A Conversation

“I am amazed at what Obama has been able to achieve in spite of obstruction from the Republicans.”

“He is a disaster.”

“OK, would you care to elaborate on why he is a disaster?”

“He is an unmitigated disaster.”

“ So don’t you think he did very well in turning the economy around? The US economy is now booming, an envy of the world. The unemployment has gone down, the stock market is in record territory and the outlook is excellent.”

“The economy is in shambles.”

“Care to tell me why you think that way? By what measure is economy in shambles?”

“The economy is in shambles. And he is a communist.”

“Hmmm, a communist. Which one of his action would you claim that makes him a communists?”

“He is a communist. He puts regulations.”

“Which regulations do you object to?”

“He is a communist.”

“I don’t think we are getting too far on this line of conversation. Perhaps we should examine his healthcare reform, Obamacare as you guys refer it as.”

“Obamacare is a disaster.”

“What makes you think that way? More people than ever have health insurance. That would prevent them from going bankrupt if they get a major illness. Even your own Ted Cruz is going to get on Obamacare.”

“Obamacare is a disaster.”

“I guess I will never get to understand why you think it is a disaster. Let’s move on to his foreign policy, perhaps there is something you may like.”

“His foreign policy is a disaster.”

“Are you talking about the fact that he got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan wars?”

“His foreign policy is a disaster.”

“Interesting. So you think that the Iraq war was a good idea?”

“We won. Bush was the man. He accomplished mission in no time.”

“OK, so we are news deprived are we? Were you aware that we spent over a trillion dollars and more than five thousand Americans died, and at the end the whole region is a mess?”

“We won. Bush was the man.”

“Aren’t you happy that we are not sucked into yet another war in Syria?”

“We should attack Syria.”

“..and create yet another Iraq?”

“We won in Iraq.”

“So, I think you are probably opposed to the deal that is being struck with Iran.”

“This is appeasement. Obama is Neville Chamberlain.”

“Do you know exactly what Neville Chamberlain did? What was the context? Circumstances?”

“I do not know. This is appeasement. Obama is Neville Chamberlain. We should bomb Iran.”

“Do you know the details of the deal?”

“No. We threw Israel under the bus.”

“Do you know that Iran has agreed to give up enriched Uranium, reduce its capacity to produce bomb quality material, and is willing to allow inspection of its facilities?”

“I don’t care. We threw Israel under the bus. Netanyahu says so.”

“Do you also know that even if Iran decides to violate the treaty, the time it would need to make a bomb will stretch to one year, instead of two months it was before the negotiation began? Does not that make the world safer, including Israel?”

“I don’t care. It is a disaster. He is an appeaser. We threw Israel under the bus. He is a Muslim.”

“Oh, why is that?”

“Because he is allowing Iran to make a bomb.”

“Oh, that is a new one.  So he is hiding the fact that he is a Muslim.”

“Yes, because he is a Kenyan, and he is a Muslim, and he is black…no, scratch that because you will think I am a racist.”

“Never occurred to me. Moving on. What do you think of the immigration proposal he has put forward? Immigrants are the reason why this country has prospered the way it has. Why not allow the undocumented to stay? As it is they are hardworking members of the community.”

“It is a disaster. They take away our jobs.”

“Most do menial jobs that no one else wants to do. Let us train them, make them productive citizens and beat the worker scarcity that is going to hit us as baby boomers retire.”

“No, they are no good. They are Mexicans. No, scratch that. You will think I am a racist.”

“We are beyond that. Hopefully you will agree that he is trying to prevent carnage on the street by advocating gun control.”

“That is an attack on the Second Amendment.”

“How is preventing a mentally challenged person from buying and carrying assault rifles a violation of second amendment?”

“Oh, he is Muslim. He is attacking our Second Amendment. He threw Israel under the bus. Next thing, he will bring Sharia law.”

“I think we are not having a very productive conversation.”

“No, because you are a communist and an appeaser; and you love that fellow in the White House who we hate passionately. He is a disaster.”

India's Daughter

A recent documentary made by BBC, called India’s Daughter, deals with the case of Jyoti Singh, a medical student who was brutally gang raped in Delhi a few years ago. In addition to being raped, she was so severely beaten that she died a few days later. This shocking incidence was reported worldwide and in India it served as a wakeup call to do something about this major blight in the society.

This very well made documentary chronicles the event through multiple interviews and provides a glimpse in the minds of certain members of the society who think of women as available targets, especially if they do not obey strict rules of behavior. It also shows the revulsion felt by a large segment of the society at the brutality of crime, and the brazen way it was committed. Their demand to do something about it comes through loud and clear in this well-balanced documentary.

The Indian government has decided to ban showing of this documentary in the country and may even decide to file a lawsuit against BBC. Although no clear reason is given, the probable one is that it shows India in a bad light and may affect tourism.  Besides that, folks from India have put forth several additional reasons why such an action is justifiable: It gives a platform to one of the rapists who was interviewed for the documentary, it was made by a British woman (not an Indian), and it ignores the fact that there are many other nations that have higher rape statistics than India.

I feel that these objections are not justified.

In terms of showing India in a bad light----this is an old incidence. So if any harm was done to India’s image that was a long time ago, and this documentary is unlikely to do additional damage. Yes it does show the dark side of the Indian society, but it also shows that it is a vibrant and law-abiding democracy where people are allowed to protest in the street and even rapists are given a fair trial. They are not taken to a nearby tree and hung, as would be the case in many countries.

This documentary does provide one of the rapists an opportunity to talk about the incidence and why he and his friends committed such a horrible crime. He comes across remorseless and blames the girl, at least partially, for the rape. Even more frightening than the interview of the rapist are the ones of their lawyers. One of them proclaims that, “We have the best culture. In our culture there is no place for a woman.” In his vocabulary, a woman is someone who is not a lady. The other lawyer says that, “If my daughter engaged in pre-marital activities, I will put petrol on her and set her alight.” Remember, these are lawyers, not criminals.

