my "awesome" stay in Kuwait

good. i wrote 15 lines long blog on my stay in Kuwait. And now its not allowing me to copy and paste on my blog. This is height of ...hmm...i don't know. i am short of words and short of expressions. frustrated, annyoed, angry, jet-lagged and with little cough and cold. dang! i can't be worst than this.

I need to go home.......ASAP.......

Making of a Great Leader.

I am not sure when the media age started, because I was born and brought up in media age. But for this column’s sake I am considering that real media age started with the ascent of Hitler to the power. The years leading to WWII were growing years for Media. And though Nazi’s were defeated in 1945, the age of media was here to stay.

The important work of media is to influence people’s mind. I mean, theoretically they (Media) is supposed to put the truth in front of people and allowing people to decide what is correct and what is wrong. But that rarely happens.

One of the ways to influence people is to portray certain people’s life prominently. One such effort can be witnessed with the life of George W. Bush.

The recent front article of Time, where George W. Bush was awarded as a Man of the Year and eulogized by essays and photo essays is classic example of making dumb people great. There are scores of examples of such efforts. JFK, Ronald Regan in American politics. Rajiv Gandhi and I. K.Gujral in Indian politics. And even Mahatma Gandhi up to certain extent.

Look at the making of ‘Great’ George W. Busch. The procedure seems to be standard. Classic black and white photographs that supposedly depicts his life ‘behind’ the stage. And glossy diagrams of his family tree makes everyone great in his lineage and kind of shows us that he born great in great family. Good quotes which are usually written by speechwriters. Great world visions of him which are as stark to real policies of as Israel is to the Palestine. But all these things create a thick aura around the personal and it becomes increasingly hard to see that person through it. Such eulogy not only conceal leaders draw backs but at the same time gives him cover to carry out his own agenda, which, more often than not is centered around personal greed.

Such efforts hurt society to a great deal. That “Great” person may die, but his image remains solid in peoples mind and continues to hurt the nation in one way or another.

John Stewart once asked that why can not we have a media that portrays the reality and discerns truth from sham. And at the end allow the viewers to decide. I can’t agree more.

Chinmay's World

Chinmay's World

I ain't writing no soon. My exams are underway, actually i should say over me. so i don't have time to enlighten this world with my thoughts and knowledge. but I will be back!

UN

Whenever I talk with my friends about recent Iraq War, the issue of UN’s role in recent conflict inadvertently creeps in our discussion. We don’t discuss UN’s role per se, but we discuss UN’s viability in today’s world.

Personally, I think UN was established with too optimistic views. There is no way UN would have succeeded in its goal given 1950’s bi-polar world. Each nation had to take side of either of super-power. All though there was Non Aligned Moment, but even nations who drafted NAM end up taking sides. For example, India was notably pro-Russian.

The goal of UN to work peace and prosperity of whole globe was at best an illusion. I mean, each super-power were trying to gain as much power as possible, and were fighting in almost every corner of the world. At the same time these same super-powers were supporting UN for peace and prosperity of world community. Isn’t that ironic? A classic case of conflict of interest.

Fast forward the scenario in 1990’s. Russia was disintegrated and was no longer a superpower. US was the sole super-power and its economic, military and political power increased tremendously, particularly in 90’s. They became colossus in every sense. Their economy’s worth 11 trillion dollars. The next biggest economy is Japan, about half of US

‘s economy. The globalization made all the growing economies of the world depend on the US. Because in the world of supply and demand, US is biggest consumer in the world. So low wage nations like India and China are increasingly depending on US. There by handing more power to US.

Their military technology is beyond most of the world’s reach. (That technology is futile while dealing with Mr. Laden though) Their defense budget is $500 billion. India’s economy which is 11^th largest economy in the world is still $480 billions. Even if you add 10 biggest defense spending nations of the world (less US) their spending is still less than $500 billions. Plus, their military reach on the globe is unparallel in human history. They are present in almost all parts of the world, and they weaponry has ability to strike any part of the world at will.

In such situation, if they decide to attack Iraq what can UN do? There’s nothing in world that UN would able to stop US. Come on! US is the biggest donor to UN. Basically US sustain UN. Of course from humanitarian aid point of view UN definitely do great job. Their efforts in providing food and other supplies in Africa are stupendous. But again US is the single largest donor of money in all the categories. I mean, from forest protection to AIDS drug development, US is the chief because they give money.

So, at least from US point of view, UN is a redundant body. US do not have to listen to UN, if there’s anything, then it should be other way round.