What with cricket, scams and forthcoming state elections ruling the headlines, the debate over introducing genetically-modified (GM) food/crops in India is almost forgotten. Is that a good thing? Depends on which side you’re on.
If you’re in favour of introducing GM food/crops in India, then, perhaps, a quiet entry while no one is looking is the best strategy to adopt. However, if you’re a concerned citizen, worried about your own and your children’s future, then, perhaps, the entry of GM food/crops in India and their proliferation in the Indian consumer market can be a scary proposition.
That’s possibly one reason why, two weeks ago, on World Consumer Rights Day (15 March 2011), a group of concerned citizens met in Mumbai to open up the debate over the possible introduction of GM food/crops in India and the quick and quiet passing of the proposed BRAI (Biotechnology and Regulatory Authority of India) Bill.
[BRAI is expected to act as the sole agency responsible for the regulatory system, including research, transport, import, manufacture and the use of GM crops in India.]
The meeting was organised by the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, with over 22,000 members, and the Alliance of Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), an alliance of over 300 farmer and consumer organisations from across India. Their proposition: the government must encourage public hearings prior to the passing of the BRAI Bill and the introduction of GM foods in India.
Some important questions were raised at the meeting: Is GM food safe for human and livestock consumption? Will farmer interests be safeguarded once GM seeds are introduced in India? Will consumers have easy access to information on GM foods offered to them and be able to exercise their right to refuse GM food in favour of natural/organic food? Is the Indian government ensuring that Indian citizens are kept informed of the risks of GM food/crops?
And, most importantly, is the Indian government trying to evade consumer concern for, and opposition to, GM food/crops by passing the BRAI Bill quietly?
28 March 2011
16 February 2011
Surviving the 21st century
The impact of the internet, the mobilephone and air travel is beyond doubt. Technology has indeed changed our lives: helping us to connect with our family and friends, to conduct business speedily, to have access to education and healthcare which were beyond our reach earlier.
Today, in urban India, we can learn about a socio-political uprising in Egypt, spread the news to our friends on our social networks, post opinions on our blogs, comment on online news sites, and show our support for the cause with thousands of people across the world... from the comfort of our homes.
What this means is that technology has liberated us to an unimaginable degree. Now we can hear what’s going on, and be heard, in all corners of the world.
But, technology also binds us. It locks us into believing that what is provided on our platter is all good. Good for our consumption, as food and as thought. So subtle and yet so powerful is this belief that we seldom question what is offered to us. We take it for granted that what’s offered to us is pure and safe, and will improve our lives and lifestyles.
This is not always so. If we think the global financial crisis of 2008 was a shocker, taking away what’s most sacred to us, then we are aware of only half the story. There is a deadlier crisis at bay; a deadlier conspiracy at play. What I’m talking about is the danger of genetically modified food that is served on our platter every day.
From health hazards to environmental hazards to failure of crops which affect our food supply, technologies that propagate genetically modified food are killing machines. Yet, and in spite of volumes of information available on the internet, worldwide, awareness of the risks of genetically modified food is low.
In India, where genetically modified crop failures and farmer suicides are rampant, educating the farmers and the public at large are uphill tasks. Who could or would provide this education? And, at what cost? How does one reach out to over a billion people, most of whom are illiterate?
Added to this is apathy in the media and among policy makers and the government. With the Food and Agriculture Minister preoccupied with cricket, construction and his other interests, who’s going to chalk out a strategy for us to survive the 21st century?
Today, in urban India, we can learn about a socio-political uprising in Egypt, spread the news to our friends on our social networks, post opinions on our blogs, comment on online news sites, and show our support for the cause with thousands of people across the world... from the comfort of our homes.
What this means is that technology has liberated us to an unimaginable degree. Now we can hear what’s going on, and be heard, in all corners of the world.
But, technology also binds us. It locks us into believing that what is provided on our platter is all good. Good for our consumption, as food and as thought. So subtle and yet so powerful is this belief that we seldom question what is offered to us. We take it for granted that what’s offered to us is pure and safe, and will improve our lives and lifestyles.
This is not always so. If we think the global financial crisis of 2008 was a shocker, taking away what’s most sacred to us, then we are aware of only half the story. There is a deadlier crisis at bay; a deadlier conspiracy at play. What I’m talking about is the danger of genetically modified food that is served on our platter every day.
From health hazards to environmental hazards to failure of crops which affect our food supply, technologies that propagate genetically modified food are killing machines. Yet, and in spite of volumes of information available on the internet, worldwide, awareness of the risks of genetically modified food is low.
In India, where genetically modified crop failures and farmer suicides are rampant, educating the farmers and the public at large are uphill tasks. Who could or would provide this education? And, at what cost? How does one reach out to over a billion people, most of whom are illiterate?
Added to this is apathy in the media and among policy makers and the government. With the Food and Agriculture Minister preoccupied with cricket, construction and his other interests, who’s going to chalk out a strategy for us to survive the 21st century?
01 April 2010
What's new
I hear people declare these days, “consumers trust products and brand recommendations from people they know” (or words to this effect), as if it’s some kind of revelation. But, hasn’t this always been the case? Haven’t people always consulted their family, friends, neighbours and colleagues for advice and recommendations on products and services they intended to buy and use? Haven’t people we know influenced our choices and purchase decisions – or, at least, shared their knowledge and experience of products and services they’ve used with us? What’s new about that?!
It’s true that, with the internet, much of this influence has shifted online – at least in the developed world where internet penetration and usage are high. It’s also true that the internet has encouraged online participation, conversations and influence, and even accelerated it, by making it easy to listen in and participate in ongoing conversations, as well as enabling us to take personal or collaborative action. And, of course, it’s true that the internet has increased the reach of these conversations and actions – and their influence.
However, the internet still operates on human needs and desires which drive our purchase decisions as well as our preferences for specific brands.
What’s new today is that the control of product/brand conversations and recommendations is slowly (albeit more rapidly in the developed world) shifting from the product/brand marketers to the consumers. What’s also new is that the wise marketers (and there aren’t too many at the moment) are beginning to give credence to this shift of control and beginning to engage their consumers in their marketing.
It’s true that, with the internet, much of this influence has shifted online – at least in the developed world where internet penetration and usage are high. It’s also true that the internet has encouraged online participation, conversations and influence, and even accelerated it, by making it easy to listen in and participate in ongoing conversations, as well as enabling us to take personal or collaborative action. And, of course, it’s true that the internet has increased the reach of these conversations and actions – and their influence.
