Most civilized countries will tell you they do not discriminate (in any capacity) between people on the basis of their race, ethnicity or national origin, in addition to a whole slew of other factors. I applaud that. In fact that is exactly what I hope for every society on earth, someday. A perfect, non-discriminatory world, where our language, the colour of our skin and our socio-economic class does not determine the treatment we receive from anybody.
But waking up in one of those perfect societies today, I read about India's former President, APJ Abdul Kalam being frisked by security twice at one of New York City's airports. According to the Indian Express, he was made to give up his jacket and shoes after he had boarded the aircraft. The reason? Security had not checked them thoroughly enough the first time.
Dr. Abdul Kalam, in addition to being an ex-Indian President, is also a renowned scientist, a prominent face in India's indigenous nuclear program. Extremely popular with children across the country, he takes every opportunity to encourage kids to explore science (and knowledge in general) and to strive to do their best. And unlike most people who have made it big, he doesn't just talk. Someone who was born in a poor family, Kalam understands perfectly the trials associated with overcoming poverty to realize one's wildest dreams.
In short, this is someone who inspires most Indians. Logically, this is probably someone who can inspire most people across the world. This is also someone who is encased in brown skin and practices Islam. Probably not the best attributes to have when you are walking through security at an airport in a country that discriminates between people of different races and religions.
But the country where Dr. Abdul Kalam was frisked does not discriminate on the basis of race. Or most other factors. Maybe this was after all, just annoying ole' human error.
Or maybe it's just time to rewrite official policy.
Sunday 13 November 2011
Academia and capitalism
Many (sometimes too many) academic campuses even in the most fervently capitalistic societies proudly fly the flag of the Left. They seem to take it almost as a matter of pride a need to rip the capitalistic enterprise that seeks to dominate the world, apart. After all (they tend to say), someone has to stand up for the people and collaboration and all the other good things that capitalism seeks to obliterate with its mass-produced goods. And who qualifies better than enlightened academic souls.
But academia, if nothing else, is also about sheer individualism. Publishing like crazy, and establishing oneself as a force in the microscopic field that one seeks to make a name in, is one of the accepted paths toward academic success. Of course, collaboration is encouraged, but everyone knows that on a paper with multiple authors there is always a lead scholar, the individual.
And isn't that what capitalism is about? Each individual forging her/his path and contributing to economy and society. So common sensically, that's exactly how capitalistic enterprises should be. Each individual trying to establish and fortify her/his own position. But my experience in corporations says otherwise.
Without arguing that companies operate as altruistic beings where everyone works to achieve the larger goal, I have seen much more team work in companies than in academia. I have always been dependent on others to achieve my work goals and have been responsible for deliveries that impact others' goals. So, in an odd way, there is a certain kind of symbiosis that modern enterprises seem to exude (though I guess factory lines did exactly that, too). And maybe the C-suite does walk away with much of the reward in the end.
But so do the star tenured academics that each budding academic aspires to be.
But academia, if nothing else, is also about sheer individualism. Publishing like crazy, and establishing oneself as a force in the microscopic field that one seeks to make a name in, is one of the accepted paths toward academic success. Of course, collaboration is encouraged, but everyone knows that on a paper with multiple authors there is always a lead scholar, the individual.
And isn't that what capitalism is about? Each individual forging her/his path and contributing to economy and society. So common sensically, that's exactly how capitalistic enterprises should be. Each individual trying to establish and fortify her/his own position. But my experience in corporations says otherwise.
Without arguing that companies operate as altruistic beings where everyone works to achieve the larger goal, I have seen much more team work in companies than in academia. I have always been dependent on others to achieve my work goals and have been responsible for deliveries that impact others' goals. So, in an odd way, there is a certain kind of symbiosis that modern enterprises seem to exude (though I guess factory lines did exactly that, too). And maybe the C-suite does walk away with much of the reward in the end.
But so do the star tenured academics that each budding academic aspires to be.
Capitalism and communism, synonyms?
