Nothing can convince me more, as I have been watching television reports on the terror strikes in the south of Mumbai and in some iconic buildings like the 1903-built Taj Hotel (some of whose domes are currently burning due to the grenades lobbed by the terrorists) over the last six hours, that India will continue to be at the mercy of terrorists in bloodier ways in the absence of an effective and efficient Homeland Security body and strategy along the lines of what the United States of America has put together.
As I write these thoughts, news reports say that 78 people have died and 200 have been injured in these attacks.
It is a matter of shame for India, given its history of terrorist attacks, and a matter of pride for the U.S., since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, that not a single attack has taken place nor has been successful in the U.S. because of the streamlined manner in which its Homeland Security Department was established and runs and the commendable way its other security bodies work in unison with the department.
The U.S.’s Homeland Security is defined as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur”.
The U.S., it appears, has put together three remarkable documents which obviously form the basis of its approach towards a concerted approach towards its national security namely: National strategy for homeland security, National security strategy of the United States of America and National strategy for combating terrorism.
It is totally perplexing that India, a nation which has perhaps faced the maximum number of terrorist strikes by any country in the world, has been dilly-dallying in strengthening its internal security machinery or not learning sooner from the U.S. on how it went about creating such a superb terror prevention structure to protect its people and its properties.
Why did it take so long, till about two months ago when prime minister Manmohan Singh visited the U.S., for India’s national security adviser to learn more about the U.S. Homeland Security Department? Why has India been so ineffective in combating terrorism within the country? These are questions we need to ask in order to learn and move forward.
Having said that, it does not mean that we need to emulate the U.S. totally or adopt its strategic documents word for word. But we urgently need to put strategies and a body together which is in consonance with our policies, democratic principles and, more importantly, our own security interests.
However as long as India continues with its notorious tenacity towards disunity, fractured political interests of political parties and politicians, unenergetic and unimaginative government officials, terrorists will strike harder and bloodier and more innocent lives and the lives of law enforcement personnel will be lost. What India will also continue to lose will be its reputation in the world to protect its people and gain concentrated spotlight towards its stupor.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Why Barack Obama must win
Prior to begin writing my thoughts on "Why Barack Obama must win" I decided to visit Senator Obama's website to learn more about him. I have not read much about him because I felt that after having watched him speaking and been spoken of on television I had already learnt enough about who he was and his thinking.
Initially I was going to title this post "Why Barack Obama will win" but changed the title because even till now, perhaps a few hours before the people of the United States vote, I still have remnants of some doubts of his winning because of some factors that I feel could go against him. Let me express one factor before I come back to the actual title of my post. Though the U.S. has very high levels of literacy I believe that there is a clear distinction between being literate and being educated. While most Americans are literate, I do not think the country shares the same level of education among its peoples as it does for their literacy. Hence the limited level of education of the many would continue to confuse a majority of Americans about whether Senator Obama is Arab or Muslim or both. This confusion would hence dictate their votes against him for there is a strong bias towards people of Christian origin or faith in the United States.
Coming back to my title of this post, after months of hearing and seeing Senator Obama on television, I realised that there is one strong distinction between Senator McCain and Obama. Senator Obama clearly stands out as a independent visionary whose mind has been clearly tempered by years of "careful thinking" rather than by circumstances or by thoughts which would be convenient to hold for success in a particular political situation or which are tainted by objectives of opportunism.
Hence this makes Senator Obama an original thinker who has the strength to think differently and away from "herd mentality". This is one trait which will also distinguish him from being the usual politician who presides over the polity of the United States to that of a statesman which the country direly needs.
The other characteristic that I discerned about Senator Obama is his capacity to look at a "larger picture" and not succumb to vested interest thinking. For instance, he could display the courage of initiating changes in the country's foreign policy which,though capable of being misunderstood within his country, could have the potential of correcting the alienation of his country in the world and the criticism it has earned for its divisive and janus-faced foreign policies.
Senator Obama's possible winning and leadership will take place at one of the worst times the world has seen: The world is seeing increasing levels of mistrust between the Muslim and Christian worlds and its resultant effect on militant Islam. Tensions between the Unites States and Iran and Russia could have adverse consequences and create further rifts between several nations. The country is reeling under one of its worst financial crisis primarily because of powerful mistakes that emanated within it and which have now snowballed to a global crisis.
If Senator Obama wins it will not just be on the merits of his strengths but because a "higher power" conspired for him to be at a position which could have a lasting and posivite impact on the world.
Initially I was going to title this post "Why Barack Obama will win" but changed the title because even till now, perhaps a few hours before the people of the United States vote, I still have remnants of some doubts of his winning because of some factors that I feel could go against him. Let me express one factor before I come back to the actual title of my post. Though the U.S. has very high levels of literacy I believe that there is a clear distinction between being literate and being educated. While most Americans are literate, I do not think the country shares the same level of education among its peoples as it does for their literacy. Hence the limited level of education of the many would continue to confuse a majority of Americans about whether Senator Obama is Arab or Muslim or both. This confusion would hence dictate their votes against him for there is a strong bias towards people of Christian origin or faith in the United States.