However, the internet still operates on human needs and desires which drive our purchase decisions as well as our preferences for specific brands.
What’s new today is that the control of product/brand conversations and recommendations is slowly (albeit more rapidly in the developed world) shifting from the product/brand marketers to the consumers. What’s also new is that the wise marketers (and there aren’t too many at the moment) are beginning to give credence to this shift of control and beginning to engage their consumers in their marketing.
01 January 2010
My favourite things
More than anything else, 2009, for me, was the year in which my life was overwhelmed by social media (my own project for children included in it), Jacqueline Novogratz’ book The Blue Sweater, the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, and two films: Neil Blomkamp’s District 9 and James Cameron’s Avatar.
Not only were these my favourite things in 2009, they continue to shower their influence upon me even now. And, as I feel it in my bones, my transition into 2010 is really a journey of understanding of life with a new sense of interconnectedness, interdependence and equilibrium, giving it a whole new meaning.
Does 2010 promise something more? I don’t know. But, for now, I have my favourite things to build my life on.
Not only were these my favourite things in 2009, they continue to shower their influence upon me even now. And, as I feel it in my bones, my transition into 2010 is really a journey of understanding of life with a new sense of interconnectedness, interdependence and equilibrium, giving it a whole new meaning.
Does 2010 promise something more? I don’t know. But, for now, I have my favourite things to build my life on.
15 November 2009
The greatest evil
The use of fear as a weapon is nothing new. Not just in war or by totalitarian governments upon their people or by the mafia or by landlords over farmers and peasants in agrarian societies like India, but even in cases as simple as parents disciplining their children or children bullying other children.
What I find interesting (as a study) and, at the same time, horrifying about the use of fear are two things: (a) how this use of fear is endorsed by others, making it legitimate; and (b) how power, and therefore political authority, is exercised by this use of fear to achieve goals.
By the endorsement of use of fear – and violence, which naturally comes with it – I don’t simply mean people in authority supporting and encouraging others to use fear to achieve their goals. No, what I mean is the belief – and the support and encouragement of that belief – that those who use fear and violence as weapons against others are ‘free of all blame’.
In short, the belief that the use of fear and violence is for good. This is where I see the greatest evil.
What I find interesting (as a study) and, at the same time, horrifying about the use of fear are two things: (a) how this use of fear is endorsed by others, making it legitimate; and (b) how power, and therefore political authority, is exercised by this use of fear to achieve goals.
By the endorsement of use of fear – and violence, which naturally comes with it – I don’t simply mean people in authority supporting and encouraging others to use fear to achieve their goals. No, what I mean is the belief – and the support and encouragement of that belief – that those who use fear and violence as weapons against others are ‘free of all blame’.
In short, the belief that the use of fear and violence is for good. This is where I see the greatest evil.
07 November 2009
Evil in their blood
Although we tend to single out Adolf Hitler and the Nazis for their evil nature and deeds, we all know that they weren’t the only ones in modern history. In fact, a few years before World War 2, during the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), hundreds of thousands of Spanish people were brutally murdered by General Francisco Franco, the Nationalists and their allies the Falangists.
British author Jason Webster, who lives in and writes about modern-day Spain, in his 2006 book ¡Guerra!, narrates incidents of atrocities committed by General Franco, his Nationalist side and the right-wing Falangists during the Spanish Civil War. Here’s an excerpt:
“In public, Franco used to declare that Republicans with no blood on their hands would be spared. In secret, at Castuera many were murdered simply for having been on the other side. Grouping the prisoners into batches of ten, the Falangists would tie them together around the waist and then drag them to the mine just outside the camp. There they would line them up at the top of the shaft and push them over the edge. Some fell directly to their deaths, others smashed their limbs at the bottom but remained alive. The Falangists finished them off with grenades.”
Most of these deaths were never reported and it is only now that Spanish and world historians are trying to make sense of the killings during the Spanish Civil War. I’ve read accounts by Professor Paul Preston, eminent British historian and an expert on the Spanish Civil War, in which he suggests that the number of deaths – and missing persons – is likely to be tens, perhaps hundreds, of times more than what has been found, reported and documented.
Where does this violence, this cruelty, this evil come from?
Although all is supposed to be fair in love and war, I wonder what goes on in the minds of the people who mastermind these heinous plans and commit these murders in such large numbers. Laurence Rees, in his 2004 book and the BBC TV series Auschwitz: The Nazis & The ‘Final Solution’ (about which I’ve blogged here), gives us an insight into the Nazi mind, describing the coolness with which the Nazis committed mass murders and how inventive they had been in their methods. It seems evil was in their blood.
Perhaps Franco and the Nationalists/Falangists weren’t as inventive as the Nazis in finding ways of killing people, but they did know how to instil terror within their enemies. Both Professor Preston and author Webster cite the example of General Emilio Mola who was Franco’s counterpart during the Spanish Civil War (actually General Mola had masterminded and spearheaded the Nationalist coup against the ruling Republicans before Franco joined him) and led the attack from northern Spain.
Apparently, shortly after instituting martial law in Pamplona in July 1936, General Mola had addressed a group of mayors in the city with these (or similar) words:
“It is necessary to spread terror. We have to create the impression of mastery eliminating without scruples or hesitation all those who do not think as we do. There can be no cowardice. If we vacillate one moment and fail to proceed with the greatest determination, we will not win. Anyone who helps or hides a communist or a supporter of the Popular Front will be shot.”
Jason Webster in ¡Guerra! narrates the story of another Nationalist General, Gonzalo Queipo de Llano, who had mastered the art of radio broadcasts to effectively instil terror in the people of Seville over whom he ruled ‘like a wicked medieval warlord’ in the early years of the Spanish Civil War. Every night he would come on Radio Seville (then under his control) with his announcements and demoralise the town’s people through a series of threats and insults.
But General Queipo de Llano was known for more than his radio announcements. Webster writes:
“Queipo went on to rule his southern territories through a system of fear, terrorizing the people into a state of submission through violence. Mass executions and torture were the norm, soldiers often dragging men out of their homes and shooting them in the street or bayoneting them to death. At night the sound of gunfire ricocheted around Seville as small groups of union leaders, left-wingers or people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time were taken to the outskirts of the city to be shot. Simply having a callus on your hand or a sunburnt face (which suggested you were a manual labourer or farm worker), or had a tattoo or your shirt undone were reasons enough to be imprisoned.”
