International – Page 2

NYT calls the terrorists “Militia”

A New York Times article says this in the title: “Militia Charged With Plotting to Murder Officers“. Digging down into the news I could read the following:

In an indictment against the nine unsealed on Monday, the Justice Department said they were part of a group of apocalyptic Christian militants who were plotting to kill law enforcement officers in hopes of inciting an anti-government uprising, the latest in a recent surge in right-wing militia activity.

Going by the news piece above, what should you call this group of people? A “Militia” or a group of “Terrorists”? Since NYT chose to use a lose term “Militia” instead of “Terrorists” in their news article, let us have a look at what Princeton University, a prestigious institution of America, says about a terrorist:

“A terrorist is a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities”.

Now look back into the NYT news piece to see how they described the “Militia” and if that matches with the definition of a terrorist –

“part of a group of apocalyptic Christian militants (read from the definition – “uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities“)
who were plotting to kill law enforcement officers (read from the definition – “employs terror” as they were planning to kill the guardians of law and thus terrorizing the society)
in hopes of inciting an antigovernment uprising (read from the definition – “employs terror as a POLITICAL WEAPON“), the latest in a recent surge in right-wing militia activity“.
They also “organizes with other terrorists in small cells” as you can read from the report.

And what is a Militia? Wiki says –

“The term militia (in English, pronounced as milisha) is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.”

A “Militia” is something like Salwa Judum in India. And even such Militias can terrorize (like many accusations have risen against Salwa Judum since it’s formation). But even though there are clear definitions, NYT takes it lightly with the all-white, Christian “Militia”.

Evidently, if this was any other “militia” as such, particularly of Asian Muslims, the Western media would immediately tag them with terrorism, but when it comes to a Christian terrorist group, it is called a “Militia”. This is something like what went here in India when a Hindu terrorist group was caught. Many people declined to call them the terrorists. In the public eye, they were, at the most, fundamentalists, fanatics or extremists. Not the terrorists. As for the public, we associate terrorism with a certain group of people and no one else.

CNN article: Right-wing extremism may be on rise, report says

Info via a tweet from @flyyoufools

Borders, re-drawn by Google

It is quite normal of businesses to have different strategies for different regions but there are some things which should not be hurt just because of the business interests. And I think it is a pity that somebody has to remind a company like Google about that.

Google Maps, in it’s English version, has marked India’s borders with China as disputed area. However, Google Ditu, the Chinese localized version of Google Maps, has portrayed Arunachal Pradesh and other parts of India as part of China. Google Ditu also shows Taiwan and the South China Sea Islands as part of China. This is quite a big insult to the Indian nation and it’s people and I think there has to be a wide spread protest against this.

Google Maps screenshot

google-map-1

Google Ditu screenshot

google-map-2

(Thanks to Aravind for the info)

Nothing Holy about Hollywood

I like Roman Polanski for his artistic talents. I think he is a great director. I loved his films like Chinatown, Bitter Moon, Death and the Maiden and The Pianist. They go straight in to the list of my all time favorite movies. I remember the first time when I went to see the movie “Bitter Moon” in Raagam theatre in Thrissur when I was in college. I didn’t know anything about Hugh Grant or Victor Bannerjee (who appeared in a guest role) but it is the Adult certificate that was displayed in the movie’s posters that caught my interest. But when I came out of the movie hall, it was not the nude scenes but the movie itself that haunted me for days. There is no doubt that Polanski is a great movie director. I would rate him to my top favorite directors at anytime.

But, he has been accused of abusing a 13 year old girl almost 31 years ago. He has reportedly drugged and had ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor’. Would I not blame Polanski just because he is an artiste, a great artist at that? Would I not blame him just because he has contributed so much to the world cinema? The answer is NO. Polanski, the person is different from Polanski, the director. The person who has committed a heinous crime has to pay the price, no matter how much time has passed since. He was trying to escape after the incident, fleeing from country to country.

It is pitiful to see the directors like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch etc have signed a petition calling for an “immediate release” of Polanski. The French cultural minister said “he is a wonderful man”. I don’t understand what these people are thinking about. Are celebrities above the law? If Polanski is innocent and if this case has been made to corner him, he has to prove it in the court, rather than feeling from country to country. The very fact that he was trying to escape from the case all these years make us suspicious about the man.

Many say that the girl (now a woman) has withdrawn the complaints against Polanski. Even if it is so, the law has to take it’s course. And what really prompted the woman to say that she wants this whole thing to end? “Decades of publicity as well as the prosecutor’s focus on lurid details continues to traumatize her and her family”. Now should the man be acquitted of the charges because of this? I had high regards for directors like Martin Scorsese, but now I have lost my respect for them. There is nothing really Holy about Hollywood.

