The *Eastern Glow...

These are dizzying times for the World's financial markets: America's independent investment banks have disgracefully resigned to history; its commercial banks are merging, selling, or simply falling apart; Hank Paulson, its treasury secretary, beseeched the Congress to urgently release $700 billion, an amount that cost the Iraq war; European banks have done no better - 5 of them have been bailed out in 3 days. The credit crisis, it is said, shall soon spread beyond the banking system into the broader economy, plunging it into a deep recession. A pall of gloom hangs over news studios from New York to New Delhi.

But then, I'm no expert on the markets. I have no idea when and how the crisis might end, and what else it shall devour. I know as much about the subprime mortgage crisis as is available on YouTube. Liquidity, until a few days ago, was a state of mass, and illiquid was plain nonsense. Derivatives was a chapter I had snapped shut during my high school, hoping to never open again. So all this is new and, I must say, enthralling. I feel like an awestruck kid watching a giant, distant spaceship destruct itself, while bursting into myriad colours in a twilight sky. A sight all too consuming to notice the mayhem.

So it is under these conditions that I read a report on Iceland, a country I knew very little about, except, thanks to HSBC's billboards on MG Road, it produced the world's most overvalued currency, the Krona. Based on the theory of burgernomics, that a Mac hamburger should cost the same everywhere, the Big Mac Index in February 2007 calculated that you needed $7.44 to buy a Big Mac in Iceland against only $3.22 in the US. Such was the Krona's peak. Set against such a backdrop, the currency's freefall of 45% against the Euro is indeed frightening. Its performance now ranks just above the Turkmenistan manat and the Zimbabwean dollar. Expectedly, the country's imports have plummeted and inflation is soaring. 

The Krona's plunge is tightly linked to Iceland's faltering banking sector. During the credit boom, the country's banks amassed foreign liabilities worth 10 times larger than the country's economy. These liabilities were funded through money markets, a system for short-term lending and borrowing. To say the least, money markets are the very plumbing of the global financial system. Since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, however, money markets have experienced an unprecedented freeze of credit, stinking the system in turn. Borrowing rates in these markets (the rate at which banks lend money to one another) have climbed giddying heights.

Sensing chaos, Iceland's government took it upon itself to shore up its banking sector by nationalizing the country's second and third largest banks and providing a loan of £400 million to the largest bank. It in effect agreed to fund liabilities 10 times larger than the economy it runs! This seemingly reckless decision of the government has put the entire Icelandic economy under threat. Demand for the Krona has slumped, sending it on a freefall. Analysts are busy arguing that the country is headed for a balance of payments crisis even as its Prime Minister, Geir Haarde, turns to Russia for a £3 billion loan. Desperate calls for help to the Western governments, who are themselves busy shoring up their banking systems, have so far gone in vain.

It remains to be seen if Iceland's financial sovereignty will survive. But, as the Prime Minister himself admits, a march back to traditional fishing rather than high-end financial services seems inevitable for its people.

Icelanders cool it off

 
Hockey mom thinks she can stare down Putin

That issues of abortion, gun control and gay rights distort American politics in proportions that they determine Vice Presidential candidacy should be a cause for embarrassment for any American. By choosing Sarah Palin over more qualified republicans, John McCain has committed a travesty of politics. After her gobsmacking performance at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Mrs Palin and her managers are carefully letting the world see a wee bit more of her.

And of what it has seen, she is bleeding; even after yesterdays Vice Presidential debate.

Much of this profuse bleeding is due to her shockingly inadequate grasp of foreign affairs and the economy: in interviews with Katie Couric, which were nothing but delicious fodder for the democrats to chew on, Mrs Palin counted Russia's geographical proximity to Alaska as her foreign affairs experience, and rambled haplessly about the $700 billion bail-out package. When Ms Couric sharply asked her what happens when the idea of exporting democracy fails, like in the case of Palestinian election of Hamas, Mrs Palin plays the familiar script of the need to export democracy like a 12-year old girl who has her answers mugged up and refuses to deviate no matter what. Her arrogance, misconstrued for confidence, despite an obvious lack of experience or qualification hasn't gone down well either: during a speech she claimed she has been hearing Joe Biden's speeches ever since she was in 2nd grade. For a former beauty queen whose talking points appear rehearsed even at freewheeling press conferences, and whose campaign managers aggressively lobby for constricted debate formats, it was probably not a very smart thing to say.