Mind you, these narrations and descriptions of violence and evil are about Spanish men acting against their own countrymen – not against another race or religion as was the case with the Nazis or the Japanese during World War 2. In the Spanish Civil War, and perhaps for many years after (as General Franco continued to rule Spain until his death in 1975), the Spanish tortured and murdered their own kind in hundreds of thousands.
[Citation: 1. ¡Guerra! by Jason Webster, chapters 6-9. 2. Paul Preston: The Crimes of Franco – The 2005 Len Crome Memorial Lecture, delivered at the Imperial War Museum on 12 March 2005.]
British author Jason Webster, who lives in and writes about modern-day Spain, in his 2006 book ¡Guerra!, narrates incidents of atrocities committed by General Franco, his Nationalist side and the right-wing Falangists during the Spanish Civil War. Here’s an excerpt:
“In public, Franco used to declare that Republicans with no blood on their hands would be spared. In secret, at Castuera many were murdered simply for having been on the other side. Grouping the prisoners into batches of ten, the Falangists would tie them together around the waist and then drag them to the mine just outside the camp. There they would line them up at the top of the shaft and push them over the edge. Some fell directly to their deaths, others smashed their limbs at the bottom but remained alive. The Falangists finished them off with grenades.”
Most of these deaths were never reported and it is only now that Spanish and world historians are trying to make sense of the killings during the Spanish Civil War. I’ve read accounts by Professor Paul Preston, eminent British historian and an expert on the Spanish Civil War, in which he suggests that the number of deaths – and missing persons – is likely to be tens, perhaps hundreds, of times more than what has been found, reported and documented.
Where does this violence, this cruelty, this evil come from?
Although all is supposed to be fair in love and war, I wonder what goes on in the minds of the people who mastermind these heinous plans and commit these murders in such large numbers. Laurence Rees, in his 2004 book and the BBC TV series Auschwitz: The Nazis & The ‘Final Solution’ (about which I’ve blogged here), gives us an insight into the Nazi mind, describing the coolness with which the Nazis committed mass murders and how inventive they had been in their methods. It seems evil was in their blood.
Perhaps Franco and the Nationalists/Falangists weren’t as inventive as the Nazis in finding ways of killing people, but they did know how to instil terror within their enemies. Both Professor Preston and author Webster cite the example of General Emilio Mola who was Franco’s counterpart during the Spanish Civil War (actually General Mola had masterminded and spearheaded the Nationalist coup against the ruling Republicans before Franco joined him) and led the attack from northern Spain.
Apparently, shortly after instituting martial law in Pamplona in July 1936, General Mola had addressed a group of mayors in the city with these (or similar) words:
“It is necessary to spread terror. We have to create the impression of mastery eliminating without scruples or hesitation all those who do not think as we do. There can be no cowardice. If we vacillate one moment and fail to proceed with the greatest determination, we will not win. Anyone who helps or hides a communist or a supporter of the Popular Front will be shot.”
Jason Webster in ¡Guerra! narrates the story of another Nationalist General, Gonzalo Queipo de Llano, who had mastered the art of radio broadcasts to effectively instil terror in the people of Seville over whom he ruled ‘like a wicked medieval warlord’ in the early years of the Spanish Civil War. Every night he would come on Radio Seville (then under his control) with his announcements and demoralise the town’s people through a series of threats and insults.
But General Queipo de Llano was known for more than his radio announcements. Webster writes:
“Queipo went on to rule his southern territories through a system of fear, terrorizing the people into a state of submission through violence. Mass executions and torture were the norm, soldiers often dragging men out of their homes and shooting them in the street or bayoneting them to death. At night the sound of gunfire ricocheted around Seville as small groups of union leaders, left-wingers or people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time were taken to the outskirts of the city to be shot. Simply having a callus on your hand or a sunburnt face (which suggested you were a manual labourer or farm worker), or had a tattoo or your shirt undone were reasons enough to be imprisoned.”
Mind you, these narrations and descriptions of violence and evil are about Spanish men acting against their own countrymen – not against another race or religion as was the case with the Nazis or the Japanese during World War 2. In the Spanish Civil War, and perhaps for many years after (as General Franco continued to rule Spain until his death in 1975), the Spanish tortured and murdered their own kind in hundreds of thousands.
[Citation: 1. ¡Guerra! by Jason Webster, chapters 6-9. 2. Paul Preston: The Crimes of Franco – The 2005 Len Crome Memorial Lecture, delivered at the Imperial War Museum on 12 March 2005.]
25 October 2009
Is man good or evil?
Danny Archer: So you think because your intentions are good, they'll spare you, huh?
Benjamin Kapanay: My heart always told me that people are inherently good. My experience suggests otherwise. But what about you, Mr. Archer? In your long career as a journalist, would you say that people are mostly good?
Danny Archer: No. I'd say they're just people.
Benjamin Kapanay: Exactly. It is what they do that makes them good or bad. A moment of love, even in a bad man, can give meaning to a life. None of us knows whose path will lead us to God.
This oft-quoted dialogue from Edward Zwick’s 2006 film Blood Diamond (starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Danny Archer and Basil Wallace as Benjamin Kapanay) is rather poignant. Poignant because, though the dialogue reveals to us the dichotomy of human nature, good and evil, it doesn’t leave us with any answers as to what is man’s inherent nature. Perhaps because there is no simple single answer to the question: Is man good or evil?
This question, I’m sure, has given many of us sleepless nights – especially if we’ve recently experienced unexpected behaviour of goodness or evil from people close to us whom we’ve judged to be of contrary disposition. That was exactly my experience in watching Neill Blomkamp’s film District 9 a couple of months ago. However, in Blood Diamond and District 9, our predisposition to good and evil – or, rather, who is good and who is evil – is made clear by the films’ stories and the films’ directors.
But, what if life was not so clear to us? How would we respond to good and evil then?
These questions made me think about a book I had read in my childhood (I, later, saw the older version of the film made on the book as well). The book was William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, first published in 1954. Lord of the Flies narrates the story of a group of marooned British schoolboys when their plane crashes on a deserted island – and the consequences thereafter when the boys fight for their survival in the jungle, making up their own rules as they go along, guided by their instincts.
