Take a Hike

That's what I did this weekend. I took a hike. Actually, I had participated in hikes in India. Just that I never knew they were called hikes. We called them 'climbing up fort so-and-so' or 'walking from this place to that'. But hike is a nice short word. We hiked for 4 and a 1/2 hours through 8 miles of jungle. The hike would have been much better if it hadn't rained in the past week. Because of the rain, parts of the trail were turned into deep muddy slush which forced us to take detours in the jungle which turned into fairly thorny affairs.

But it was a good experience all in all. Infact I am quite eager to go hiking again. That's after my legs stop aching ofcourse.


Starting off 


Wild Cricket 


Which way to go? 


Lake Conroe 

My Power

I have become intoxicated with power. Just today I read this news in NY Times. It details how pressure exerted by blogs has forced a senior journalist of CNN had to step down. It was alleged that at the recently held World Economic Forum in Davos, he said that he believed that the US military had aimed at journalists and killed 12 of them. This caused a furore on some blogs which has resulted in his stepping down. The activity that I am doing right now, typing, has the power to destroy the career of a journalist. I am enjoying a heady feeling.

But shouldn't this power impose upon me a feeling of responsibility? I don't think so. Because I don't think I should enjoy that much power. Most of the time, my blog just expresses my own feelings and opinions. I would be very gratified if something I wrote led to a lively open debate. I would feel top of the world if it led to an investigation into or clarification about something fishy. But I don't want heads to roll on the basis of what I write. After all what editorial oversight does my writing have. To make an accusation stick, one needs proofs and a thorough investigation. I see my role as a person who raises questions which he hopes will help in unraveling the truth.

Now there is no mention in the article about whether the journalist actually made those remarks and if he did, how did he justify them. To satisfy my curiosity, I did some digging around and came up with these two documented deaths of journalists.

1. On April 8th 2003 an American tank on the Al-Jumhuria bridge came under enemy fire from the streets from the direction of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad which the US knew hosted about 100 unembedded journalists. Inexplicably the tank fired a single round not on the streets but in the 15th floor of the hotel and took out the Reuters bureau killing two cameramen and injuring others.

2. On August 17th 2003, Mazen Dana, a Reuters cameraman was filming at a prison outside Baghdad. He had spoken with the American soldiers there and had made them aware of what he was doing. But as his camera trained on a tank standing 50 meters away, he was shot to death. The excuse? The soldiers mistook his camera for a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

I would have felt much better, if the intensive blogging by people like me would have led to a serious investigation into the journalists comments and his bases and justifications for making them, however flimsy they might be. Atleast I would have had the satisfaction of having made a positive contribution. Right now I just feel like a salivating, deranged member of a frenzied lynch mob inebriated with power.

The Pistachio Rewards

Recently in a NY Times op-ed article, Thomas Friedman argued that the US should not increase the reward for Osama's capture from $25 million to $50 million. He argued that the US should remove this reward and the one on Zarqawi's death and signal their insignificance to the world by offering pistachios for their capture. If he seriously thinks that these rewards are for the benefit of the world in general and Arabs in particular, he is either incredibly naive and stupid or he chooses to look the other way inspite of knowing the facts. These rewards are for the benefit of the American public just as Colin Powell's 'presentation' to the UN Security Council was. It was not for the countries of the world. Any country with even a single industry within it's borders would have informed him that the CIA's contention that the aluminium tubes were manufactured to very tight tolerances was wrong (as the US Dept of Energy did inform the administration). That performance was for the consumption of American public.

The Bush administration needs Osama bin Laden more than any muslim in the world. He is their bogeyman. If he is captured or killed the US will have to go through the long process of training, arming and funding another Islamic terrorist to push their imperialist foreign policy forward. Why am I so suspicious of US intentions you might ask? After all they just conducted an election in Iraq which will most probably throw up a Islamic government. The reason for this suspicion (and I am sure many people in the world share it) is the amazing coincidence that all US efforts at 'liberation' and 'democratization' are aimed at oil-rich countries with governments inimical to the US. It for example does not try to democratize Nigeria whose brutal military dictatorship has a very good 'working relationship' with Chevron. It does not try anything in Saudi Arabia, a country who supplied around 70% of the 9/11 perpetrators. It does nothing against Pakistan whose military and scientific community sold nuclear materials and equipments the way one sells AK-47s in gun-shops in the US....across the counter. And it seems to be positively scared of taking any action against North Korea who incidentally, actually have WMDs and the missiles to deliver them from Anchorage to San Diego. This apparently selective application of freedom and democracy around the world raises questions about the sincerity of US intentions.