It may be agreeable that Mr McCain chose Mrs Palin not for her qualifications, but for her ability to get the disinterested base out in their multitudes on election day. She does this mainly by injecting lethal doses of conservatism into America's culture politics: she opposes gay marriage, intends to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest, and supports the teaching of creationism in American schools. She is also an evangelical convert. Her nomination was greeted with standing ovations from evangelists who were till then dismayed by Mr McCain's disdain for the religious right.

But this logic is harmful for America and the world. Mr McCain had once gone so far to call America's powerful evangelical leaders as "agents of intolerance". With good reason, he had refused make religious matters the fodder of his campaign. It was also just what the doctors had prescribed for a country that appears beleaguered by failing markets, endless wars, and a trashed global image. But by trumping born-again purity against considerations of merit, and by putting a woman who evidently knows little about foreign affairs or the economy a step away from the Presidency, Mr McCain has risked shattering his single, biggest competence: his experience.

55 percent! Really, Prime Minister?!

While home, the Prime Minister rarely makes his presence felt. Occasionally, he attends gatherings of the thinking lot, industry fora in all probability, and makes some empty noises about India's unbreakable commitment to her irreversible reform. Moments of monumental crises or celebrations rarely find utterances from him. I vividly recall my frustrating wait to see him break his silence during the reservation debate when much of the country was furiously throwing itself into a frenzy. Alas, he left it to his incapable HRD Minister, Arjun Singh, to manage. And so was the case with the Narmada Bachao Andolan protests, when Medha Patkar marched to New Delhi along with thousands of her displaced followers and went on an indefinite fast, grabbing the country's undivided attention. The Prime Minister, it seemed then, was impregnable.

Of course, exceptions were made for the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, the bedrock of his foreign policy, and on the success of which, depends his legacy. His defense of the deal, gathered from the text of his speech to the parliament, is in many ways extraordinary. But that's that. If not for the Nuclear Deal, you seldom see the Prime Minister defending, or even prosecuting, anything else. Much might have to do with the fact that the actual levers of power don't rest with him as much as they do with Mrs Gandhi and her coterie. Singh has never really been the King.

But while on foreign tours, the Prime Minister sure knows how to raise a ruckus back home. He somehow more than makes up for all his disappointing silence. And what's more, he seems to quietly enjoy it! During his flight to the G8 Hokkaido-Toyako summit in July, he declared that India will approach the IAEA to push forward the Indo-US Nuclear Deal, a sure-fire deal-breaker for the UPA-Left set-up. News channels screamed headlines and the Congress machinery rapidly descended into damage-control mode, even as an infuriated Left withdrew its support the next day. Three weeks later his government faced a no-confidence motion in the parliament, where it won a handsome majority, aided by former rivals who were cajoled with sweet-heart deals.

This time, while in New York for the UN General Assembly, he has done something far less harmful, but amusing nonetheless. He promptly went up to George W. Bush, a man derided across the world, and told him the people of India deeply love him. It was probably mischievously aimed more at Prakash Karat, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), than at Mr Bush. Predictably, both the Left and the BJP criticized him. While the former termed it sycophancy, the latter haplessly said it was unbecoming of a Prime Minister. It is, in fact, neither. The Prime Minister, it turns out, was merely conveying the sentiments of his country's majority. In its latest survey, the Pew Research Center found that approval ratings of Mr Bush in India are "still astonishingly high" at 55 percent. A rating that far exceeds America's and is matched only by Nigeria's. Might be something Nigeria and we know that America and the rest of the world don't?

The birthday girl would like the prime ministership, thank you.

Swaminomics, a column in the Sunday Times, is usually a space for rational voice. It rightly backed the Indo-US Nuclear agreement, warned India of its record fiscal-deficit, and made an admirable case against splurging on dams and canals. It's also quite activist in nature, especially when it questioned the IMF's support of the Federal Reserve's "creative intervention" policies in bailing out America's beleaguered financial markets while forgetting that it once chided the Asian governments for doing the same to their markets during the Asian financial crisis.