Related reading: Unforgivable Roman Polanski

(Image courtesy: Guardian.co.uk)

Do we want blood on our hands?

This news from Times Online, comes as shocking to me. India, instead of supporting the proposal for a war crime inquiry by UN Human Rights Council, decided to thwart the process along with China and Russia. I do not support the LTTE and it’s ways and I do not think that they are what the Tamils need in Sri Lanka, but when 1000 people were killed each day, which makes the civilian death toll to above 20,000, shouldn’t the Sri Lankan government be held responsible? Or at least have undergone a UN inquiry? With it’s crucial role in the sub-continent, shouldn’t India have supported this inquiry? Our hypocrisy is wide open, because we supported a war crime inquiry into Israel’s operation in the Gaza Strip but chose to thwart a similar inquiry in Sri Lanka.

Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said that neither reason justified failing to act when the Red Cross warned of an “unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe”. India “could have saved many lives if it had taken a proactive position — and it would not have affected the outcome of the war,” he said.

Sam Zarifi, Asia Pacific director of Amnesty International, said: “India . . . simply chose to support the [Sri Lankan] Government’s notion that it could kill as many civilians as it would take to defeat the Tigers.”

India says that it provided Sri Lanka with non-lethal military equipment and sent officials repeatedly to persuade the Government to protect civilians. “We’ve consistently taken the line that the Sri Lankan Government should prevent civilian casualties,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

However, President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka told NDTV: “I don’t think I got any pressure from them. They knew that I’m fighting their war.” [Via]

The Congress government at the center needs to answer for the murder of 20,000 civilians in Sri Lanka. We have blood on our hands.

(Thanks to Vassan for the links)

Sing, Dinga Dinga Dee!

I’m clueless as to why the Israeli arms dealer Rafael’s defense video isn’t inviting protest from the people of India – both in a patriotic sense as well as through a gender point of view. Instead, if we are to believe the spokesperson of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems (as quoted by Wired’s Noah Shachtman), the video is said to have been received with much acclaim in India. I am confused, because the video shows India as a dancing doll, singing Dinga Dinga Dee and begging the man (representing Israel) that “I need to feel safe and sheltered“. The man then sings out to her, “I promise to defend you, Fulfill your expectations“. Oh yeah, that masculine man promising to take care of the vulnerable girl begging him to take care of her. Am I the only one or has anyone else felt weird watching this video as an Indian? And it is all in the backdrop of Rafael missile mock-ups and the images of Goddess Durga and Hanuman.

Wired‘s Noah Shachtman writes:

Every element of the promotional film is just plain wrong. The sari-clad, “Indian” dancers look all too ashkenaz and zaftig. The unshaven, hawk-nosed, leather-clad leading man appears to be a refugee from You Don’t Mess With the Zohan. Then of course, there’s the implication that the Indian military is somehow like a helpless woman who “need(s) to feel safe and sheltered.”

And from Nonna Gorilovskaya of Women and Foreign Policy:

Oh yes, strong Israeli man! Where can I sign up? Then again, he also asserts that “we’ve been together for so long, trusting friends and partners,” suggesting a really bad case of amnesia. India and Israel did not establish full diplomatic relations until 1992.

An Indian non-Thamizhan’s take on SL conflict

I have never bothered to learn much about the Singhalese vs Thamizhans issue in Sri Lanka. Probably because it has been going on ever since my childhood and the news of the killings had become the news of “ordinary value”. There are certain issues which have come to an ordinary value as time passes by. Aung San Sui Kyi of Burma for example. Or “soon-to-be-of-ordinary-value” Dr. Binayak Sen. Anyways, the murder of Rajiv Gandhi brought the issue into the common public again, but I could not read more about it then because Internet was not available. Now as the news come out that the LTTE has been wiped off by Sri Lankan govt, I could read a lot more into the issue.

I have found out that there are not many indepent reports available on the issue, so that makes it hard to take a stand on this racial conflict. Both sides (LTTE and SL Govt) have been releasing press notes that accuse the opposite side. The Sri Lankan government has not allowed the independent news agencies to report from the war zone. In an interview with Al Jazeera TV, the Sri Lankan army spokesperson said that it is to ensure the safety of the journalists. Then the Al Jazeera journalist promptly told him that they have experience of reporting from the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, so no need to worry about their security. This makes me believe that the Sri Lankan government is covering up the realities of war zone. Here we should also note the final editorial from the editor of Sunday Leader newspaper in Sri Lanka, Lasantha Wickrematunge, who has been murdered by unidentified gunmen. In his letter he has been very critical of the Sri Lankan govt and president Rajapakshe. Some interviews with Sri Lankan Thamizhans which I read in Mathrubhumi weekly (Malayalam), says that the segregation of Thamizh people have grown strong. But one of them claims that LTTE wasn’t helping either.