What unfolds in Lord of the Flies is a sort of morality play, with different characters in the story assuming different roles of good or evil, or somewhere in between, defining a conflict between civilisation and savagery, reason and impulse, good and evil. However, unlike Blood Diamond or District 9, Lord of the Flies and its author Golding do not offer a simple answer or explanation or outcome of good winning over evil. On the contrary, Lord of the Flies suggests that evil comes easily to man. And that, the instinct for evil is far more basic and far stronger than the instinct to do or be good.
Benjamin Kapanay: My heart always told me that people are inherently good. My experience suggests otherwise. But what about you, Mr. Archer? In your long career as a journalist, would you say that people are mostly good?
Danny Archer: No. I'd say they're just people.
Benjamin Kapanay: Exactly. It is what they do that makes them good or bad. A moment of love, even in a bad man, can give meaning to a life. None of us knows whose path will lead us to God.
This oft-quoted dialogue from Edward Zwick’s 2006 film Blood Diamond (starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Danny Archer and Basil Wallace as Benjamin Kapanay) is rather poignant. Poignant because, though the dialogue reveals to us the dichotomy of human nature, good and evil, it doesn’t leave us with any answers as to what is man’s inherent nature. Perhaps because there is no simple single answer to the question: Is man good or evil?
This question, I’m sure, has given many of us sleepless nights – especially if we’ve recently experienced unexpected behaviour of goodness or evil from people close to us whom we’ve judged to be of contrary disposition. That was exactly my experience in watching Neill Blomkamp’s film District 9 a couple of months ago. However, in Blood Diamond and District 9, our predisposition to good and evil – or, rather, who is good and who is evil – is made clear by the films’ stories and the films’ directors.
But, what if life was not so clear to us? How would we respond to good and evil then?
These questions made me think about a book I had read in my childhood (I, later, saw the older version of the film made on the book as well). The book was William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, first published in 1954. Lord of the Flies narrates the story of a group of marooned British schoolboys when their plane crashes on a deserted island – and the consequences thereafter when the boys fight for their survival in the jungle, making up their own rules as they go along, guided by their instincts.
What unfolds in Lord of the Flies is a sort of morality play, with different characters in the story assuming different roles of good or evil, or somewhere in between, defining a conflict between civilisation and savagery, reason and impulse, good and evil. However, unlike Blood Diamond or District 9, Lord of the Flies and its author Golding do not offer a simple answer or explanation or outcome of good winning over evil. On the contrary, Lord of the Flies suggests that evil comes easily to man. And that, the instinct for evil is far more basic and far stronger than the instinct to do or be good.
16 October 2009
Evil against the ‘other’
One aspect of Neill Blomkamp’s film District 9 (see my previous blog) that intrigued me was the question of man’s willingness and capacity to do evil. Not just evil against the ‘other’ (depicted, in the film, as the aliens or the ‘prawns’), but also evil against a member of one’s own tribe – that is, another human being (the film’s protagonist, Wikus van de Merwe).
Of course, in District 9, at the moment of evil, the human in question was, perhaps, not entirely human. For, Wikus van de Merwe, after exposure to an alien fluid, was biologically (that is, genetically) transforming into a ‘prawn’. So, perhaps, at the moment of evil, Wikus van de Merwe had become the ‘other’... and the treatment meted out to him by the humans was justified.
But, was it? Was that how it worked?
When I look at the recent spate of bombings and killings (and even beheadings) that are taking place in my own country, India, as well as in neighbouring Pakistan, I am, once again, troubled by the question of man’s willingness and capacity to do evil... to his fellow men. Because, it’s here, in our daily lives, that I see no ‘real’ difference between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’.
But, that’s not how it seems. In defence of their actions, I suppose, the men of evil in question here can justify themselves: in India, the Maoists defending the rights of the farmers and the peasants against a (still active) feudal system and oppression; and, in Pakistan, the Taliban and its allies protesting against the government’s inability to run its own country peacefully, without foreign intervention.
Is this justification enough to destroy innocent human lives? In the minds and the hearts of the Maoists in India and the Taliban and its allies in Pakistan, apparently, it is. For, to the Maoists, the Taliban and their like, those who are not with them in their struggle are considered the ‘other’. And, any evil against the ‘other’ is a logical end in itself.
Of course, in District 9, at the moment of evil, the human in question was, perhaps, not entirely human. For, Wikus van de Merwe, after exposure to an alien fluid, was biologically (that is, genetically) transforming into a ‘prawn’. So, perhaps, at the moment of evil, Wikus van de Merwe had become the ‘other’... and the treatment meted out to him by the humans was justified.
But, was it? Was that how it worked?
When I look at the recent spate of bombings and killings (and even beheadings) that are taking place in my own country, India, as well as in neighbouring Pakistan, I am, once again, troubled by the question of man’s willingness and capacity to do evil... to his fellow men. Because, it’s here, in our daily lives, that I see no ‘real’ difference between the ‘self’ and the ‘other’.
But, that’s not how it seems. In defence of their actions, I suppose, the men of evil in question here can justify themselves: in India, the Maoists defending the rights of the farmers and the peasants against a (still active) feudal system and oppression; and, in Pakistan, the Taliban and its allies protesting against the government’s inability to run its own country peacefully, without foreign intervention.
Is this justification enough to destroy innocent human lives? In the minds and the hearts of the Maoists in India and the Taliban and its allies in Pakistan, apparently, it is. For, to the Maoists, the Taliban and their like, those who are not with them in their struggle are considered the ‘other’. And, any evil against the ‘other’ is a logical end in itself.
22 September 2009
District 9 busts the myth of good and evil
This year, from an unexpected quarter of the world, comes a film that takes head-on, and then shatters, the myth of good and evil. That film is District 9 and it comes from South Africa. What’s more surprising is that District 9 is a sci-fi thriller that deals with aliens on Earth; but, interestingly, steers clear away from the United States (the favourite invasion ground among aliens) to take its roots in, and over, Johannesburg.
District 9’s director, Neill Blomkamp, adopts an ingenious news broadcast-like technique to tell us the story, jumping cuts and cameras and viewpoints here and there to give his film-viewers the feeling that everything is happening in real-time. If that isn’t enough, Blomkamp keeps the adrenalin flowing with suspense, action and an incredible skill in storytelling.