However, disappointingly, in its latest article the column has endorsed Mayawati as one of India's most presentable prime ministerial candidates. This follows a general trend in the Indian English media to make much of her supposed brilliance and shrewdness in stitching an electoral victory based primarily on caste politics. The column claims that Mayawati's ascendance to the highest cabinet post will enhance India's democratic credentials: India can claim to be the "most empowering democracy" in the world, having conquered the final frontiers of social equality. The world will love us and we shall be lionized as a democracy without parallel, the column states. All this sounds wonderful, but it begs a simple question. In the face of ruthless poverty, mass ignorance, despicable human-development records, wide-spread lawlessness, and a morass of corruption, is our pressing need to find an able and experienced leader, or to install a corrupt autocrat as the prime minister to "enhance" our democratic credentials? Moreover, where is the need to shore up our democratic credentials when the world is still digesting its romanticized concoctions of millions of India's uneducated poor lining up in queues to "freely" cast their votes?

The column believes that Mayawati can become a hope and beacon for the oppressed across the world. A woman, worse, a Dalit woman from one of India's most backward towns growing up to become the prime minister of the world's largest democracy is a story empowered to instil hope, faith, and strength among the oppressed. But it is also a story the media would like to sensationalize and run relentlessly: "Maya-Jaal!", "The Marauding Elephant!", "BSP Stomps New Delhi!", the headlines would like to scream. Rajdeep Sardesai will hail this as "Real Change" and her as India's Obama; he already thinks she is close.

But beyond the schmaltz of Dalit-queen politics, what do we know of Mayawati?

She is currently fighting criminal cases as a result of her directions to build amusement parks on the banks of the Taj Mahal, almost causing irreparable harm to the monument. Under her four-time chief ministership Uttar Pradesh has gained notoriety for lawlessness. Governance, investment, and commerce have been severely stifled not least because of her vicious vendetta politics. Public money has been poured to commission her own (and her mentor's) statues across the state. She faces serious charges of corruption and bribery, which are being fought in the Supreme Court. Her declared personal wealth has more than tripled since 2004, touching Rs 54 crore. Of course, she claims, much to everybody's disbelief, that this wealth is due to the philanthropy and love of her poor party workers. But engineering such lies with evidence should be easy for one of India's most corrupt administrators.

The column argues that Mayawati doesn't hide her depravity, but instead glories in it unlike other upper-caste politicians who hide theirs. But the problem is not only that Mayawati amasses wealth disproportionate to her sources of income and glories in it, but that she is incapable of providing governance. Uttar Pradesh continues to be a laggard, gnawing at India's economic progress. In its 2007 State of the States survey India Today maintained that, "If consumer markets, investment and infrastructure were to be combined to deliver an index of industrial and economic development you would find Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal validating the theory of the dark continent east of Kanpur."

Lord Meghnad Desai once wondered if Mayawati has a foreign policy or even a map of the world in her office. We don't know. But we do know that she once irresponsibly sought to communalize the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement by claiming that this deal hurt the sentiments of Indian Muslims. Outraged Muslim parliamentarians, a majority of who were in favour of the deal, called her bluff. Her inability to look at an international agreement beyond the parochial vote-bank perspective and think in terms of larger national interests couldn't have been more evident. How can we trust her to steer an emerging India's foreign policy when she has not only proved herself incompetent, but sinister in motive?

As the column claims, politicians like Laloo Prasad Yadav can warm the cockles of our hearts and claim superstardom at international arenas with their rural aphorisms, earthy language, and humble antecedents. But matters of governance and policy-making, especially in a land of poor and ignorant, require an altogether different set of skills. Mayawati, so far, hasn't displayed any.

Despite the 11.30 PM forced shut-down, Bangalore's night-clubs are admirably vibrant. On any weekend they are bursting with spirited cuisines, cocktails, and crowds. Its DJs don't spin Bollywood chart busters to get the crowds roaring, but only the latest in House, Electro, Minimal and Trance from the world's party capitals. Its owners frequently renovate the space with exotic themes. And prices are exorbitant, too. However, they collectively suffer from one regressive rule, which stains the sheen of these finer aspects: the "strictly couples" rule. Entry for single men or "stags" (a more popular term) is barred in Bangalore's night-clubs, though many allow entry at an additional cess, called "entry charge." In my view, some sort of a discriminatory tax levied on those embracing singledom.

Now as a single man with a fantastic circle of friends, a penchant for club music, acceptable dancing skills, money to spend, and importantly, with no intention of causing a ruckus, I find it absurd that I am expected to carry a dame with me to boogie away my Saturday nights. What kind of a demented, medieval rule is this? Many of my colleagues and friends who fly from abroad complain they haven't encountered something like this before. And they ask why?

