Lasting Rose

Modi thinks that by insanely pushing his "Gujrath Model" of governance for development, he can make 1.3 billion Indians believe that he can govern them like a POTUS

At least that is what his Indo-US backers and millions of urban youth in India who try to emulate this expatriate Indian group of "business genius", want him and his party the BJP, which is desperate to regain power after two lost elections, to believe.

In reality, for American business, who count on these guys to steer key functions in billion dollar corporations and their lobby to win business in India through political connections, it is time for a reality check.

Judging from their comprehension of Indian history and recent political development and grasp of reality on the ground, those businesses which engage or trust them to deliver, don't seem to be standing on any solid ground.

What language Will the POTUS-I speak?

Anyone who speak of a POTUS style governance for India forgets that there is only ONE language the POTUS and the citizens of the US speak. In a country deeply divided by nearly 400 languages and dialects, steeped in as many different culture and traditions, what language the POTIS-I is going to speak to deliver governance.

I think he (Rahul) is one of the most talented, able and insightful of the younger generation of politicians worldwide, but how he ends up in your politics again, that's for you, for him and for his party to decide. But I think he has got first class mind and great commitment to India.

That opinion of Tony Blair, given during a visit to Delhi in 2008 as an ex Prime Minister of the U.K, turned out to be as much intuitive as it was prophetic.

Four years on, Rahul Gandhi has proved his worth as a political leader in his own right and not just as the son of Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress Party. He has been favoured as a leader who can take the party to win the next election and foisted by a majority of the Party leaders to the position of the Vice President.

His insightful mind and commitment to his country could be glimpsed from the pathos of his acceptance speech which the Indian media has ascribed as the "Obama moment" of the party. His speech, revealing his personal anguish and hinting a lack of avarice for power, which he could have grabbed anytime he wanted, is seen as a rare one in the Indian politics.

Despite this, why is India, especially its youth, judging from the chatter on the social web and the Indian media, so sceptical and suspicious of the young Gandhi?

One day, when Barack Obama will no more be the President of the U.S., someone will venture to make a movie on his life. It will be almost impossible to find an actor willing to enact the President's role because the performance of the future actor will be measured against that of the President himself, who in real life was forced to live through the toughest of theatrical moments, like when he addressed the Newton School gathering after the massacre.

No actor, however capable, can bring out the agony of the president, who has to suppress his internal turmoil and present a different face to the nation for the sake of the position he is holding. No director can pull off visualisation of a complex surge of emotions of a whole nation behind a tragic event like that happened in Newtown, which the President was subjected to over and above his own turmoil.
There are moments when a president has to deliver inspiring speeches to convey his vision or unify the country against adversity. Then there are occasions no one wishes to face in life, when the President is expected to address the nation, to say something, to console, assure and somehow alleviate the collective burden on the nation's psyche. The Newtown School speech in the aftermath of the massacre of twenty innocent children and six of their teachers was one such testing moment for President Obama.
Though several tragedies have occurred during his presidency where he had to deliver consoling and supporting messages to the nation, the Newtown tragedy, coming right after a very divisive election in which he won against all odds, must have been very different and difficult for the president.
It is hard to understand, why Barrack Obama is seen as the first "black" President by many Americans and even by leading media though he was born to a white Caucasian lady. Though for the rest of the world this is a non issue, it is the perception. However, this must have been the most difficult aspect for President Obama, who had to face and address a town whose population and the bereaved they came to mourn are almost entirely white.
No one can deny that such was the ferocity and divisiveness of the politics which only just ended in his re-election, which many in the nation still do not accept, at least have great difficulty to reconcile. No one can deny that the second amendment, which the President could do little about and something which his audience hold sacred had to do with the tragedy.
That, President Obama, as a very loving parent of two children couldn't hold his tears while announcing the tragedy that occurred at Newtown as a national tragedy, didn't somehow alleviate his dilemma. Where trust was at best fragile, it must have been very difficult to find the right words to express and communicate something meaningful both to the community and to the nation at large.
The Newtown tragedy has occurred in the Christmas season, when everyone has to rejoice and not bereave, has rendered the event poignant beyond imagination. Mundane call of Presidential duties in the face of the Fiscal Cliff which he has very little time to sort out before the nation fall off it and the nomination of his future secretary of state must have been adding immense pressure to his working life. Yet the President was duty bound to come to the bereaved, and address and console as the supreme commander.
President Obama did come to Newtown, and delivered the most difficult speech of his presidency with amazing grace. With measured words delivered in a way only Barack Obama, the great communicator can do he somehow spoke, conveying the consolation and support of the Nation he took to Newtown and asking for the Nation's support and resolve to enable him for meaningful and effective action.
Without referring to the Second Amendment or NRA he brought home the need for controlling the ownership and accessibility of dangerous weapons. Without admonishing, he brought home the need for better parenting and teaching and loving children. In as few words as possible he reminded Americans about family values they all need to return to.