Early on, in the mid-eighties, we learn that a huge alien spaceship arrives over Johannesburg and becomes immobile, perhaps due to a technical fault. A mission, when sent up to the spaceship, finds a huge population of weak and undernourished aliens, and rescues them by bringing them back on Earth. These aliens, which look like large prawns on land and are given that nomenclature by humans, are quarantined in a colony of their own just outside Johannesburg. This colony is District 9.
Twenty years later, with a total failure in integration between the humans and the prawns, matters come to a head between the two populations, and the South African government decides to relocate the prawns farther away from Johannesburg. It enlists the services of a large multinational company, MNU, which is also the second-largest weapons manufacturer in the world. When MNU forces, led by a mild-mannered Wikus van de Merwe (played by South African actor Sharlto Copely), enter District 9 to inform the prawns about their forced relocation and serve them eviction notices, things get out of hand.
During the operation, Wikus becomes accidentally infected by a mysterious alien fluid from a canister which he confiscates from a prawn. A genetic metamorphosis sets in in Wikus, and he slowly, and then rapidly, begins to turn into a prawn. When his metamorphosis comes to the MNU’s notice, MNU jumps at the unexpected opportunity of using a part-human-part-prawn to learn how to use prawn weaponry which they were, so far, unable to do as the weapons are genetically coded to prawn bio-technology.
As MNU scientists and doctors prepare to cut him open for medical experiments, Wikus escapes from MNU’s grasp and is then on the run as a fugitive. Rejected by his own people (including his wife) as a freak, Wikus hides in District 9 and ends up befriending a prawn leader when the prawn leader suggests that it can reverse Wikus’ metamorphosis if it could go back up to the spaceship hovering above Johannesburg. To make this possible, says the prawn, it requires the mysterious fluid in the canister which is in MNU possession. So, the two of them attempt to get that mysterious fluid back from MNU headquarters.
Scorched by Wikus’ daring mission to attack MNU headquarters and escape again, MNU soldiers step up their chase. Wanted alive for his unique bio-technological importance, Wikus is now hunted not only by the MNU, but also by the Nigerian mafia ruling District 9. The Nigerians believe that if they eat Wikus’ flesh, his alien powers will be transferred onto them. So begins a hunt for Wikus… right until the gruesome end of the film.
Although disturbing to watch and, in places, heart-wrenchingly emotional, this is where District 9 excels. Director Blomkamp turns the concept of good and evil on its head, showing us the predatory nature of humans and the greed that resides within us. The viewers of District 9 end up believing that being human is, perhaps, not such a good thing after all.
District 9’s director, Neill Blomkamp, adopts an ingenious news broadcast-like technique to tell us the story, jumping cuts and cameras and viewpoints here and there to give his film-viewers the feeling that everything is happening in real-time. If that isn’t enough, Blomkamp keeps the adrenalin flowing with suspense, action and an incredible skill in storytelling.
Early on, in the mid-eighties, we learn that a huge alien spaceship arrives over Johannesburg and becomes immobile, perhaps due to a technical fault. A mission, when sent up to the spaceship, finds a huge population of weak and undernourished aliens, and rescues them by bringing them back on Earth. These aliens, which look like large prawns on land and are given that nomenclature by humans, are quarantined in a colony of their own just outside Johannesburg. This colony is District 9.
Twenty years later, with a total failure in integration between the humans and the prawns, matters come to a head between the two populations, and the South African government decides to relocate the prawns farther away from Johannesburg. It enlists the services of a large multinational company, MNU, which is also the second-largest weapons manufacturer in the world. When MNU forces, led by a mild-mannered Wikus van de Merwe (played by South African actor Sharlto Copely), enter District 9 to inform the prawns about their forced relocation and serve them eviction notices, things get out of hand.
During the operation, Wikus becomes accidentally infected by a mysterious alien fluid from a canister which he confiscates from a prawn. A genetic metamorphosis sets in in Wikus, and he slowly, and then rapidly, begins to turn into a prawn. When his metamorphosis comes to the MNU’s notice, MNU jumps at the unexpected opportunity of using a part-human-part-prawn to learn how to use prawn weaponry which they were, so far, unable to do as the weapons are genetically coded to prawn bio-technology.
As MNU scientists and doctors prepare to cut him open for medical experiments, Wikus escapes from MNU’s grasp and is then on the run as a fugitive. Rejected by his own people (including his wife) as a freak, Wikus hides in District 9 and ends up befriending a prawn leader when the prawn leader suggests that it can reverse Wikus’ metamorphosis if it could go back up to the spaceship hovering above Johannesburg. To make this possible, says the prawn, it requires the mysterious fluid in the canister which is in MNU possession. So, the two of them attempt to get that mysterious fluid back from MNU headquarters.
Scorched by Wikus’ daring mission to attack MNU headquarters and escape again, MNU soldiers step up their chase. Wanted alive for his unique bio-technological importance, Wikus is now hunted not only by the MNU, but also by the Nigerian mafia ruling District 9. The Nigerians believe that if they eat Wikus’ flesh, his alien powers will be transferred onto them. So begins a hunt for Wikus… right until the gruesome end of the film.
Although disturbing to watch and, in places, heart-wrenchingly emotional, this is where District 9 excels. Director Blomkamp turns the concept of good and evil on its head, showing us the predatory nature of humans and the greed that resides within us. The viewers of District 9 end up believing that being human is, perhaps, not such a good thing after all.
15 September 2009
Good and evil
In war, if there is no geography, no physical ground or territory to conquer and to bring under one’s control, it’s difficult to claim victory.
In war, if there is no individual enemy – i.e. an individual person or a group of persons acting collectively as an entity (such as a party, a movement or a nation) which can be called enemy – to conquer and to bring under one’s control, or perhaps to eliminate altogether, it’s difficult to claim victory.
For, in war, victory comes when the enemy, in its tangible and finite form, is identified, located, engaged in combat and defeated.
In a cosmic war, where the forces fighting each other believe that they are both acting in God’s name and are freeing the world of and from evil – in other words, when the war is declared as a war between good and evil – the situation and the enemy become difficult to comprehend, and the strategy and solution even more difficult to conceive and execute.
Perhaps, the only way to win a cosmic war, as Reza Aslan suggests in his book How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror, is to win over the hearts and minds of the people.
In war, if there is no individual enemy – i.e. an individual person or a group of persons acting collectively as an entity (such as a party, a movement or a nation) which can be called enemy – to conquer and to bring under one’s control, or perhaps to eliminate altogether, it’s difficult to claim victory.
