Sunday, September 12, 2004
In Remembrance
"Where were you when 9/11 happened?"
This is a question I am sure most of us have been asked during the course of the last three years. I clearly remember where I was. Where I am right now - browsing the net when I saw a headline on rediff that a plane, size undetermined, had hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center. I rushed to my TV and tuned into CNN and then saw the horrific incidents unfold from there on.
Three thousand innocent people died for the simple fact that they were Americans or because they decided to make America their home. The images were incessant and unsparing. Almost everyone who heard of the news and/or saw images of them, must have felt what I felt - profound sadness for the families of those innocent people who did not make it down the towers, anger towards those 19 hijackers and the masterminds and a feeling of numbness and utter disbelief.
Almost three years later, reminded by an interview of Bill Clinton I saw on Larry King Live recently, I asked myself another question:
"Where was I between April and June of 1994?"
And the answer was I was living my life as an Undergrad student in the UK finishing the second semester of my first year. We had a small-screen TV in our common kitchen in the dorm and I had a radio in my room. We would occasionally hear of the "news" in bits and pieces and before I mulled over too much on the events, more important matters like homeworks, mid-term exams and weekend trips to London would take precedence.
The news in question is the slaughter of one million people in Rwanda during this 90 day period. Yes, these were also a million innocent people murdered by members of the Hutu tribe just because they happened to belong to the Tutsi tribe or in some cases if they were Hutus who did not take the fashionable "let's get them Tutsis" line of thinking.
Even as three times as many people as those who died on 9/11 were being slaughtered each day for three months in Rwanda, I paid little attention to the happenings. But hey why blame me? There were no awe inspiring TV visuals for me to look at. There were few details and fewer people who were knowledgeable enough to comment. This was happening in a remote corner of Africa from where the world needed precious little. Somehow this story was just not cut out for prime time.
In the years hence, we have seen the fall of the Taliban and Saddam. In this battle between good and evil, the good side, i.e. us the civilized world, will wage wars pre-emptively if need be and strike before the evil has a chance to plan their next move. Weapons of Mass destruction will be curbed. We are creating a safer world where the darker side of the globe is being enlightened with freedom and democracy, as we know it.
There have been no terrorist attacks on the US since and very few of significant magnitude on the civilized world at large, barring a couple of minor hiccups like the Madrid bombings or the Bali attacks. The civilized world is safer today.
I breathe a sigh of relief. But, I am once again interrupted by bits and pieces of another piece of "news". 50, 000 have been killed in a genocide in Sudan's western region. Not sure about who is on the side of "good" and who on the side of "evil" in this conflict.
Did I say Sudan? I am so sorry, I forgot that is in Africa.
Didn't I tell you? I will only grieve if it is covered on primetime TV. I will only feel anger if the people who are killed look like familiar faces. I will only cheer from the sidelines if the war being covered on TV makes me feel I am on the side of the "good". I don't really care about the mass destruction of 50,000 people, all I know is there are no WMD's in Africa.
I am part of the civilized world, damn it.
This is a question I am sure most of us have been asked during the course of the last three years. I clearly remember where I was. Where I am right now - browsing the net when I saw a headline on rediff that a plane, size undetermined, had hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center. I rushed to my TV and tuned into CNN and then saw the horrific incidents unfold from there on.
Three thousand innocent people died for the simple fact that they were Americans or because they decided to make America their home. The images were incessant and unsparing. Almost everyone who heard of the news and/or saw images of them, must have felt what I felt - profound sadness for the families of those innocent people who did not make it down the towers, anger towards those 19 hijackers and the masterminds and a feeling of numbness and utter disbelief.
Almost three years later, reminded by an interview of Bill Clinton I saw on Larry King Live recently, I asked myself another question:
"Where was I between April and June of 1994?"
And the answer was I was living my life as an Undergrad student in the UK finishing the second semester of my first year. We had a small-screen TV in our common kitchen in the dorm and I had a radio in my room. We would occasionally hear of the "news" in bits and pieces and before I mulled over too much on the events, more important matters like homeworks, mid-term exams and weekend trips to London would take precedence.
The news in question is the slaughter of one million people in Rwanda during this 90 day period. Yes, these were also a million innocent people murdered by members of the Hutu tribe just because they happened to belong to the Tutsi tribe or in some cases if they were Hutus who did not take the fashionable "let's get them Tutsis" line of thinking.
Even as three times as many people as those who died on 9/11 were being slaughtered each day for three months in Rwanda, I paid little attention to the happenings. But hey why blame me? There were no awe inspiring TV visuals for me to look at. There were few details and fewer people who were knowledgeable enough to comment. This was happening in a remote corner of Africa from where the world needed precious little. Somehow this story was just not cut out for prime time.
In the years hence, we have seen the fall of the Taliban and Saddam. In this battle between good and evil, the good side, i.e. us the civilized world, will wage wars pre-emptively if need be and strike before the evil has a chance to plan their next move. Weapons of Mass destruction will be curbed. We are creating a safer world where the darker side of the globe is being enlightened with freedom and democracy, as we know it.