Sure there are apprehensions about single men being desperate, ogling at every woman with almost a predator-like instinct. Allowing them in might make the club unsafe. However, like every sweeping generalization, this one is false, too. Not all single men are out to cause harm or get hitched. There are many who consider singledom a luxury and hence, prefer to stay single. They'd be just happy if the DJ got his music right; an unwanted woman by the side is an irritant. There are also claims that having a woman alongside will force a man to behave himself and not cause undue trouble. This is skewed, too. I have had the misfortune of knowing men who have caused nasty fights in clubs in spite of a woman for company. More so, I know no single man who has caused us such shame.

And if single men aren't encouraged to enter, what about those hordes of single women these clubs clamour for and let in FOR FREE? Apart from ladies' nights, some clubs offer free drinks to the largest group of single women. What are these women expected to find? Committed men? Now I am sure, like in the case of men, not every woman is looking to mate, but surely there is a significant percentage of them who'd be more than willing? Why not help them, considering so many of them yawningly echo Madonna - "All the eligible men are taken, married, or gay!" ? I just happen to think it unfair that so many women are let in with promises of wild nights, but, unknown to them, with hitched men (and their women)!

And what about gay men? Clubs, in their shameless clamour for couples, conveniently forget that a couple may consist of no woman. What sense does it make to force a gay man to spend his night with a woman? And yes, the reverse holds true, too.

Clearly, Bangalore's night-clubs have some growing-up to do. They'd do well to stop dictating to their customers who they should spend their nights with, and focus more on getting the unruly elements out, who anyway enter in spite of this archaic, senseless rule.

One doesn't know if one has to be utterly dismayed or offended by the stupendous foolishness of our media and politicians, even if one understands their penchant for playing to the gallery. Recently, George W Bush, seconding the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Condolezza Rice, remarked that India and China along with other emerging countries are partly responsible for the recent food price rise across the world that is causing misery and strife in many places. This remark, backed by widely documented evidence, is based on the fact that more people in these countries are consuming more grain and meat as they grow rich, leading to a surge in demand that is left unmatched by supply, consequently pushing prices up. This is plain Economics, and should be comprehensible to anyone who understands the fundamentals of demand and supply. Seen with a modest temperament, Bush's remark was only an acknowledgement of India's growing prosperity, which we should all be proud of. However, our politicians and media choose to ignore widely acknowledged evidence and instead engage histrionics to slam U.S. leaders, making an absolute mockery of people they represent and report to. Many were aghast that the West could dare "blame" or "accuse" India when its own bio-fuel programmes, which convert cereals into fuel, are shooting prices up. Times News, notorious for playing up its viewers' nationalist instincts, relentlessly announced "George W Bush blames India for price rise." Its sister publication, The Times of India, however, called the politicians' criticism misplaced, conveniently forgetting what its own news networks were broadcasting. Headlines Today, a news channel famous for its coverage of Raakhi Sawanth, couldn't do better. The political spectrum was more colorful, covering parties of every ideology. From the Shiv Sena and BJP to the Congress and Left, everybody invited themselves to lecture Bush a thing or two about Economics. While the Shiv Sena breathed fire and demanded a ban on Mac Donald's, the Left reminded Indians of Bush's trysts with buffoonery, and asked him to instead tame his country's current-account deficit. Congress spokesperson, Abhishek Singhvi, chided the Shiv Sena for being unduly perturbed by Bush's "nonsensical" observations. For a country that likes to claim at every opportunity that its century has arrived, such misplaced criticism of evidence-backed observations by its politicians and media is truly a misfortune.

I was able to watch the Democratic Texas Primary debate today. Even the fiercest Hillary Clinton supporter can't help but notice the momentum in Barack Obama's campaign. Apparently, it got stronger after the debate. The media is busy deciphering what is now widely termed the Obama phenomenon. A black president, brought up in a Muslim country can in some ways, it is believed, have a dramatic impact on America's relations with the world. His message "Change - we can believe in" is brimming with optimism in a country heading toward economic recession. He is popularly viewed as someone who can cut across the divisive politics in Washington and deliver unity when it matters the most. (Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the only thing she is seen as capable of uniting is the Republican party - against her.) John McCain, who is edging closer to the Republican nomination, is already training his guns on Mr. Obama, fully aware that defeating Mr. Obama is going to be more daunting than defeating Mrs. Clinton. Frequent comparisons to the charismatic John F Kennedy are working wonders, too.