The Thamizh diaspora world over (apart from some lone voices) seems to be justifying LTTE in their support for Thamizh cause which I do not understand. The racial segregation of Thamizhans in Sri Lanka needs to be condemned and voiced about. But is LTTE the answer? Is Prabhakaran justified of his actions? The people from the interview which I mentioned above also tells that LTTE has been forcibly recruiting women and children. A Thamizh Muslim woman mentioned that LTTE have been segregating Muslims in the North and East provinces. Now that is something which made me google more in to the issue. Then I found out this:

1) In the North Sri Lanka, the LTTE forcibly expelled the 75,000 strong Muslim population from the Northern Province

2) The first expulsion was in Chavakacheri, of 1,500 people. After this, Muslims in Kilinochchi and Mannar were forced many to leave their homeland. The turn of Jaffna came on October 30, 1987; when LTTE trucks drove through the streets ordering Muslim families to assemble at Osmania College. There, they were told to exit the city within two hours.

The above incidents remind me of the Natzi era. The LTTE was segregating their own people just because they were born to a different religion. They later apologized and asked Muslims to return, but the scars of the event lead to another form of terrorism, it seems. Now there are extremist Islamist groups growing within the country, as per reports. So how can a leader like Prabhakaran represent the “Thamizh cause” if he exterminates his own people, who were born to a different religion? What kind of a leader is he?

The Thamizh Muslims seems to have been caught between the devil and the sea. One link that I read that tells the story of what Tamil Muslims face from Singhalese and a Wiki page that talks about what they faced from LTTE.

I am against the segregation of Tamils in Sri Lanka and I think the new government should ensure the Thamizh involvement in the government, army, bureaucracy etc. But I do not support LTTE in that process. LTTE’s struggle has not produced much good results. So many Thamizhans have lost their lives. Many have been displaced. Many had to flee their homeland. Many have been forced to join the LTTE and blow up themselves. Those who have been left out in the relief camps run by the Sri Lankan government are facing concentration camp kind of situation created by the Sri Lankan Army. And with the LTTE attitude towards the minority-within-minority, I don’t think LTTE is what the Sri Lankan Thamizhans need to keep on with their fight for dignity and pride.

Now that the Sri Lankan government claims to have wiped off LTTE, they have to prove their sincerity in the integrity of their country. But many Thamizhans who saw LTTE as their last hope have been disappointed. Mr. Rajapakshe has to ensure that the Thamizh people are involved in the functionary of the country. He has to stop the Army’s atrocities. The International community should keep a close watch and ensure this and the freedom of press. If the Sri Lankan government fails on that part, the International community should intervene and take action. To counter the violence in Sri Lanka is by ensuring the Thamizh people of their dignity and pride. And by making them feel that they are also a part of the country. Can Mr. Rajapakshe do that or will he let the racial segregation go on? We have to wait and watch.

(Image courtesy: Sangam.org)

(Thanks to Vatsan and Kajan for some of the links included in this post)

An American Malayalam Professor

Check out this interview (courtesy: Asianet) with Prof. Rodney F Moag, who has been teaching at the University of Texas, Austin. See how he speaks Malayalam with ease, considering that he is a foreigner. Check out his profile at Kerala Tourism website. He is also a country music performer. See his music profile at his music website.

(Thanks to Uma for the link)

An Indian victory?

A R Rahman wins Oscar

Do we call it an Indian victory?

That was the question that CNN-IBN panel asked Kamala Haasan (whom the media used to call Kamal Hassan earlier) relating to the Oscar sweep of the movie Slumdog Millionaire. We can see how futile this question is, since Slumdog Millionaire is a British production, directed and produced by a Brit and the major chunk of the technical crew were Brits. Why should India, the nation, celebrate the victory of Slumdog Millionaire? The British have a reason to celebrate but what does India have to call the 8 oscars the movie got as an “Indian victory”? Our celebration should be about the individuals who have won the accolades in the Oscar platform. A R Rahman and Resul Pookutty for the global recognition that they have got.

Adding to the absurdity is a comment from Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit. She reportedly said that Slumdog Millionaire has created history in the field of Indian cinema. How did Slumdog create history in “Indian cinema“? But she doesn’t just stop there and goes on to offer tax exemption for the film. The union Home Minister P Chidambaram has also joined the bandwagon by requesting finance ministry to exempt the film from tax.

Just think about it. So many quality regional language films are struggling in India without getting distributors or theaters to exhibit their films and the government did not do much about helping them promote their films. And then, a British film which was released under a big banner like Fox Searchlight Pictures win Oscars and it gets tax exemption in India. So much for our government’s love for art and cinema.