For, in war, victory comes when the enemy, in its tangible and finite form, is identified, located, engaged in combat and defeated.
In a cosmic war, where the forces fighting each other believe that they are both acting in God’s name and are freeing the world of and from evil – in other words, when the war is declared as a war between good and evil – the situation and the enemy become difficult to comprehend, and the strategy and solution even more difficult to conceive and execute.
Perhaps, the only way to win a cosmic war, as Reza Aslan suggests in his book How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror, is to win over the hearts and minds of the people.
11 September 2009
A new geography
What fascinates me about a Cosmic War is that it defines the battleground at a new spatial level. And no, I’m not talking about the mystical ‘war in the heavens’ I mentioned in my previous post. I’m here on Earth… or so I think… talking about something far more dangerous.
The thing is, in a Cosmic War, geography is no longer mapped on land and sea – and defined by latitudes and longitudes as we know them. A Cosmic War leaves all such mundane matters behind… to enter the human mind. And, it is here that a Cosmic War creates its battleground.
For, a Cosmic War is really about controlling the human mind. It is not about geography or politics or religion or the military. Since it is in the human mind that thoughts, desires and actions originate – and are determined – whoever conquers and controls the human mind controls the Cosmos.
The thing is, in a Cosmic War, geography is no longer mapped on land and sea – and defined by latitudes and longitudes as we know them. A Cosmic War leaves all such mundane matters behind… to enter the human mind. And, it is here that a Cosmic War creates its battleground.
For, a Cosmic War is really about controlling the human mind. It is not about geography or politics or religion or the military. Since it is in the human mind that thoughts, desires and actions originate – and are determined – whoever conquers and controls the human mind controls the Cosmos.
06 September 2009
Cosmic War
Recently, on Fora.tv, I watched an interview of Iranian-American author Reza Aslan by Phil Bronstein, Editor-at-Large Hearst Newspapers and the San Francisco Chronicle. In the interview, Aslan discusses his latest book How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror.
Through subjects such as Islam, jihadists, the al-Qaeda, medieval zealots, the Crusades, and evangelism in modern America, Aslan explains that the Cosmic War, in essence, is a conflict over identity... a conflict between good and evil, where the battles are fought on Earth as much as in the heavens.
Aslan suggests that, in a Cosmic War, there is no compromise, no negotiation, no settlement, no neutral ground... and, therefore, the war can be neither won, nor lost. He proposes that the only way to win the Cosmic War is by not engaging in it... by refusing to fight in it.
How feasible is this idea? You be the judge. Watch the Reza Aslan interview here.
[Citation: How to Win a Cosmic War, Reza Aslan interviewed by Phil Bronstein on Fora.tv]
Through subjects such as Islam, jihadists, the al-Qaeda, medieval zealots, the Crusades, and evangelism in modern America, Aslan explains that the Cosmic War, in essence, is a conflict over identity... a conflict between good and evil, where the battles are fought on Earth as much as in the heavens.
Aslan suggests that, in a Cosmic War, there is no compromise, no negotiation, no settlement, no neutral ground... and, therefore, the war can be neither won, nor lost. He proposes that the only way to win the Cosmic War is by not engaging in it... by refusing to fight in it.
How feasible is this idea? You be the judge. Watch the Reza Aslan interview here.
[Citation: How to Win a Cosmic War, Reza Aslan interviewed by Phil Bronstein on Fora.tv]
21 May 2009
Critical perspectives on global power
Nermeen Shaikh’s scholarly work of non-fiction The Present As History: Critical Perspectives on Global Power is probably not intended for non-scholars like me. The book is a selection of interviews with 13 leading contemporary thinkers from the social sciences... discussing how the social sciences affect global power. The interviews are erudite and require much concentrated reading. Moreover, the reader is expected to be (already) well-versed in subjects as varied as Islam, Economics, International Affairs, Anthropology, Human Rights, Feminism and Post-Colonial History. As you can guess, I’m struggling with it.
Meanwhile, on YouTube, I came upon a short interview of Nermeen Shaikh on News Weakly - a TV programme from Pakistan hosted by Sami Shah. The interview, while introducing Ms Shaikh’s book The Present As History: Critical Perspectives on Global Power, presents a perspective on how the United States and the West view a concept like ‘war on terror’... and how foolish and dangerous that view can be for the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, on YouTube, I came upon a short interview of Nermeen Shaikh on News Weakly - a TV programme from Pakistan hosted by Sami Shah. The interview, while introducing Ms Shaikh’s book The Present As History: Critical Perspectives on Global Power, presents a perspective on how the United States and the West view a concept like ‘war on terror’... and how foolish and dangerous that view can be for the rest of the world.
19 May 2009
An end to war?
“State television showed hundreds of corpses scattered around the battlefield and floating in a nearby lagoon as the armed forces combed the ruins where the Tigers made their last stand.”
[Quote reproduced from an article in the Economist, 18 May 2009, titled An end to the war?]
As I read reports on the recent ‘end to conventional war’ in Sri Lanka between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government in which God knows how many millions of Sinhalese and Tamil people have died over the past 25 years, I wonder… and I wonder… and I give up.
I give up because I cannot make sense of this ‘war’ we humans wage against one another. I give up because I feel ashamed of what I’ve become: a cold and callous observer of meaningless death and the politics that rules this world in the name of freedom and national security.
[Quote reproduced from an article in the Economist, 18 May 2009, titled An end to the war?]
As I read reports on the recent ‘end to conventional war’ in Sri Lanka between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government in which God knows how many millions of Sinhalese and Tamil people have died over the past 25 years, I wonder… and I wonder… and I give up.
I give up because I cannot make sense of this ‘war’ we humans wage against one another. I give up because I feel ashamed of what I’ve become: a cold and callous observer of meaningless death and the politics that rules this world in the name of freedom and national security.
13 May 2009
Suspicion
There has been, and still is, so much talk and literature on the 9/11 WTC incident from the American perspective that one often forgets how that incident has affected others around the world.
To start with, there is a continuing American suspicion of Arabs and virtually anybody with a Muslim name or anyone who may look like an Arab – including, foolishly, Hindus and Sikhs from India – and the fear it generates both in the West and in Muslims. Then, there is America’s ‘War on Terror’ – an idea which is equally abstract and absurd, shifting strategies from Afghanistan to Iraq and back to Afghanistan, with no specific result in sight.