These interviews are pivotal because without them the power of the film would diminish. They provide a window in their warped minds, and in doing so demonstrate that the root cause for such crimes is the way women are thought of by a certain (significant?) segment of the society---not just the poor slum dwellers but educated professionals---and nothing will change unless that basic issue is addressed.

Many people believe that providing platform to criminals will lead to copycat crimes by others who would want to have their viewpoints broadcasted by the media. That may true for terrorists who have a message to give to the world even if it cost them their lives.  I cannot see why that would be the case for rapists. They are committing crimes in response to their obscene prejudices and impulses, and not to make a statement.  I cannot imagine a copycat rapist saying that: “Aha, if I go through with this rape, BBC will interview me and I will appear in a documentary while I wait for my death sentence to be carried out.”

Yes, a British woman, not an Indian, made this documentary.  My question is: Why didn’t an Indian make it? In the US, where we have our set of problems, such as gun violence, a person like Michael Moore makes a film with as much bite as India’s Daughter, showing America in a very bad light, so to speak. Such films are not banned; people watch them and make their own decisions. Why are folks in India so afraid of films showing their dark side?

Finally, and this is somewhat bizarre----I have seen some people in India dredging up statistics of rape in various countries and arguing that it is worse in other places. So, there should be documentaries about rapes committed over there, not in India. South Africa, England, America, and Australia are mentioned as those high on the list.

India’s Daughter is not a United Nations report on rape worldwide; it is about a ghastly incidence that drew worldwide attention. Filmmakers decide on a topic based on how compelling and interesting is the story, not based on statistics for the type of incidence covered by it. That’s why they make a documentary about people getting killed by guns in US, even when there are many countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Honduras) where the likelihood of dying by gun is much higher.  

In any case, would arguing that the situation in a worse in another country take away what is going on in our own? Also, do these people believe that rape statistics truly represent what is going on in a country? What percentage of rapes in India do they think get reported?

Interestingly, by banning the film, Indian government has made this documentary more popular than it would have been otherwise. It is available on YouTube despite government’s effort to stop it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. This is not the first time BBC has gotten into trouble with the Indian government. I remember another incidence. That was in the 70s, and the documentary (series) was called Phantom India. Made by the famous filmmaker Louis Malle, this series dealt with topics that intrigued him---such as mysticism, rituals and tribes in India. The Indian government claimed that it perpetuated bad image of India, and asked BBC to get out when they insisted on showing it. PBS subsequently aired it in US (there was no YouTube or even a video recorder to see it any other way) and I saw the entire series. It was excellent. Interestingly, the Indian government then asked PBS to air a documentary on India they would like to show---shiny buildings, factories, and happy people sort---and I was selected as one of the persons to watch it. I did and gave my honest opinion that the government’s version of India was also not the full story.
 

The Great Hoax

It was the dead of night and yet the Iqaluit airport in the remote Canadian province of Nunavut was humming with activities. Airplanes after airplanes were landing creating chaos for the immigration authorities. Hundreds of people from all different countries were pouring in---all in absolute secrecy.

The visitors took pains to hide their identities, because many were quite famous and they did not want their presence in this far corner to be revealed to the world. Those curious enough to ask them who they were got a curt reply. “We are here for a convention of rose growers.”

In reality, they were scientists and the real purpose of their visit was quite sinister.

They had travelled to this remote area, where there would be few watchful eyes, for one reason---to create a hoax of such magnitude that it would blow your imagination.  They wanted to fabricate a story that the world was going to suffer from a major climate change because of our actions, and unless something was done, the consequences would be catastrophic.

They were pretty sure that this hoax would crate a major upsurge in the funding they received, thus setting them up for life. The only thing was---all this had to be done in secrecy. If the cover were to be blown, that would be the end of their careers.

The venue for the gathering was carefully chosen. It was near the airport, so as to prevent the scientists from roaming around and creating suspicion. A tent city was erected, covered in camouflage material. This way, the prying eye of satellites would be fooled.

The hoax convention began with an oath to keep all this absolutely quiet. Even spouses would not be informed of what they were planning to do. Nobody outside this small group of 10,000 well-disciplined scientists would be allowed in the secret, and a leak would be contained by any means possible.  A secret handshake was established to ensure each person knew if the other person was in the secret or not.

Details of how the hoax would be perpetrated were revealed.  The temperature measuring devices around the world would be tempered so that they show rising temperatures.  The measurements of Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be similarly inflated. Computer models would be created to show what a dire state our earth is in. Several medial channels and scientific magazines will be bribed to run fake stories. Prominent politicians like Al Gore would be bought off so he becomes the spokes person for the hoax.

Concern was expressed in terms of the vigilant people of Fox channel and how they could blow the cover. Also, several extremely bright people of the Republican Party, such as Jim Inhofe, were listed as those to be feared. Unless the scientists were careful, these people would know something was wrong.  

Determined to make this a success, scientists filed out of the tent city and went back to the airport for their flights home.

And thus The Great Hoax was born.

PS: The hoax had a good run. For several years ordinary folks were petrified by what was coming. Fortunately, earth cooperated and people could feel something was wrong even without the scientists having to use false data. However, all this came to an end. As they feared, the Republicans, led by Inhofe, found out about the hoax. He came to his conclusion using brilliant logic about god and why would he let us humans alter climate. Fox News played its role in spreading the truth. The 10,000 scientists were shamed beyond belief. Their research funding dried up and they were subjected to witch trials, which were reinstated as a way to prevent future hoaxes.