There have been no terrorist attacks on the US since and very few of significant magnitude on the civilized world at large, barring a couple of minor hiccups like the Madrid bombings or the Bali attacks. The civilized world is safer today.
I breathe a sigh of relief. But, I am once again interrupted by bits and pieces of another piece of "news". 50, 000 have been killed in a genocide in Sudan's western region. Not sure about who is on the side of "good" and who on the side of "evil" in this conflict.
Did I say Sudan? I am so sorry, I forgot that is in Africa.
Didn't I tell you? I will only grieve if it is covered on primetime TV. I will only feel anger if the people who are killed look like familiar faces. I will only cheer from the sidelines if the war being covered on TV makes me feel I am on the side of the "good". I don't really care about the mass destruction of 50,000 people, all I know is there are no WMD's in Africa.
I am part of the civilized world, damn it.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
The Indian-Republican
President Bush is gracious enough to grant an interview to India
Abroad. Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida,
other congressmen and even a senator among others are joined by about
100 Indian-Republican leading lights at Shaan Restaurant in New York
City coinciding with the Republication Convention at Madison Square
Garden and even the new Indian Ambassador decides to join in
the festivities. The talk at the event focuses on India's emerging
role and its unyielding support on the war on terror and a celebration
of the success of India's diaspora.
All these events are widely reported in that hyphenated section of the
press, yes the Indian-American one! If the tone of these reports are
anything to go by, we are all supposed to have a warm, fuzzy feeling of
how Indians in America have come of age and how "we" are a force to
reckon with.
As I read these reports and the inevitable hoopla that follows, I am
reminded of Sikander Bakht. I am also reminded of Judge Clarence
Thomas. I think of the Florida Recount of 2000. I remember the Confederate
Flag. And I remember Bollywood. These in no particular order.
Katherine Harris found immortality in Republican folklore during the
Florida recount after her obstinate refusal to allow manual recounts in
Florida. Even before Al Gore called Bush for the second time to concede
the election, she was announcing her bid to run for the Congress and
she comfortably made it. Now, Ms. Harris has endorsed the Indian community
in the USA as having her confidence in helping elect George W Bush once
again at the Shaan restaurant. Thank God for her confidence in the
Indian community. Perhaps those that live in Florida at least can turn
out and vote on November 2nd, 2004 then. My thoughts go back to 2000
when apparently in Florida there were systematic attempts to disenfranchize
black voters with Ms. Harris at the helm.
Rep. Joe Wilson, when he was a state senator in the state of "Smiling
faces, Beautiful places" was a supporter of the Confederate Flag on the
State Capitol in South Carolina. It is not as if a man cannot have
different sides to his personality or that he cannot evolve with years.
But being part of a group such as the Indian-American Congressional caucus
that was supposedly formed to champion the causes of the Indian American
community calls for a certain sensitivity to issues which is hardly
demonstrated by his public support of a symbol as divisive as the
Confederate Flag in this day and age.
We are told that George W Bush granting an interview to India Abroad
should be treated as a sign that India and Indians are a force to
reckon with. One would much rather if India found a more prominent mention in
the Republican Convention and its resolution than through an interview
that a President looking for every swing vote in America agrees to in
an election year.
Events such as the one at the Shaan are supposed to make us believe
that the new "Compassionate, Conservative" Republican Party is an inclusive
place where immigrants such as Indian-Americans are welcome. In that
case, is it just a coincidence that when George P. Bush, son of Gov.
Jeb Bush and the President's nephew, talks about how the Statue of Liberty
was a symbol of freedom to new and old immigrants and America's proud
tradition of welcoming people in search of a better life (supposedly a
pitch for the Latino Vote in states like Florida), not a soul in the
Convention decides to applaud? Mind you this was the same crowd that
was applauding everything from words like "girlie" from the
"not-groping-anymore Arnold" or "spitball-Zell", the eccentric Senator
from Georgia.
The hundred or so Indian-Republicans (the latest hyphenated group I
have come across), tell us that the Republican Party represents the same
values and principles that Indian Americans hold close to their heart.
While this may have some truth and I am sure there are many moderate
Republicans who have a soft corner for a community that is generally
believed to be hard working and low maintenance, isn't one reminded of
Sikander Bakht in the BJP in the late 80's and 90's, the lone Muslim in
a party that was seeing a surge in support with its saffron agenda? One
is also reminded of Judge Clarence Thomas, the sole black member of the US
Supreme Court who is the most conservative of all the judges on the
bench, one who opposes affirmative action, a policy from which he himself has
arguably benefitted from.
In other words, those who live in American suburbia and who have a
borderline-high cholesterol, a Mercedes car and a hefty financial
portfolio to show for their time in the American meritocracy, love the
idea of the the GOP scouting for the Indian-American version of a
Clarence Thomas.
