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed negotiations with Hamas-- the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored "direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League's 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President."

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. ...Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli's assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its 'legitimate right to defend itself.'"

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government's assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp... with horrible bloodshed" in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate-- Uri Avnery-- described Obama's appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future-- if and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people."

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans-- even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center's post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics-- opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)-- and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality" consumes it daily.

Ralph Nader

Ohio. Ohio. Ohio..!

Tim Russert, the iconic pressman who anchored the "Meet the Press" programme on NBC, was reputed for calling the pivotal point ("Ohio, Ohio, Ohio") in the past two elections. Russert breathed his last a few months ago. But he must be smiling in his grave to see that Ohio has already been projected as an Obama victory (at the time of writing, CNN, Fox, NBC, MSNBC had all called Ohio as Obama's win)..

And that means... that Barack Obama is the new president of the United States of America.