If Mr. Friedman sincerely believes that the insurgency in Iraq is the work of a few disgruntled Baathists and foreign terrorists, I think he is depending only on US media for his news. He should read some foreign media. He will then come to know that more Iraqi civilians have been killed in arbitrary US air and artillery attacks than at the hands of insurgents. He will come to know of studies that indicate that of the average 2700 daily attacks by the insurgents in Iraq only 6 can be traced back to Zarqawi. He will come to know that the famous pulling down of Saddam's statue in Baghdad was a stage managed theatrical production. The US soldiers had to negotiate with Moqtada al-Sadr for the loan of a few Shia public who were then captured on camera cheering while the US soldiers pulling down the statue were hidden. If he thinks that the Shias of Iraq will feel any friendship toward the US he is wrong. They are wise enough to know the real intentions of the US and clever enough to take advantage of them.

I had argued previously that Osama bin Laden is Dubya's best friend and I still stand by this statement. He is the bogey which allows the government to spread fear and panic among US public and keep them subdued and quiet. Make no mistake Mr. Friedman, the single biggest disaster the Bush government could imagine today is the capture or death of Osama bin Laden.

Fear Full Days

Just today on the news, I saw a government expert in Washington discuss the administrations "options" on Iran. I was left in no doubt that the US would like to "usher" in "democracy" in Iran too. But somehow I don't think true democracy is really what the US has ever wanted. Historical facts oppose that notion. Right from 50's, when the US overthrew a popular President Mossadegh in Iran and installed a dictatorial Shah in his place, to it's current support of Nigeria and Pakistan's military dictatorships and Saudi Arabia's royal family, the US has always favored autocratic regimes which are totally dependent on it for their survival. After all, in such cases there is no risk of the rulers putting the interests of their countrymen before US interests. For all we know, a truly democratic, representative Iranian government may go "We feel threatened by US presence in the Gulf and by Israel. We will develop the bomb for our security and no sanctions you impose on us will deter us. Oh, and by the way, you want Oil? Why don't you get in line?"

But I won't pretend to be naive. I know that every government in the world, however democratic it may be has done deeds it would rather not talk about. For all we know, any government enjoying the power the US does would operate with the same arrogance, disrespect for human life, disregard for the Law and double-speak. What makes the current days so fear full is that the government is using the fear and panic among it's own citizens to openly twist the law and abuse human rights. People are being held without charges, tortured and humiliated. The US public silently accept this as a necessary price to be paid for their security. They are so afraid that they don't mind the government spying on their private and professional lives. All this reminds me of William Shirer's book "The rise and fall of the Third Reich". In it he describes how the German people, in the initial days of the third Reich, did not mind the Nazi Party imposing restrictions on their lives because they were afraid of a Communist takeover and because the party defied the hated Versailles Treaty. Whatever be the circumstances, the ends never justify the means.

It is true that success, more than failure, weakens a man. The Americans who have a powerful military, intelligence and security set-up and who had succeeded (to a very large extent) in protecting their homeland, have been so shocked and awed by just one terrorist act, they have panicked. They should ask us Indians. We have been losing civilian and military lives to Islamic terrorism for the past two decades now. I think that the attacks on the WTC were just the Law of Averages catching up with the US security apparatus. While a review and improvement of the security of the country is a natural response to the disaster, it does not give the US a free ticket to abuse human rights. The citizen of this country must shake off their fear and stand for what is humane and good. Else they one day might find themselves in the same position as a certain Pastor Martin Niemoller, a Nazi sympathizer to begin with but who ended up saying, "First they came for the communists, but I was not a communist, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the socialists and trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."