While it will be foolhardy to say that the democratic party is not in a
similar boat with regard to Indian-Americans and that is a separate
topic in itself for another musing, the hype surrounding such events as
the gala dinner held at the Shaan should be recognized for what it
really is. Until so much time that Indian-American issues, concerns, opinions and
values are welcome to the Republican Party, the mere welcome of
Indian-Americans to it as voters, donors and conforming politicians
will have to suffice for now.
A bit like in Bollywood, Indian-Americans will be confined to play the role
of the model "bhai-bhai" minority character . One that ensures conformity,
one that does not ask tough questions, one who tries hard to prove his
patriotism and one who goes out of his way to find common ground.
Abroad. Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida,
other congressmen and even a senator among others are joined by about
100 Indian-Republican leading lights at Shaan Restaurant in New York
City coinciding with the Republication Convention at Madison Square
Garden and even the new Indian Ambassador decides to join in
the festivities. The talk at the event focuses on India's emerging
role and its unyielding support on the war on terror and a celebration
of the success of India's diaspora.
All these events are widely reported in that hyphenated section of the
press, yes the Indian-American one! If the tone of these reports are
anything to go by, we are all supposed to have a warm, fuzzy feeling of
how Indians in America have come of age and how "we" are a force to
reckon with.
As I read these reports and the inevitable hoopla that follows, I am
reminded of Sikander Bakht. I am also reminded of Judge Clarence
Thomas. I think of the Florida Recount of 2000. I remember the Confederate
Flag. And I remember Bollywood. These in no particular order.
Katherine Harris found immortality in Republican folklore during the
Florida recount after her obstinate refusal to allow manual recounts in
Florida. Even before Al Gore called Bush for the second time to concede
the election, she was announcing her bid to run for the Congress and
she comfortably made it. Now, Ms. Harris has endorsed the Indian community
in the USA as having her confidence in helping elect George W Bush once
again at the Shaan restaurant. Thank God for her confidence in the
Indian community. Perhaps those that live in Florida at least can turn
out and vote on November 2nd, 2004 then. My thoughts go back to 2000
when apparently in Florida there were systematic attempts to disenfranchize
black voters with Ms. Harris at the helm.
Rep. Joe Wilson, when he was a state senator in the state of "Smiling
faces, Beautiful places" was a supporter of the Confederate Flag on the
State Capitol in South Carolina. It is not as if a man cannot have
different sides to his personality or that he cannot evolve with years.
But being part of a group such as the Indian-American Congressional caucus
that was supposedly formed to champion the causes of the Indian American
community calls for a certain sensitivity to issues which is hardly
demonstrated by his public support of a symbol as divisive as the
Confederate Flag in this day and age.
We are told that George W Bush granting an interview to India Abroad
should be treated as a sign that India and Indians are a force to
reckon with. One would much rather if India found a more prominent mention in
the Republican Convention and its resolution than through an interview
that a President looking for every swing vote in America agrees to in
an election year.
Events such as the one at the Shaan are supposed to make us believe
that the new "Compassionate, Conservative" Republican Party is an inclusive
place where immigrants such as Indian-Americans are welcome. In that
case, is it just a coincidence that when George P. Bush, son of Gov.
Jeb Bush and the President's nephew, talks about how the Statue of Liberty
was a symbol of freedom to new and old immigrants and America's proud
tradition of welcoming people in search of a better life (supposedly a
pitch for the Latino Vote in states like Florida), not a soul in the
Convention decides to applaud? Mind you this was the same crowd that
was applauding everything from words like "girlie" from the
"not-groping-anymore Arnold" or "spitball-Zell", the eccentric Senator
from Georgia.
The hundred or so Indian-Republicans (the latest hyphenated group I
have come across), tell us that the Republican Party represents the same
values and principles that Indian Americans hold close to their heart.
While this may have some truth and I am sure there are many moderate
Republicans who have a soft corner for a community that is generally
believed to be hard working and low maintenance, isn't one reminded of
Sikander Bakht in the BJP in the late 80's and 90's, the lone Muslim in
a party that was seeing a surge in support with its saffron agenda? One
is also reminded of Judge Clarence Thomas, the sole black member of the US
Supreme Court who is the most conservative of all the judges on the
bench, one who opposes affirmative action, a policy from which he himself has
arguably benefitted from.
In other words, those who live in American suburbia and who have a
borderline-high cholesterol, a Mercedes car and a hefty financial
portfolio to show for their time in the American meritocracy, love the
idea of the the GOP scouting for the Indian-American version of a
Clarence Thomas.
While it will be foolhardy to say that the democratic party is not in a
similar boat with regard to Indian-Americans and that is a separate
topic in itself for another musing, the hype surrounding such events as
the gala dinner held at the Shaan should be recognized for what it
really is. Until so much time that Indian-American issues, concerns, opinions and
values are welcome to the Republican Party, the mere welcome of
Indian-Americans to it as voters, donors and conforming politicians
will have to suffice for now.
A bit like in Bollywood, Indian-Americans will be confined to play the role
of the model "bhai-bhai" minority character . One that ensures conformity,
one that does not ask tough questions, one who tries hard to prove his
patriotism and one who goes out of his way to find common ground.