Antonyms clearly, right? I mean the Cold War was fought precisely because capitalism stood right across the battlefield from communism. How on earth could they be the same or even similar? Wars, even fools would agree, are not fought by folks who stand on the same side of the fence.
But recent events, including my sister's stint in Nordic land have confused me a little. We have had conversations about Finland, a prime example of the resounding success of capitalism, which is also an extremely egalitarian society. On one hand, private enterprise is the norm in this tiny country and on the other, state welfare is each citizen's birthright. State welfare includes everything from free education through subsidized transport and meals to an allowance for just being alive (the last is not a joke).
And this makes me think of communism, the red dream of a society where each person gives according to her/his capacity and receives according to her/his need. Where one is not penalized for being old or infirm but instead receives care. And where the strong are expected to work and effectively cover the gap. Finland, where efficient private industry coexists with state sponsored old-age care, seems to be a perfect example of the red dream. But Finland is unabashedly capitalist and nothing else.
Or is it that the end goal of the ideal forms of capitalism and communism are exactly the same? A society that holds social justice as its guiding light but expects honest hard work from its people? Is it that only the steps to achieve this goal are different? And could it have been that the economists and world leaders got it all wrong?
That the ultimate result of capitalism is what Marx always dreamed of. Maybe the Cold War was avoidable, after all.
But recent events, including my sister's stint in Nordic land have confused me a little. We have had conversations about Finland, a prime example of the resounding success of capitalism, which is also an extremely egalitarian society. On one hand, private enterprise is the norm in this tiny country and on the other, state welfare is each citizen's birthright. State welfare includes everything from free education through subsidized transport and meals to an allowance for just being alive (the last is not a joke).
And this makes me think of communism, the red dream of a society where each person gives according to her/his capacity and receives according to her/his need. Where one is not penalized for being old or infirm but instead receives care. And where the strong are expected to work and effectively cover the gap. Finland, where efficient private industry coexists with state sponsored old-age care, seems to be a perfect example of the red dream. But Finland is unabashedly capitalist and nothing else.
Or is it that the end goal of the ideal forms of capitalism and communism are exactly the same? A society that holds social justice as its guiding light but expects honest hard work from its people? Is it that only the steps to achieve this goal are different? And could it have been that the economists and world leaders got it all wrong?
That the ultimate result of capitalism is what Marx always dreamed of. Maybe the Cold War was avoidable, after all.
Sunday 6 November 2011
Because guns don't pollute, they protect
The Durban Conference on Climate Change 2011 is drawing close. An event that heralds more discussion about polluting industries and the need to control the exhaust they spit out. More talk about the long way that developing countries have to go to rectify the pollutants that they create. Issues that are important and that we, the developing world should absolutely take notice of. Because pollution kills.
But so do guns. And nobody's stopping the gun makers. The defense contractors that wear white collar suits and hobnob with the powers that be, the ones that produce beauties that kill.
But no one stops them. Nuclear power is discouraged. Especially if it is a developing country that is trying to 'stockpile' them. But guns, never. There are much-flaunted arms deals where some members of the rich countries' club agree to sell weapons to certain countries that need to defend themselves from aggressive neighbours. There are under-the-table deals where arms dealers sell to warlords and 'leaders' in some of the most war torn regions of the world. Regions where money would be much better spent on food and basic survival needs of the people that reside there. But however it happens, the guns are sold, unabashedly all across the world. Because guns equal protection, especially if a powerful country says so to a weaker one.
Which brings to mind the good ole' British, those clever traders that spread the law of the East India Company across India. All the while telling each paranoid Indian king that the company could offer protection against the neighbouring state in exchange for land or revenue. And doing this to each neighbouring state. Sounds very nefarious, even on the face of it. But this practice did not just become acceptable, it became the rule of law.
Because protection by the British with their superior gun power could only be a good idea. The same way that guns are today.
But so do guns. And nobody's stopping the gun makers. The defense contractors that wear white collar suits and hobnob with the powers that be, the ones that produce beauties that kill.