If the government and politicians are so much moved by the recognition that A R Rahman and Resul Pookkutty received in the Oscar arena, what they should do in return is to help these individuals help others who are interested in the fields of music and cinema. How about offering scholarships or sponsorships for talented but poor youngsters to learn the technical sides of Cinema? Or how about sponsoring talented but poor youngsters to get an entry into a renowned musical institute? Or how about helping A R Rahman to offer the poor but talented youngsters a chance to learn world music from his upcoming musical conservatory? Well, I think we will hardly see any of these happening.

Let me conclude with Kamala Haasan’s answer to CNN-IBN’s question, because he puts it rightly.

This day means something to Danny Boyle, Rahman and to an extent some of the Indians. But it doesn’t mean anything to Indian cinema till Indian cinema tries to make quality films. So when it does that, it will deserve the recognition and it doesn’t mean that we are not making quality cinemas. We are not respecting quality cinemas as it should be. That is because content might be king but placement is very important.

(Image courtesy: IndiaGlitz)

Southern Slumdog

Today’s is a guest post by Sirensongs, who blogs at Feringhee: The India Diaries. In this post, she shares her opinion about the recent controversy over the movie Slumdog Millionnaire. Sirensongs moved to India in 2002 to complete her six years’ study of the ancient temple dance, Bharatanatyam. Apprenticing with a revered master in Madras, she learned a great deal; however, most of it was not about dance. Disillusionment and childhood memories of “Tintin In Tibet” have led her to adventures throughout India, Nepal & Sri Lanka. She currently works as a writer in Kathmandu where she also studies the Buddhist ritual dance, Charya Nrtya.

That Slumdawg won’t hunt

Last time, I wrote something about the widespread defensive attitude (not 100%, mind you) of Indians toward the success of Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire. I also left some rather impatient comments on another blog. In case you’ve been asleep for a few weeks, lotta folks are huffing and puffing about Slumdog‘s portrayal of Indian slum life, mostly because it’s too accurate. (Wonder what the slum dwellers themselves think, has anyone asked them? All the comments I have read are from upper crust writers.)

I can’t write with authority about what it’s like to be Indian and see a film that shows so much of the country’s dark side to the world. But I have a comparable experience. I do know what it’s like to be an American Southerner and see Hollywood films, famous ones, award-winning ones, represent my “country” (we almost were another country, fought a war over it, remember?) to the world.

There were, and still are, lots of negative stereotypes about my country (the South). When I moved to New York in 1981, I was asked derogatory questions like “Do you even wear shoes down there?” and “where do you live, a trailer park?”

And even,

“Did your ancestors own slaves??”

“Everyone down there belongs to the Klan, right?”

…and from an Indian girl, “If you wear your bindi down there you’ll get shot at.” (There actually were, in fact, at least 2 “dot-head” murders…I think they were both in Canada.)

The vast majority of Hollywood films about the south – which is where people get these ideas – were made by either Yankees or Californians (same thing, ha). Outsiders. Carpet-baggers. Some were romanticized epics (Gone with the Wind). Later, some consciously tried to redress such romanticism by showing an uglier side (Cold Mountain). Others retold true stories in a condensed, dramatized and only partially “true” way so that important but largely unknown eras in American history would not go unknown by a new generation (ie, Mississippi Burning).

There’s loooots more (Glory, Matewan, Birth of a Nation, To Kill a Mockingbird, Sling Blade, Deliverance, Mandingo, Roots, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Streetcar Named Desire, Forrest Gump… ). Most of the above are full of slow-witted, slow talking hicks and obligatory Klan meeting scenes. Don’t forget television like Andy Griffith Show, Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, Petticoat Junction, Alice, Designing Women, Hee Haw and so on.

My point is this: the vast majority of this media was made by “outsiders.” Some of it (especially the romantic stuff) Southerners appreciated; most of it, they did not. Some of it I personally enjoy; a lot I have mixed feelings about. But even when I didn’t think they got it right, I usually felt the topics (mostly concerning poverty and race history) needed to be discussed.

Usually they didn’t cast Southerners in the parts; since pretty much anyone can “do” a southern accent, right? Just sound real dumb. (Marlon Brando’s accent was dreadful in Streetcar and he was nominated for the Oscar.) And – did you ever notice? – Black Americans are all sort of considered by casting directors to somehow be Southern by default. Seeing your homeland represented worldwide, by an outsider, is a sensitive thing. My point is, no one ever, ever questioned the outsider’s right to make such films or shows, whether we liked them or not.

Why do Indians think that they and they alone can give “permission” to someone to discuss or represent their country in media? Besides which, the book on which Slumdog is based was written by an Indian (as Streetcar and Mockingbird were based on books written by Southerners).

I certainly hope no one ever questions the “right” of an NRI or Indian visitor to make a film about the America they perceive, however negative or one-sided the result may be.