You handled this horrific situation with such honest sympathy & grace. You have done our nation (and yourself) proud during one of our darkest moments. I am proud to call you My President.

For those who believe in celestial interventions in affairs on the earth, there were indications of the re election of President Barack Obama and even a third term in office. But for mundane observers, a look at the events to the run up of the presidential election, its conduct and the post election realities raise the question whether Barack Obama will be the next three term president of the U.S. In fact most of the issuesObama is likely to address might need well over a decade to solve and for a determined President too difficult to give up before he achieve.


A taller President.

By achieving the impossible and winning the re election, Barack Obama has grown taller in stature virtually dwarfing almost everyone else, not just in the U.S. but on the world scene.
First, let's remember what Obama did in the first term: he passed the most substantial new element in the American safety net in generations, Obamacare. He helped pass a massive re-regulation of the financial sector, the Dodd-Frank bill. He passed the biggest stimulus package in our history, which I believe--Ezra Klein convinced me of this--prevented the worst economic depression in four generations. He did these things in the first two years, of course, when Democrats controlled Congress, but he did them. They were not chopped liver, whether or not you liked them. Q&As, Washington Post

Hey, this is the year of the US Presidential election, a time when the pundits are busy predicting the future for all of us. All sorts of political analysts and political pundits get busy predicting the results of the elections and the future of the candidates. With the evolution of the social web and technology, experts claim that there are much more scientific ways. The accuracy of many of those will surely be tested in this election to be held in under two months.

Despite the gloss over Ann Romney tried to give the historic improvisation of Clint Eastwood, who tried to address and insult an invisible Barack Obama who had no way of fefending himself, the Democrats will be eager to pull off something in return at the DNC.
Letting the GOP get away with a piece of stage drama to score a political point against them will be a political sin the democrats can't afford. They can't let the insult go away unpunished like the way the convention managed an important debilitating debate on abortion, which preceded it, to totally disappear from the agenda.
Though it may not be entirely in style for a sitting president, who has already declared that he is no way offended by the episode, to stoop to such silly political theatre, it actually gives Barack Obama a precious chance to defend his records by "Eastwooding" George Bush. After all, Bush, from whom he inherited the economic mess, was conspicuously absent from the RNC to evade having to defend his poor record which would definitely have hurt the claims of the GOP.
George Bush must have evaded the convention under pressure from the GOP, precisely not to remind anyone of his legacy or what the Republicans really did to the US economy in the eight years they were in power. In any case, George Bush couldn't have defended his record convincingly and might have ended up with embarrassing remarks, for which he has a solid record, which might have turned in to the high lights of the convention.
Though George Bush himself was on record about his decision to stay away from the convention, For the GOP itself, who is trying to win back the power in Washington, not being able to hold their ex president in front of the nation, as a guarantee of the rosy state of affairs they promise, is an indefensible weakness.
Whether the political managers of the Democratic Party can see this massive hole in the defence of the GOP and capitalise on it can make a real difference to the message they will transmit from Charlotte in the next few days.
Under normal circumstances any attempt by President Obama and his party to go back several years in history to defend their records would have been torn apart by the GOP as weak defence for incompetence. However, the GOP can no more complain about being unduly attacked if some one will do an "Eastwooding" on any of their leaders as they have publicly praised and justified what the Octogenarian Hollywood icon has enacted during the RNC.
But what will be the best way to delicately tap in to the enormous opportunity must be the thought which has kept the DNC managers sleepless for last week. Obviously a copy cat performance by another celebrity or any of the leaders will be deemed ridiculous and can easily backfire.
Their best bet is President himself, who has time and again proved his entertainer appeal, especially during the White House Correspondents Dinner Speech. Obama has proved not only that he can pull off effective jabs at his political opponents, but that he can do such things convincingly while unbelievably difficult situations like the operation Geronimo was being carried out under his command. President Obama no doubt is as much a theatrical performer as Clint Eastwood is.
It is hard to see that Barack Obama and his political managers will let such an opportunity go untapped. A rebuttal in some form or the other must be expected. It will certainly be one of the high points of the DNC.
In what form and way the president will deliver that will determine the political maturing of Barack Obama.