But no one stops them. Nuclear power is discouraged. Especially if it is a developing country that is trying to 'stockpile' them. But guns, never. There are much-flaunted arms deals where some members of the rich countries' club agree to sell weapons to certain countries that need to defend themselves from aggressive neighbours. There are under-the-table deals where arms dealers sell to warlords and 'leaders' in some of the most war torn regions of the world. Regions where money would be much better spent on food and basic survival needs of the people that reside there. But however it happens, the guns are sold, unabashedly all across the world. Because guns equal protection, especially if a powerful country says so to a weaker one.
Which brings to mind the good ole' British, those clever traders that spread the law of the East India Company across India. All the while telling each paranoid Indian king that the company could offer protection against the neighbouring state in exchange for land or revenue. And doing this to each neighbouring state. Sounds very nefarious, even on the face of it. But this practice did not just become acceptable, it became the rule of law.
Because protection by the British with their superior gun power could only be a good idea. The same way that guns are today.
Saturday 5 November 2011
Load Shedding and human beings
When I read the news stories about the power outages affecting millions of people in the northeastern U.S. this week, I remember Overload. A book by Arthur Hailey that talked about the upheaval within a power company when there was a possibility that they would have to shut off power to certain pockets of a city for a short duration. There was intrigue and nail-biting fear because a power cut would mean lawsuits and the potential collapse of the firm.
I also remember laughing at how afraid these fictional power company executives were. Because I lived in a country where power cuts were a part of everyday life. We used to call them load shedding and would hope that our area's turn would come in the evening and not during the hottest periods in the day. Nobody could ever think of suing the power company for load shedding. Like I said, it was just a part of life.
Back to the northeastern U.S. in November 2011. There is mass concern about the power outages cutting off access to heat even as an extreme winter approaches. Last year's blizzards and relentless snow make that a very real fear. Especially for people who have always had the warm indoors to come back to, even in the dead of winter.
As I think about this, I see the picture on my calendar -- a group of Himachali people who grow a popular variety of garlic -- with smiles on their weathered faces. Himachal Pradesh, in the mid-ranges of the Himalayas, is one of India's coldest states, and it sees snow through winter. And like most other cold places in India and other not-rich countries across the world, the only heat that these people have access to through their cold winters, is a bonfire shared by multiple families outside their cold and frail homes. But there is no mass concern here. Maybe because they have never known a warm indoors in the dead of winter. All they have had to rely on are thin blankets and I guess, the human ability to adapt.
An ability that seems to ebb the more well-off one (or one's country) becomes.
I hope the northeastern U.S. gets its power back because it's not fair that they suffer. But I do wish that people outside the rich country club also get to have slightly better conditions of life. Although they may have mastered the human ability to adapt, they are human too.
I also remember laughing at how afraid these fictional power company executives were. Because I lived in a country where power cuts were a part of everyday life. We used to call them load shedding and would hope that our area's turn would come in the evening and not during the hottest periods in the day. Nobody could ever think of suing the power company for load shedding. Like I said, it was just a part of life.
Back to the northeastern U.S. in November 2011. There is mass concern about the power outages cutting off access to heat even as an extreme winter approaches. Last year's blizzards and relentless snow make that a very real fear. Especially for people who have always had the warm indoors to come back to, even in the dead of winter.
As I think about this, I see the picture on my calendar -- a group of Himachali people who grow a popular variety of garlic -- with smiles on their weathered faces. Himachal Pradesh, in the mid-ranges of the Himalayas, is one of India's coldest states, and it sees snow through winter. And like most other cold places in India and other not-rich countries across the world, the only heat that these people have access to through their cold winters, is a bonfire shared by multiple families outside their cold and frail homes. But there is no mass concern here. Maybe because they have never known a warm indoors in the dead of winter. All they have had to rely on are thin blankets and I guess, the human ability to adapt.
An ability that seems to ebb the more well-off one (or one's country) becomes.
I hope the northeastern U.S. gets its power back because it's not fair that they suffer. But I do wish that people outside the rich country club also get to have slightly better conditions of life. Although they may have mastered the human ability to adapt, they are human too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)