On the other hand, there is Islamic fundamentalism – a metaphor, at least according to the West, for old-world regressive thinking and practice, made acutely prominent by the deeds of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Mutawas in Saudi Arabia. To these and many other Muslims around the world, there is a suspicion that America and the white Europeans are really the oppressors, while they are the persecuted lot.
This point and counterpoint of suspicion plays in the hearts of people from both sides of the ‘war’: the aggressors and the victims. Each living in their ‘reality’ of what the ‘truth’ is… while terrorism continues to take centre-stage.
To start with, there is a continuing American suspicion of Arabs and virtually anybody with a Muslim name or anyone who may look like an Arab – including, foolishly, Hindus and Sikhs from India – and the fear it generates both in the West and in Muslims. Then, there is America’s ‘War on Terror’ – an idea which is equally abstract and absurd, shifting strategies from Afghanistan to Iraq and back to Afghanistan, with no specific result in sight.
On the other hand, there is Islamic fundamentalism – a metaphor, at least according to the West, for old-world regressive thinking and practice, made acutely prominent by the deeds of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Mutawas in Saudi Arabia. To these and many other Muslims around the world, there is a suspicion that America and the white Europeans are really the oppressors, while they are the persecuted lot.
This point and counterpoint of suspicion plays in the hearts of people from both sides of the ‘war’: the aggressors and the victims. Each living in their ‘reality’ of what the ‘truth’ is… while terrorism continues to take centre-stage.
12 May 2009
The Reluctant Fundamentalist
At a café in Lahore, a bearded Pakistani man corners an American with a beseeching question, “Excuse me, sir, but may I be of assistance?”; and so begins Mohsin Hamid’s tale of The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Then, in the next 180-odd pages, we live through the Pakistani’s life as he pours out his heart, chapter by chapter, to the unknown American.
We learn that the Pakistani’s name is Changez; that, not too long ago, he was in America, studying in Princeton and then working in one of the most reputed management consulting firms there; that, he was in love with a beautiful white American woman; that, due to a series of events not in his control, and in spite of the loving support of his family and friends, his life comes crashing down to a bitter end… bringing him back to Lahore and to this meeting with an American stranger.
Does this sound real? You bet it does! And Mohsin Hamid weaves the tale of The Reluctant Fundamentalist admirably. The tale of The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a confession, written in first person in such polite, beseeching and convincing language that I can understand why the unknown American couldn’t walk out of this conversation with Changez. I certainly hung on to every word of his until I finished reading the book. I’ve seldom read a book that is so engrossing.
The Reluctant Fundamentalist is really a tale of an immigrant’s loss of love, hope and innocence. But, what’s also interesting about The Reluctant Fundamentalist is that author Hamid presents a unique perspective of a normal Pakistani’s response to the world’s response to global terrorism and how this ‘whole enchilada’ of global terrorism and retribution, and the fear that it envelopes us with, changes the lives of even those who are non-participants… forever.
We learn that the Pakistani’s name is Changez; that, not too long ago, he was in America, studying in Princeton and then working in one of the most reputed management consulting firms there; that, he was in love with a beautiful white American woman; that, due to a series of events not in his control, and in spite of the loving support of his family and friends, his life comes crashing down to a bitter end… bringing him back to Lahore and to this meeting with an American stranger.
Does this sound real? You bet it does! And Mohsin Hamid weaves the tale of The Reluctant Fundamentalist admirably. The tale of The Reluctant Fundamentalist is a confession, written in first person in such polite, beseeching and convincing language that I can understand why the unknown American couldn’t walk out of this conversation with Changez. I certainly hung on to every word of his until I finished reading the book. I’ve seldom read a book that is so engrossing.
The Reluctant Fundamentalist is really a tale of an immigrant’s loss of love, hope and innocence. But, what’s also interesting about The Reluctant Fundamentalist is that author Hamid presents a unique perspective of a normal Pakistani’s response to the world’s response to global terrorism and how this ‘whole enchilada’ of global terrorism and retribution, and the fear that it envelopes us with, changes the lives of even those who are non-participants… forever.
29 April 2009
Shaken, not blurred
Not only can terrorism lead to economic uncertainty, in a roundabout way, political, social and economic uncertainties – and, therefore, discontent – can give rise to terrorism. Some of this notion can brew and grow as movements of national liberation as well. The French and Russian revolutions are a case in point; not to mention the continuing insurgency in rural India by Maoist Naxalites.
There are ideological differences too, closely linked to this uncertainty and discontent, and perhaps as a result of it. These differences often motivate sections of people into challenging existing/ruling regimes, holding them responsible for racial/religious/ethnic discrimination, inequality in distribution of wealth and therefore polarisation of lifestyles, political exclusion, and obstructing civil rights.
In India, we have seen and experienced a variety of terrorist acts due to ideological differences. These include planned acts of terror by Islamic radicals who believe that their Allah is the only God and whose goal is to create an Islamic State not just in Kashmir, but across the globe. And, let’s not forget violence from Hindu extremists who wish to save our country from this Islamic challenge.
Like many others, we, too, have believed in national liberation and have freed our country from British Rule. And, on achieving Independence, we have declared our country as a secular State, where we believe that several points of view can coexist harmoniously and that no single view or dogma is likely to be entirely right for the welfare of our people.
Yes, it’s true that, specifically in the last ten years, we have been a target of terrorist attacks and have suffered at length. Still, I hope that, though our confidence may have been shaken, our sense of values and good judgement have not been blurred. As we go to exercise our constitutional rights on Election Day 2009, I hope we shall all continue to believe in the foundation of a secular State and not let our prejudices cloud our judgement.
There are ideological differences too, closely linked to this uncertainty and discontent, and perhaps as a result of it. These differences often motivate sections of people into challenging existing/ruling regimes, holding them responsible for racial/religious/ethnic discrimination, inequality in distribution of wealth and therefore polarisation of lifestyles, political exclusion, and obstructing civil rights.
In India, we have seen and experienced a variety of terrorist acts due to ideological differences. These include planned acts of terror by Islamic radicals who believe that their Allah is the only God and whose goal is to create an Islamic State not just in Kashmir, but across the globe. And, let’s not forget violence from Hindu extremists who wish to save our country from this Islamic challenge.
Like many others, we, too, have believed in national liberation and have freed our country from British Rule. And, on achieving Independence, we have declared our country as a secular State, where we believe that several points of view can coexist harmoniously and that no single view or dogma is likely to be entirely right for the welfare of our people.