Americans may not see it because they may not want to. But when it comes to basic human rights at least, the world is coming to see little to differentiate the U.S. from the Taliban it wants to get rid of in Afghanistan. The Taliban thinks women shouldn't go to school; the Americans think 32 million of them shouldn't have a mandatory health cover. What is the difference?

The United States of America may be the richest country in the world without universal healthcare for all, a situation Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) will certainly change. For the rest of the world, with no easy access to facts and figures to compare and who is unaware of the historical U.S reticence towards human rights, the United States of America, which wants to challenge and repeal Obamacare is looking more like a third world country.
That is the take away from the recent Obamacare judgement by the U.S. Supreme court, the dissentand the ensuing political battle cries, all of which have brought the U.S politics and the legal system to world focus, with some disbelief. Hey, is this the America everyone looks up to?

To many foreigners, thanks to its legal system, the U.S. had been the "Never Never Land" which gives shudders down your spine, nearly the same feelings an American family, who is offered a free holiday in Iran, gets in the guts at the thought of a trip.
The general apprehension about the U.S. attitude towards human rights might not be entirely without justification:
• When an Australian citizen seeks asylum in a third world country's embassy out of fear of incrimination and death penalty from a U.S. court if extradited to the U.S.?
• When an ex president of a "friendly" nation with a population of 1.3 billion can be stopped andfrisked at the airport because of his name and racial profiling?
• When a president of the World Bank is handcuffed and thrown in the prison cell overnight withoutrecourse to any legal aid because an illegal immigrant cried foul?
• When recent cases of miscarriage of justice have sent innocent people to the death row which all civilised countries have abolished by now?
• When Guantanamo and stories of renditions are still a reality?
That is to say that there is certainly a 'disconnect' between how the Americans see their justice system from a lot of other people around the world, who are apprehensive, or at least can't understand the way Americans think.
It was not surprising that the entire world, like the President himself, had resigned to the reality and waited for the U.S. Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, to throw the Obamacare, proposed by a democratic administration, in to the bin. That would have been treated as an internal matter and the fate of the U.S citizens.
However, how one judge decided to change history by passing the law has brought the issue to the attention of the world and its scrutiny. Whether Judge Roberts acted to avoid the Supreme Court verses elected representative controversy or out of conscience and a desire to bring the United States of America in synch with the social values the rest of the developed has long since taken for granted has become immaterial.
What gives credence to the question whether the U.S. has really evolved in its human rights view is the vehement and destroying fury of the dissent by the four judges, who have chosen to ignore the human rights implication, in their fervour to uphold the U.S. constitution and the free market.
But what is even more shocking and raises the question if the U.S. indeed cares a toss to be viewed as a third world country is the intransigent politics which has turned the Obamacare, which brings the Americans closer to civilised societies, in to the bone of contention of the next presidential election, with the GOP and its candidate Romney wowing to destroy it at any cost.
Twenty five years back as an immigrant from India in France, I was shocked by a scene when a nearly paralysed lady arrived in a supermarket for her weekly shopping, flat on her back, in a stretcher, being carried by two attendants. That day I had realised what universal healthcare really means in a caring society.
Today, I wonder what would have happened to that person if she lived in the richest country after the next presidential election of the U.S.A.

Article first published as Does Obamacare Make Americans Third World Citizens? on Technorati.