Coming back to my title of this post, after months of hearing and seeing Senator Obama on television, I realised that there is one strong distinction between Senator McCain and Obama. Senator Obama clearly stands out as a independent visionary whose mind has been clearly tempered by years of "careful thinking" rather than by circumstances or by thoughts which would be convenient to hold for success in a particular political situation or which are tainted by objectives of opportunism.
Hence this makes Senator Obama an original thinker who has the strength to think differently and away from "herd mentality". This is one trait which will also distinguish him from being the usual politician who presides over the polity of the United States to that of a statesman which the country direly needs.
The other characteristic that I discerned about Senator Obama is his capacity to look at a "larger picture" and not succumb to vested interest thinking. For instance, he could display the courage of initiating changes in the country's foreign policy which,though capable of being misunderstood within his country, could have the potential of correcting the alienation of his country in the world and the criticism it has earned for its divisive and janus-faced foreign policies.
Senator Obama's possible winning and leadership will take place at one of the worst times the world has seen: The world is seeing increasing levels of mistrust between the Muslim and Christian worlds and its resultant effect on militant Islam. Tensions between the Unites States and Iran and Russia could have adverse consequences and create further rifts between several nations. The country is reeling under one of its worst financial crisis primarily because of powerful mistakes that emanated within it and which have now snowballed to a global crisis.
If Senator Obama wins it will not just be on the merits of his strengths but because a "higher power" conspired for him to be at a position which could have a lasting and posivite impact on the world.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
My thoughts on the financial crisis
Dear Kuntal:
I apologise for this delayed response.
Thank you for thinking of me as important enough to ask me questions related to the crisis that we are seeing because of the financial related developments that have emanated out of the U.S.
I must admit that I am not astute in these matters but at the same time I have to say that I have been trying to read a lot of what is being written on how what happened in the U.S. has affected it, the world, including us.
I do not think that capital markets can run an economy. Capital markets are representative of capitalism which is good but, as we can now see, cannot be given too much liberty to do what it wants by lowering regulations to drastic levels. Secondly, regulators cannot say that they have been taken by surprise or that they did not have enough control. They are among the most intelligent people who know and understand money and they have enough powers to bring in policies which bring in control. I am saying this in the context of the U.S.
The U.S. seems to be attracting and doing more damage than doing good. It has been following the path of "excesses" and excesses are fuelled by greed. Being a wealthy nation and obviously having faith in methods which brought it that wealth also made its people and law providers go overboard. High standards of living, high wages, huge liberty to credit, easy finance to get more housing than one needs, slump in its manufacturing and services sectors, greater outsourcing, etc., etc., are all keywords that come to my mind when I think about what has happened.
The pillars of an economy I feel are manufacturing and the services sectors. How can nations keep these alive and vibrant in a scenario of great wealth is what I think as a great challenge.
There will be repurcussions on countries like India and China definitely and the signs of the effect I think are still early. However my calculation is that the crisis-ridden Western world is increasingly going to look at India and China for many things, and perhaps even at a greater amount of investments, for the simple reason that 1.2 and 1.3 billion people will have needs, needs will create a market and the market will provide for the needs.
Times however are going to be really tough in the Western world and will get tougher. Things are not going to be easy either in the emerging Asian economies.
The crux of what happened as well as the answers ahead can rest in two ideals is what I think: Greed is at the end of the day not good for anyone and for a nation. Second, one has to be very careful of the Means to an End.
These are some of my thoughts. I hope they make some sense!
Best wishes
Taarun Dalaya
I apologise for this delayed response.
Thank you for thinking of me as important enough to ask me questions related to the crisis that we are seeing because of the financial related developments that have emanated out of the U.S.
I must admit that I am not astute in these matters but at the same time I have to say that I have been trying to read a lot of what is being written on how what happened in the U.S. has affected it, the world, including us.
I do not think that capital markets can run an economy. Capital markets are representative of capitalism which is good but, as we can now see, cannot be given too much liberty to do what it wants by lowering regulations to drastic levels. Secondly, regulators cannot say that they have been taken by surprise or that they did not have enough control. They are among the most intelligent people who know and understand money and they have enough powers to bring in policies which bring in control. I am saying this in the context of the U.S.
The U.S. seems to be attracting and doing more damage than doing good. It has been following the path of "excesses" and excesses are fuelled by greed. Being a wealthy nation and obviously having faith in methods which brought it that wealth also made its people and law providers go overboard. High standards of living, high wages, huge liberty to credit, easy finance to get more housing than one needs, slump in its manufacturing and services sectors, greater outsourcing, etc., etc., are all keywords that come to my mind when I think about what has happened.
The pillars of an economy I feel are manufacturing and the services sectors. How can nations keep these alive and vibrant in a scenario of great wealth is what I think as a great challenge.
There will be repurcussions on countries like India and China definitely and the signs of the effect I think are still early. However my calculation is that the crisis-ridden Western world is increasingly going to look at India and China for many things, and perhaps even at a greater amount of investments, for the simple reason that 1.2 and 1.3 billion people will have needs, needs will create a market and the market will provide for the needs.
Times however are going to be really tough in the Western world and will get tougher. Things are not going to be easy either in the emerging Asian economies.
The crux of what happened as well as the answers ahead can rest in two ideals is what I think: Greed is at the end of the day not good for anyone and for a nation. Second, one has to be very careful of the Means to an End.
These are some of my thoughts. I hope they make some sense!
Best wishes
Taarun Dalaya
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