Yes, it’s true that, specifically in the last ten years, we have been a target of terrorist attacks and have suffered at length. Still, I hope that, though our confidence may have been shaken, our sense of values and good judgement have not been blurred. As we go to exercise our constitutional rights on Election Day 2009, I hope we shall all continue to believe in the foundation of a secular State and not let our prejudices cloud our judgement.
25 April 2009
Uncertainty
Does terrorism have a negative impact on our economy?
I simply don’t have the wherewithal to provide a quantitative response to that question. But I know, in most terror-hit places, economists and city planners have tried to assess the economic damage caused by terror attacks. For instance, the economic impact of the 9/11disaster in the United States is a case study among many scholars and governments. However, in India, research in this area is sadly neglected.
As a resident of Mumbai, I have been a silent witness to several terrorist attacks over the years. By ‘a silent witness’ I mean that, though I have not been ‘on the spot’, I have experienced the shock waves that have rocked the city immediately after the attacks, and those that have continued ever later. Moreover, my childhood memories of Marxist and Maoist insurgency in Calcutta still remain with me.
Apart from loss of life and injury to people (which is tragic enough), terror attacks leave a trail of fear, confusion and panic. Almost like a domino effect, people stop work, schools and colleges are closed, shops and offices shut down operations, factories and workshops stop production, and stock markets behave unpredictably, bringing down stock prices.
But, most important of all, terrorism creates uncertainty... uncertainty in the minds of people, and in the economy.
Specific industries are hit adversely: e.g. tourism and, therefore, travel and hospitality services. Foreign investment is reduced. Investments into, and plans to grow, local projects and industries are halted or delayed. There is loss of revenue due to drops in productivity in various sectors... and even in consumption.
How significant is this impact on the economy is difficult to tell. But there is no denying the fact that acts of terrorism have negative influences on a country’s economy.
I simply don’t have the wherewithal to provide a quantitative response to that question. But I know, in most terror-hit places, economists and city planners have tried to assess the economic damage caused by terror attacks. For instance, the economic impact of the 9/11disaster in the United States is a case study among many scholars and governments. However, in India, research in this area is sadly neglected.
As a resident of Mumbai, I have been a silent witness to several terrorist attacks over the years. By ‘a silent witness’ I mean that, though I have not been ‘on the spot’, I have experienced the shock waves that have rocked the city immediately after the attacks, and those that have continued ever later. Moreover, my childhood memories of Marxist and Maoist insurgency in Calcutta still remain with me.
Apart from loss of life and injury to people (which is tragic enough), terror attacks leave a trail of fear, confusion and panic. Almost like a domino effect, people stop work, schools and colleges are closed, shops and offices shut down operations, factories and workshops stop production, and stock markets behave unpredictably, bringing down stock prices.
But, most important of all, terrorism creates uncertainty... uncertainty in the minds of people, and in the economy.
Specific industries are hit adversely: e.g. tourism and, therefore, travel and hospitality services. Foreign investment is reduced. Investments into, and plans to grow, local projects and industries are halted or delayed. There is loss of revenue due to drops in productivity in various sectors... and even in consumption.
How significant is this impact on the economy is difficult to tell. But there is no denying the fact that acts of terrorism have negative influences on a country’s economy.
21 April 2009
India is no stranger to terror attacks
India is no stranger to terror attacks. Our history is replete with instances of invaders and marauders attacking our country and terrorising our people: from the (controversial) Aryan Invasion to the Greeks, the Sakas, the Huns, the Pathans, the Moghuls, the Portuguese, the British... and now the Pakistanis.
Regrettably, not all terror attacks have been from foreign invaders. Some of it has been internal. I remember growing up in Calcutta during the late sixties and early seventies when anti-establishment Marxists and Maoists killed many policemen, government officials, teachers and innocent people over ideological differences with the government.
Then there were terrors of the separatist movements – the Sikhs, the ULFA, the GNLF, the Bodos, the Mizos – and retribution by the Indian government thereafter.
Since Independence, we’ve lost three national leaders to assassinations by fellow countrymen – Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi – and thousands of others from terror attacks by insurgents like the recent Maoist attacks to disrupt elections, or violent civil riots under State supervision like the infamous Gujarat riots in 2002.
Regrettably, not all terror attacks have been from foreign invaders. Some of it has been internal. I remember growing up in Calcutta during the late sixties and early seventies when anti-establishment Marxists and Maoists killed many policemen, government officials, teachers and innocent people over ideological differences with the government.
Then there were terrors of the separatist movements – the Sikhs, the ULFA, the GNLF, the Bodos, the Mizos – and retribution by the Indian government thereafter.
Since Independence, we’ve lost three national leaders to assassinations by fellow countrymen – Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi – and thousands of others from terror attacks by insurgents like the recent Maoist attacks to disrupt elections, or violent civil riots under State supervision like the infamous Gujarat riots in 2002.
17 April 2009
Election terror
It’s one thing to blame Pakistan for striking terror into India’s heart from across the border. It’s another to resolve terror within the country’s borders – much of which, at least recently, is not from Islamic dissidents or due to Islamic influence. For, if we are to go by yesterday’s Naxalite attacks at polling stations, India has a lot to worry about managing terror from within.
Here’s the scene:
As India goes to polls in certain parts of the country, Naxalites or Maoist insurgent groups are coming out of their hideouts to strike terror on unsuspecting Indians. No one seems to be spared: from election officials to security personnel to ordinary citizens. Their methods are simple: bombs, landmines and guns to kill and injure people… setting polling booths on fire, blocking roads by felling trees and with boulders. Even electronic voting machines are reported to have been looted.
Since these insurgents are nestled within a few states/territories in India, one hopes that their terror strikes will be contained within these territories. If not, we have a lot to worry about in the next two weeks.
Here’s the scene:
As India goes to polls in certain parts of the country, Naxalites or Maoist insurgent groups are coming out of their hideouts to strike terror on unsuspecting Indians. No one seems to be spared: from election officials to security personnel to ordinary citizens. Their methods are simple: bombs, landmines and guns to kill and injure people… setting polling booths on fire, blocking roads by felling trees and with boulders. Even electronic voting machines are reported to have been looted.
Since these insurgents are nestled within a few states/territories in India, one hopes that their terror strikes will be contained within these territories. If not, we have a lot to worry about in the next two weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