Perhaps it is time the Americans considered changing their electoral system for something 'funnier' like the Presidential election of India. In the Indian Presidential election a candidate some parties refuse to declare their support for has more of a chance to be elected as the President of the country than others they chooses to support. It is merely the negative political sentiments which come in to play irrespective of the calibre andsuitability of the individual.
With the trend of latching on to the 'negativity' in every statement, every faux pas the president or his opponents make and blowing it out of proportion, the American democratic process also beckon the question if it is a desirable trait for a free and fair electoral process of a leading democratic nation.
In terms of political power, the two presidencies have no comparison, except in an emergency when the Indian President can assume unlimited and unprecedented executive powers like those of the US president. Yet,the electoral processes which decides the president by an election or a unanimous choice can reflect the political balance in the Indian context.
By all counts, Pranab Mukherjee, India's finance minister fit the bill to be elected unanimously as the country's president. If Mukherjee, despite his three decades of service to the country as part of various governments including that of Indira Gandhi, is not well known outside India it is his own fault for being a thorough, non controversial and soft spoken gentleman politician, which has made him universally acceptable. Yet In the Indian system even an eminently suitable candidate like Mukherjee has to be propped up by negative and partisan vagaries of the political class.
Four years back, when the congress party president Sonia Gandhi chose to install Pratibha Patil as the first woman President of the country, perhaps with a vision in to the future for herself, it was the refusal of BJP, the main opposition, to support the incumbent President Kalam which led to her success.
Interestingly, an open declaration of support of BJP to Kalam this time has simply precluded his chances of ever becoming the president again, as practically ever party rejected the suggestion.
A few weeks back the Indian communists declared their support for Pranab Mukherjee, a native of West Bengal and India's minister for Finance, as the new president. Though this had increased the support for Pranab, Mamta Banerjee, chief of Thrinamool Congress who rules West Bengal did not support, merely because of her opposition to the communists. Such is the nature of egoistic negative politics of India.
However, the communists now have changed their mind and are clamouring for someone outside the ruling congress party as the new president. This no doubt has increased the fortune of Pranab Mukherjee as Mamta Banerjee now has no excuse but to support him.
What is interesting is the credentials and capability of a person to be the figurehead of the largest democracy of the world has no relevance in this incredibly idiotic process which, every Indian needs to be ashamed of.
These ridiculous vagaries of the Indian politics which several regional players play out, may never infect the American system, clearly established in a two party political debate and balance. However, the bickering and wrangling amplified by the media and social web certainly take the sheen out of a process which may inside and outside the country believe must be a model for the fledging democracies of the world.
Article first published as If Only Barack Obama Could Win The Presidency By Negativity, Like Pranab Mukherjee of India. on Technorati

When faced with real issues in life astrology is only the last resort to many people. Yet for millions around the world, it is what gives hope and support to carry on from day to day. Astrology doesn't stand on firm grounds when questioned based on logic and hard scientific principles, but thanks to modern computing software, subjectivity of astrology pundits at least is removed.

It is quite easy for anyone to be an astrologer these days. All you need to do is to download and install a free piece ofsoftware written by Narasimha Rao, an ex software engineer from PictureTel Corporation and feed some basic information like a place, date and time of birth of a person in to it. If you have some basic understanding of the tenants of Vedic Astrology, it could really add to the fun.

So pondering on the question of the birth of Barack Obama, which has been a matter of controversy in the past and which is recently resurrected, it was intriguing to see what the software will produce. The personal details of celebrities were always difficult to obtain, but thanks to the controversy, the long form birth certificate President Obama was published and is available on the US President's website for anyone interested. According to this document also available here he was born in Honolulu on the 4th of august 1961 at 7.24 PM., which is the basic data used to give it a whirl for the fun of it.
A lot of what the software output is really for the expert astrologer but there is also some plain English which states the qualities and positions in life the person will achieve.


Now Barack Obama might have been born or not as stated in the certificate, but the results certainly reveal a lucky individual with some qualities worthy of a president of the United States.

For a discerning believer in vedic astrology, there are also some important and obvious indications in his birth chart like the excellent positions of the planets, enough to explain why he has become the first Black President of the US or why he succeeded in bringing justice to the victims of a great US tragedy.
Obviously for those clamouring about his worthiness to be a US president, despite being born and delivered to a white female citizen of the United States of America, this is no answer, but for lovers of astrology, there is enough evidence.