After Mr. Obama's tenth straight win, it has become a matter of survival for Mrs. Clinton to not just win Texas and Ohio, but to win by huge margins. In absence of such a win, support from the superdelegates may not be forthcoming either. As Mr. Obama reminded the superdelegates during the Texas debate, "I hope they (the 10 wins) count for something".

Beyond all the schmaltz surrounding Obama the phenomenon, where does Obama the President stand with respect to America's immediate Middle-East foreign policy goals?

Starting with the Iraq quagmire, at much cost to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama never misses a chance to remind voters that he has opposed the war right from the beginning and that he voted against its authorization in the senate. He criticizes the Bush administration for diverting focus from the War on Terror to a war that has weakened America and emboldened its enemies. His solution is to force the Iraqi politicians into action by threatening to redeploy troops quickly (as early as March 31, 2008), and convene a regional conference along with the Syrians and Iranians to guarantee peace and stability. With reference to the surge that appears to be accomplishing its goals, he terms it a tactical win in the backdrop of a strategic blunder. He also rules out any permanent American military base in Iraq under his presidency as opposed to John McCain.

Moving onto the War on terror, he has severely reprimanded the Bush government for not providing sufficient ammunitions and personnel to the forces and has squarely linked this failure to the Iraq war. He believes NATO allies are not contributing enough troops and that the organization is currently incapable of meeting its expanding challenges.  He has time and again vowed to chase terrorism, in particular Al-Qaeda, into its lair - Pakistan. Such a move can win America a confrontation in Pakistan, not an ally. To say the least, America is already unpopular in Pakistan. Not only do a majority of Pakistanis view the War on Terror as a war against Islam, but they view America's efforts to bring Pakistan's political parties together as direct interference in their internal affairs. A military intrusion to capture Al-Qaeda will only be seen as utter disregard to the capabilities of the Pakistani army, and as contemptuous of Pakistan's sovereignty - a recipe to embolden the extremist on the street. 

Iran rightly has no sign of respite. While he does not rule out the possibility of a military option, he lays greater emphasis on "sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy" that sticks to the carrot-and-stick theme. In fact, the carrot stretches to offering presidential discussions, which many in Washington view as naive. Huge economic incentives coupled with security assurances are on the table to win over the Iranian people. Diplomatic relations aren't ruled out either. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy, he maintains, is untenable for world peace and stability, and is bound to spark a regional arms race. While seeking a full implementation of US Sanction laws against Iran at an AIPAC forum, he pledged to work for the collective cooperation of Europe and the Gulf States, Iran's major trading partners, to apply more pressure on Iran.

Mr. Obama is widely viewed as pro-Israel. He has called for an enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran and Syria disregard it. Supporting Prime Minister Olmert, he has called for an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict with both the states existing side by side in peace and security. However, he recognizes that Israel will not be able to broker such a peace agreement as long as Hamas is in power. Therefore, he seeks greater US intervention in strengthening the hands of moderates in Palestine. Interestingly, he admits that the US should never seek to dictate what is best to Israelis and their security interests, and no Israeli Prime Minister should feel dragged to or blocked from a negotiating table.

Admittedly, Mr. Obama is the least experienced candidate on the block. Policy-wonks and Washington-hawks are increasingly concerned about his naive policy recommendations, such as presidential diplomacy with leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran, and threatening to invade Pakistan, an ally. In contrast, Mrs. Clinton commands a stronger experience record. Though she voted for the authorization of the Iraq war, she has been extremely critical of its execution. She has represented America in at least 80 countries and has served as an adviser to a president (her husband) for 8 years.  At most debates, Mrs. Clinton has conveniently grilled Mr. Obama in matters of foreign policy and appears to be the most prepared to take over as Commander-in-Chief. Standing up to Mr. McCain's service and expertise in international affairs will be difficult, too.

None of this, however, is likely to stain the sheen of "hope". Americans, and the World, are desperately looking forward to resurrect the hope of a benevolent superpower that America once was, and Mr. Obama offers its best hope.

Unless the Texans think it is all hat and no cattle on March 4th.